[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.

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.

When you dont want to spar you'll quit. Apparently you're still game.

Dont be so quick to dismiss you ability to convince someone.

[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.

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.

I'm not sure how to make it any clearer to you...whats that thing you like to say about the willfully ignorant?

Just stop playing if you dont want to play.

[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.

You might be suggesting researching the difference between velocity and acceleration (both of which are kinds of movement).

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

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.

You might be suggesting researching the difference between velocity and acceleration (both of which are kinds of movement).

They are not kinds of movement. They are measurements and descriptions of movement.

You seem to think this is a game to play, maybe you're taking pleasure in this for some weird reason. Pretending to be a willing pupil but to be constantly undermining your teacher is a disastrous way to learn anything.

Then you are under the impression that it's anyone's prerogative to teach or convince you of anything. This is your personal journey. You can be led to water, but me shoving your head in the water until the bubbles stop coming up is no way to quench your thirst.

[Sputnik]

They are not kinds of movement. They are measurements and descriptions of movement.


[/quote]

How can acceleration be a description of movement if its not movement? Why are you changing your definitions?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

They are not kinds of movement. They are measurements and descriptions of movement.

How can acceleration be a description of movement if its not movement? Why are you changing your definitions?

Blue is the color of the sky, blue isn't the sky.

[juner]

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)

The target doesn't get moved out of the way because everything is accelerating in the same frame of reference.

The bullet, up until it leaves the barrel is accelerating along with you as well as the target. If you put the target at a far enough distance to where the bullet would hit the ground prior to reaching the target, then you can think of the target as "moving out of the way." If you shot "straight" at a target from a height of 2m and the bullet hypothetically travels 500m/s, then the bullet would hit the ground prior to reaching that target if said target was 400m away from you.

That was a bit of a confusing way to describe it, but it is the same thing that would happen in the round earth model.

I still can't tell if you're a troll, or genuinely curious, but I don't subscribe to the idea that you have to have deep knowledge of physics to partake here. Feel free to ask questions, but maybe adjust your attitude a bit. You come off way too cocky for someone who admits he doesn't know physics to a great degree.

[rabinoz]

They are not kinds of movement. They are measurements and descriptions of movement.
How can acceleration be a description of movement if its not movement? Why are you changing your definitions?

If you have seen my posts you will note that I do not accept UA as valid for a number of reasons,

but apart from that UA does behave in an almost identical fashion to the way gravity would.
What you have to accept is that whatever accelerates the earth does not accelerate objects on the earth.

So, as I believe junker explained, while the bullet is supported by the barrel it is also being accelerated (connected to the earth via the gun and the shooter).
When the bullet leaves the barrel it is no longer being supported, so relative to the earth, it starts "falling".

So, from the point of view of us of the earth UA would act almost exactly like gravitation. I have objections, but that is a separate issue.

[thatsnice]

This thread is actually kind of pleasant to read because both FE'ers and RE'ers get along. I'm a RE'er myself and reading through this made me cringe a little at the incorrect usage of both Acceleration and Velocity, two completely different measurements of movement. Sputnik, if you still don't understand why both bullets would hit the ground at the same time on both a globe and an FE, go ahead and respond, I'm willing to "spar", I suppose.

[Undecided]

Assuming that gravity is real and not a hoax.

The bullet fired from a gun dead horizontal will hit the ground at the same time as one that is dropped from the same height.

The bullet just travels further while it's falling.

A sniper bullet may travel a mile or more away from you, but falls at the same rate as one that that is dropped.

Gravity does not discriminate as you go faster.

[rabinoz]

Assuming that gravity is real and not a hoax.

The bullet fired from a gun dead horizontal will hit the ground at the same time as one that is dropped from the same height.

The bullet just travels further while it's falling.

A sniper bullet may travel a mile or more away from you, but falls at the same rate as one that that is dropped.

Gravity does not discriminate as you go faster.

Rearrange and
"The bullet just travels further while it's falling." Yes

"A sniper bullet may travel a mile or more away from you, but falls at the same rate as one that that is dropped." Yes
"Gravity does not discriminate as you go faster."  Yes
"The bullet fired from a gun dead horizontal will hit the ground at the same time as one that is dropped from the same height."  Not quite

The bullet fired dead horizontal would travel further as the curvature of the earth would mean it had a little further to fall. If it were possible to fire it east at the equator at over 7,432 m/s it would not hit the ground at all - two big problems though:
(1) No gun has that high a muzzle velocity - even the rail-gun is only about 2,520 m/s
(2) Air resistance would quickly slow it down (or melt it).

But the difference is very slight, so you are near enough to being correct.

Nice little reference if you are interested Long Range Shooting: External Ballistics – The Coriolis Effect, goes into Coriolis and Eötvös Effects - but other than for long range artillery these are very slight (a few inches sideways for Coriolis or up or down for the Eötvös Effect at a mile range).

But,