[Sputnik]

Yes, I clearly lack this understanding. I'm not as old, smart, or experienced as you. I'm trying to understand by asking questions. Its how I learn best. Can you please help me to understand?

No, you aren't trying to understand. He is giving you good answers and you are refusing to believe him. I realize it's rather difficult to believe any physics coming from a flat-earther, but in this case, he is correct. Perhaps you will believe me instead, as someone who does NOT believe the earth is flat?

1. acceleration is movement and yes: 9.8 meters per second.

No, acceleration is absolutely NOT the same as movement. 9.8 m/s² is correct.

This is demonstrably false. They would not hit the ground at the same time. The fired bullet would take significantly longer than half a second to finally hit the ground.

If you assume no obstacles, air resistance, or curvature of the earth, then yes, they will hit the ground at exactly the same time. Horizontal motion and vertical motion are independent.

It's great that you are trying to learn this stuff, but you really need at least a basic understanding of highschool level physics before trying to argue this stuff. By your comments, I assume you haven't taken physics in highschool yet. If you are going to insult someone for their "understanding of basic physics", you better be REALLY sure you are correct. Better yet, just don't insult them at all.

Ok, if I shoot a bullet at a target 100 yards away and drop a bullet at the same time, one will hit the ground and the other wont even hit the ground. Why?

[TotesNotReptilian]

However it does bring an interesting question to my mind about why we experience gravitational effects when we accelerate at great speeds.  What causes the effects felt from what RE's call "multiple G's" in the Flat earth model?

There is no reason to think G's would be felt any differently under Universal Acceleration than under gravity. Those "gravitational effects" due to acceleration is just further evidence that acceleration feels exactly the same as a force in the opposite direction. See: equivalence principle (As has been stated multiple times already in this thread)

[TotesNotReptilian]

If you assume no obstacles, air resistance, or curvature of the earth, then yes, they will hit the ground at exactly the same time. Horizontal motion and vertical motion are independent.

Ok, if I shoot a bullet at a target 100 yards away and drop a bullet at the same time, one will hit the ground and the other wont even hit the ground. Why?

Because there is a target in the way. See the bolded part in my quote.

[Sputnik]

Sputnik, I think I see where you've made the mistake here about bullets.  If you fire the gun at a target above ground level, in order to hit that target and not hit the ground you have to aim somewhat up, above the horizontal.  This immediately invalidates the comparison to a dropped bullet, because your fired bullet follows a mostly parabolic path first UP, then eventually down.  (I say "mostly" parabolics because air resistance will shape the actual trajectory and deform the parabla)

Alright, lets put the target close enough and below me at an angle such that the parabolic arch would be horizontal to the surface. I'll have to shoot downward and the bullet will definitely not increase its altitude. Then, I'll drop a bullet at the same time. The dropped bullet will hit the ground and the fired projectile will not. Why?

[TotesNotReptilian]

Alright, lets put the target close enough and below me at an angle such that the parabolic arch would be horizontal to the surface. I'll have to shoot downward and the bullet will definitely not increase its altitude. Then, I'll drop a bullet at the same time. The dropped bullet will hit the ground and the fired projectile will not. Why?

Ok, now I feel like you are probably just trolling... but just in case you aren't: The target is in the way. Also, you need to shoot horizontally for the experiment to be valid.

If you don't want to wait until your highschool physics course to learn this stuff, lookup a course in kinematics. Khan academy probably has some pretty good lessons on it. Then move on to Newton's laws of motion. Then special relativity. A bit of calculus wouldn't hurt. THEN you can come and argue this stuff to your heart's content.

[Sputnik]

Alright, lets put the target close enough and below me at an angle such that the parabolic arch would be horizontal to the surface. I'll have to shoot downward and the bullet will definitely not increase its altitude. Then, I'll drop a bullet at the same time. The dropped bullet will hit the ground and the fired projectile will not. Why?

Ok, now I feel like you are probably just trolling... but just in case you aren't: The target is in the way. Also, you need to shoot horizontally for the experiment to be valid.

If you don't want to wait until your highschool physics course to learn this stuff, lookup a course in kinematics. Khan academy probably has some pretty good lessons on it. Then move on to Newton's laws of motion. Then special relativity. A bit of calculus wouldn't hurt. THEN you can come and argue this stuff to your heart's content.

Ok so we've definitely established that the x and y axis are independent. Why doenst the target get moved out of the way? (because of the upward acceleration of the earth, I mean)

[Sputnik]

Also, acceleration is definitely movement.

When you are accelerating, you are moving. Acceleration belongs to the set of movement.

[evergreatful]

It is too bad that this conversation is unable to go anywhere as the person who posted it had a solid idea of what the result they wanted when they made their question, however as he does not get said answer he instead plays the contradiction game instead of engaging in an actual argument.

In Other words Don't feed the Troll unless you insist on being apart of a Monty Python Sketch.

[Roundy]

Sputnik, please at least read the Wikipedia page on the equivalence principle before trying to argue further.  We didn't say that the effect of constant acceleration would be exactly the same as the effect of gravity, Einstein did.  Any arguments you have with this particular aspect of our model, you have with him.  So I beg you to try to at least grasp the concept of the equivalence principle before posting again.  It's not a difficult concept, you only need to read the Wikipedia page to have a basic understanding of the concept.

[Sputnik]

It is too bad that this conversation is unable to go anywhere

Your post definitely moves things forward in a reasonable manner. Thank you for your valuable input to this thread.

[Roundy]

Also, you might try googling the difference between movement and acceleration.  They are not the same thing.  You're really out of your element here if you're not willing to do some basic research.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Ok so we've definitely established that the x and y axis are independent. Why doenst the target get moved out of the way? (because of the upward acceleration of the earth, I mean)

Also, acceleration is definitely movement.

When you are accelerating, you are moving. Acceleration belongs to the set of movement.

Speed, Velocity, Acceleration.

In Other words Don't feed the Troll unless you insist on being apart of a Monty Python Sketch.

*cough* Hanlon's Razor *cough*

[Sputnik]

Sputnik, please at least read the Wikipedia page on the equivalence principle before trying to argue further.  We didn't say that the effect of constant acceleration would be exactly the same as the effect of gravity, Einstein did.  Any arguments you have with this particular aspect of our model, you have with him.  So I beg you to try to at least grasp the concept of the equivalence principle before posting again.  It's not a difficult concept, you only need to read the Wikipedia page to have a basic understanding of the concept.

I'd much rather "speak" with people. I have the entire internet at my finger tips, I know how to use Google. I can look any of this stuff up, I know. If you dont want to participate, thats cool, dont. But dont tell me to 'stop being unproductive' if all youre going to post is unproductive stuff at me. You are in fact contributing less than I am. Participation in my threads is voluntary. In fact, you dont even have to open them. So if you're so bothered, just go away. Thats even easier than reading a wiki!!!

On the other hand, if its such an easy principle, I'd be more than happy to read your post if you want to explain it. But, please, if you are going to explain it, be a real person and explain it - dont just copy and paste it.

[evergreatful]

At this point Sputnik you are debating with Three Round Earthers about this, we have no bias or objection to what you are trying to prove but by which you are trying to prove it, we do not debate the Theory the earth is round but how you came to that conclusion, on this site you really need to have a good grasp on science to debate against FE'ers, not because they respond well to it, but because every once and a while there is a FE'er who is very knowledgeable on the topic and will rip your "evidence" apart if your theories are not sound.

[Sputnik]

Also, you might try googling the difference between movement and acceleration.  They are not the same thing.  You're really out of your element here if you're not willing to do some basic research.

Acceleration is the change of velocity. Any object that is accelerating is moving. Acceleration is a type of movement.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Also, you might try googling the difference between movement and acceleration.  They are not the same thing.  You're really out of your element here if you're not willing to do some basic research.

Acceleration is the change of velocity. Any object that is accelerating is moving. Acceleration is a type of movement.

You can accelerate with zero velocity.

No one here wants to hold your hand through an entire course on kinematics. If you have the entire internet at your finger tips, then use it. Learn kinematics before trying to debate it. No, a cursory glance through wikipedia isn't enough. You need a thorough knowledge of it, including the ability to correctly answer a wide range of related practice problems. There is nothing more annoying than arrogant ignorance.

[Sputnik]

Look, guys, I'm not a smart guy - especially scientifically. I already know this. I'm using argument ("argument" if you wish) to explore ideas. This is only a sparring match to play with ideas.

Like I said, if you dont want to play then dont.

[Sputnik]

Also, you might try googling the difference between movement and acceleration.  They are not the same thing.  You're really out of your element here if you're not willing to do some basic research.

Acceleration is the change of velocity. Any object that is accelerating is moving. Acceleration is a type of movement.

You can accelerate with zero velocity.

No one here wants to hold your hand through an entire course on kinematics. If you have the entire internet at your finger tips, then use it. Learn kinematics before trying to debate it. No, a cursory glance through wikipedia isn't enough. You need a thorough knowledge of it, including the ability to correctly answer a wide range of related practice problems. There is nothing more annoying than arrogant ignorance.

Then dont, man. In fact, leave the thread altogether if you like. I'm not going to hold your hand and make you reply to me...

To accelerate from zero is to move from zero. I'm not talking about physics here, I'm talking about the English language....I think we can probably drop this bit.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Look, guys, I'm not a smart guy - especially scientifically. I already know this. I'm using argument ("argument" if you wish) to explore ideas. This is only a sparring match to play with ideas.

Like I said, if you dont want to play then dont.

No one wants to spar, except you. There are no winners here. Either something is logically sound or its not.

Then you say you're not going to hold someone's hand to make them reply to you... but you are challenging them to hold your hand and explain complicated principles to you that from all appearances would be a total waste of time.

You need to go spar with a book.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Look, guys, I'm not a smart guy - especially scientifically. I already know this. I'm using argument ("argument" if you wish) to explore ideas.

Debate/arguing is a great way to further your understanding of a subject that you already have a basic understanding of. It is NOT useful if you don't already have a basic understanding of the subject.

I repeat, go learn basic kinematics first, then basic Newtonian physics, then come back to debate the ideas.

Stupid people are welcome. Wilfully ignorant people are not. That's my policy, anyway.