Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Grammatically the 2nd Amendment is a mess. For a bunch of learned scholars there seems to be a lot confusion over how to use a comma or put clauses together to create a coherent sentence.
Wait a minute.
I thought RET claims that the angular size of the sun remains the same across the entirety of its trip above our heads?
....
Please show the colon in the 2nd amendment.
Yeah, I understand it so much as to hear you claim the thing that somehow causes things to fall is the same thing that is somehow also responsible for keeping all things in the same place.
Material things (i.e., matter) fall because they have weight.
Celestial bodies don't fall yet they have weight. You do understand what 'mechanism' means, don't you?
In short, nonsense.
Material things (i.e., matter) fall because they have weight.
QuoteNewton's 1st says that the apple will continue at the same velocity it had when the stem breaks. It doesn't say that it will continue accelerating because there is no longer a force being applied to cause the acceleration.
There is still a force being applied to it. The same force that was being applied to it while it was on the tree. Or have you forgotten our discussion on how FE defines terminal velocity? "Falling objects" are accelerated up.
One could argue that when the stem breaks, the apple just stops accelerating up with the tree and waits patiently while the earth rises up. This is not a valid argument because according to Newton’s first law, if the apple was traveling in uniform motion while it was attached to the tree, it would continue with that uniform motion whether it was attached to the tree or not. IOW, the apple would continue its acceleration upwards at 9.81 m/s2. “Stopping” is a change in velocity and a change in velocity is acceleration.
Unless it's in a vacuum, acceleration always causes drag.
It just dawned on me what point I am failing to make clear and why we are talking past each other. The question isn't whether or not it would be possible for the Vomit Comet to be a thing in a UA environment. The question is "would it be possible according to how the Vomit Comet actually operates?"
The way I understand, the vomit comet could work with UA if the pilot allowed for more drag than thrust and thereby "cancel" the UA effect.
I don't know this for 100% certainty, which is why I asked, but my sense is that if you asked a pilot of the Vomit Comet whether or not they allow for more drag than thrust in parabolic flight, the answer would be no. They would tell you that drag and thrust are equal.
QuoteThere is no force on the plane due to UA.
Then why does the plane need to overcome "terminal acceleration"? If it isn't being accelerated, there is nothing to overcome.
Again, I point you back to the wiki definition of TV. It PLAINLY says that the falling object is accelerated. Gravity isn't accelerating it so what is?
QuoteIF the plane was being accelerated by UA you could turn off the engines and it would maintain altitude.
It would continue to accelerate, but at a slower rate than the earth because of drag. Eventually, the earth closes the gap.
QuoteFor the vomit comet to work it must place itself and the passenger in a state of zero acceleration. To do this, it simply has to be able to overcome aerodynamic pull in order to overcome terminal acceleration. Voila, the FE vomit comet. Simple as that.
There’s no forces on the plane that would account for overcoming the acceleration. That was the whole point of my question. Thrust and drag cancel each other out and lift is eliminated by the angle. The only force on the plane is the acceleration caused by UA.
The other thing that baffles me is this;
Everything on Earth is ultimately made from Earth. You, me, the chair (wood is a biological product of Earth-bound elements, carbon, nitrogen and so on), the house the chair is in (sand, rock), the plane is made of aluminium (smelted from bauxite, mined from the Earth). Why does all this crap stop feeling the direct effect of UA once we give it a name?
Maybe the only things to feel UA directly are the turtle and the elephants.
QuoteIn UA/FE theory, UA doesn't act upon the plane and passenger.
Yes it does.QuoteWhen the acceleration of the falling object is equal to the acceleration of the Earth, the object has reached terminal velocity relative to the Earth.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Terminal_Velocity
There is no thrust in parabolic flight. Thrust and drag cancel each other out.
I already showed how that is not the case according to RE theory. A falling object accelerates. It says that plainly on the wiki.
So if, no matter what frame of reference you are in, the atmosphere is accelerating the plane up, at 1g, and is the only force on the plane how is it that the floor of the plane is not pushed against the occupants?
If the plane is only subject to gravity, it will go into freefall and the occupants will “float”. If the plane is only subject to UA, then the floor of the plane will be pinned against the occupants and they won’t float.
So if the occupants in the Vomit Comet were being accelerated by the UA force, they’d know it,....
Tom Bishop going on a car journey: his passenger says "when will we get there?" Tom says, "No one can ever know."
QuoteIn essence, UA is just another form of drag. If thrust can overcome drag, there's no reason to believe it doesn't also overcome UA.
I was thinking more like UA is thrust...that you can never adjust or turn off like you can a rocket engine. In order to be in free fall, thrust and drag must be equal. Since you can't adjust the thrust UA causes, how do you equalize the drag so that the plane is in freefall?
Don't know enough about how it works, which is why I asked.