#### TomInAustin

• 1365
• Round Duh
##### Zetetic method vs UA
« on: October 02, 2020, 04:03:53 PM »

Pete and I have discussed this a few times, with his trump card always being something along the lines of proving Einstein wrong.  Something never seemed right about falling vs acceleration and using the Zetetic method I now know why.     Having 920ish skydives and a Master D license,  I can testify that one can't feel freefall.  Terminal velocity ( the result of mass vs drag) feels like floating.  In a run of the mill skydive, one exits the aircraft around 90 mph and over 9 seconds accelerates to terminal velocity.  Basically transitioning from 90ish to 120ish (terminal is not a constant) over 9 seconds is a pretty tame experience.  No feeling of falling   What is the sticking point in my head is that we can feel the acceleration of a jump from a stationary or near stationary start point, hot air balloon, helicopter, cutting away a low-speed malfunction and even stalling the canopy.  You jump out of a balloon and you feel the acceleration.  Not being a fan of negative G, I hated doing stalls.  I can think of no better Zetetic evidence that UA is false.  Pure observation.

Why did I, again pure Zetetic observation, feel the acceleration?    Occam's Razor would say I was falling, not witnessing the earth coming at me.

Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15548
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2020, 04:27:52 PM »
Why did I, again pure Zetetic observation, feel the acceleration?
I've said this before, but I feel you misunderstood. The term "feeling acceleration" is extremely vague - it's a term you've created to make a sensation seem intuitive. What you actually perceive is your acceleration relative to the air around you. Because motion is always relative, this is exactly the same as the air accelerating relative to you - there is no universal frame of reference from which you could distinguish the two. That is the sticking point - you feel "the acceleration", but there is no objective answer as to what's accelerating relative to what.

Because motion is relative, you could also completely rephrase UA to mean something like "anything other than sufficiently massive celestial bodies is accelerating downwards at 9.81m/s2 relative to the otherwise stationary bodies". Physically, the two are one and the same. All that changes is the frame of reference you chose.

Perhaps a different thought experiment will help here. Try to imagine the sensation of your body being held down in a river, well under the surface. Imagine how the water would feel against your body. Now, imagine a separate situation. You're submerged in water which is not flowing, like a lake, and you're being pulled through the water.

Without external information, you would not be able to tell the difference by the sensation alone. This is exactly the same here.

And yes, your comment about Einstein is correct. According to the Equivalence Principle, it MUST be the case that you won't be able to tell the two apart. Basic physics would break if this wasn't the case.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2020, 04:36:57 PM by Pete Svarrior »

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10248
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2020, 04:48:15 PM »
The feeling of free-fall is the feeling of weightlessness, not acceleration.

In this example the balloon reverts to its relaxed state while in free-fall.

In a Zero-G plane the craft is in free-fall and its occupants feel weightless.

#### TomInAustin

• 1365
• Round Duh
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2020, 04:56:34 PM »
The feeling of free-fall is the feeling of weightlessness, not acceleration.

In this example the balloon reverts to its relaxed state while in free-fall.

In a Zero-G plane the craft is in free-fall and its occupants feel weightless.

Exactly as I said.  "I can testify that one can't feel freefall. "  We are not talking freefall, we are talking about transition to freefall.
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

#### TomInAustin

• 1365
• Round Duh
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2020, 05:33:01 PM »
Why did I, again pure Zetetic observation, feel the acceleration?
I've said this before, but I feel you misunderstood. The term "feeling acceleration" is extremely vague - it's a term you've created to make a sensation seem intuitive. What you actually perceive is your acceleration relative to the air around you. Because motion is always relative, this is exactly the same as the air accelerating relative to you - there is no universal frame of reference from which you could distinguish the two. That is the sticking point - you feel "the acceleration", but there is no objective answer as to what's accelerating relative to what.

Because motion is relative, you could also completely rephrase UA to mean something like "anything other than sufficiently massive celestial bodies is accelerating downwards at 9.81m/s2 relative to the otherwise stationary bodies". Physically, the two are one and the same. All that changes is the frame of reference you chose.

Perhaps a different thought experiment will help here. Try to imagine the sensation of your body being held down in a river, well under the surface. Imagine how the water would feel against your body. Now, imagine a separate situation. You're submerged in water which is not flowing, like a lake, and you're being pulled through the water.

Without external information, you would not be able to tell the difference by the sensation alone. This is exactly the same here.

And yes, your comment about Einstein is correct. According to the Equivalence Principle, it MUST be the case that you won't be able to tell the two apart. Basic physics would break if this wasn't the case.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  Due to the obvious climate we live in, I am just done with arguing but a polite debate is always welcome.

I did not create the term, I paraphrased it... from the Wikipedia on Falling (sensation)

Quote
A sensation of falling occurs when the labyrinth or vestibular apparatus, a system of fluid-filled passages in the inner ear, detects changes in acceleration

To be more clear I should have said "detecting changes in acceleration" instead of  "feeling acceleration".

I have googled and not found Einstein's direct quote but I see a lot of interpretations.   One is the Elevator cable breaking.  I submit from my direct observations that you would indeed sense the acceleration.  One almost all of us have experienced is turbulence in an airplane.  A common turbulence situation is an aircraft loses lift and you feel it.  No air movement.  Not external references.  You just feel it.   As part of pilot training, learning to recover from a stall is standard practice.  If you have ever been in a stalled aircraft you felt it too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_(sensation)

Quote
you feel "the acceleration", but there is no objective answer as to what's accelerating relative to what

What we sense is a velocity change relative to our current velocity vector.  The inner ear is made to do just that, without that you couldn't walk, jump or do much else besides lay there.  People with inner ear problems sometimes report that feeling of falling, for the ear to falsly report that would suggest that it is a real feeling for a real purpose.

So no, I am not convinced.  Again not from youtube videos, or literature, but direct observation.

Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15548
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2020, 05:35:57 PM »
What we sense is a velocity change relative to our current velocity vector.
All velocity is relative to a frame of reference. This isn't a question of what you do and don't find convincing, or what you do or don't feel, it's a physical fact. You have a velocity vector relative to the air. This is the same as the air having a velocity vector relative to you. The two aren't just indistinguishable, they're precisely the same.

Once again - there is no physical difference between stating that the Earth and air are accelerating up towards you, and stating that you are accelerating towards the Earth. That's the frustration with your argument. You're basically saying "It's not apples, it's apples!"

So no, I am not convinced.  Again not from youtube videos, or literature, but direct observation.
Your direct observation is that your velocity relative to your surroundings changes. This is not in conflict with UA.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2020, 05:38:46 PM by Pete Svarrior »

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10248
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2020, 05:39:23 PM »
Quote
Exactly as I said.  "I can testify that one can't feel freefall. "  We are not talking freefall, we are talking about transition to freefall.

There is a transition under UA. The Earth is pushing up the atmosphere. The plane is riding on the atmosphere via lift. The floor of the plane is pushing and accelerating you upwards.

When you jump out you will transition from being accelerated upwards to zero acceleration (ignoring air resistance), as you are no longer connected to the floor of the plane.

#### TomInAustin

• 1365
• Round Duh
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2020, 05:47:06 PM »
What we sense is a velocity change relative to our current velocity vector.
All velocity is relative to a frame of reference. This isn't a question of what you do and don't find convincing, or what you do or don't feel, it's a physical fact. You have a velocity vector relative to the air. This is the same as the air having a velocity vector relative to you. The two aren't just indistinguishable, they're precisely the same.

Once again - there is no physical difference between stating that the Earth and air are accelerating up towards you, and stating that you are accelerating towards the Earth. That's the frustration with your argument. You're basically saying "It's not apples, it's apples!"

So no, I am not convinced.  Again not from youtube videos, or literature, but direct observation.
Your direct observation is that your velocity relative to your surroundings changes. This is not in conflict with UA.

If I was suspended in a fixed spot and the floor was rushing up to me, I could not tell the difference between that and being in freefall toward the same floor assuming relative wind was the same in both cases.   If the same experiment had me drop towards that floor my inner ear would detect the change.  Unless we are debating about function of the inner ear, I don't see your point.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2020, 05:49:14 PM by TomInAustin »
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

#### TomInAustin

• 1365
• Round Duh
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2020, 05:55:15 PM »
Damn, I hate it when the obvious is right in front of me.

Here is an experiment that anyone can do.   Go to an amusement park and get on one of the tower drop rides.   If you have been on one you know you damn near spit your guts out your mouth when it drops.   There is one, in Orlando I think, that is an elevator, you are in an enclosed room so to speak when it drops.

Any takers, report if you feel yourself falling.

Note:  Record number of typo edits.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2020, 06:02:39 PM by TomInAustin »
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

#### Iceman

• 1823
• where there's smoke there's wires
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2020, 06:02:48 PM »
Yeah, I definitely get the EP side of things here, but agree with Tominaustin...

Imagine being in a vacuum chamber, standing on a platform with a trap door. What would your body sense when that trap door is instantaneously released?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15548
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2020, 06:03:19 PM »
If the same experiment had me drop towards that floor my inner ear would detect the change.
This is incorrect. You have to compare two scenarios:
• You jump off a plane and accelerate to terminal velocity.
• You're suspended in the air while weightless, and a fan blows upward at you with increasing speed unless the air around you reaches the equivalent of your terminal velocity.

The two must be indistinguishable, because physics. Again, the question isn't of how the human body functions, or what you perceive. It's also not a RE vs FE question. The two scenarios are physically identical.

Any takers, report if you feel yourself falling.
You continue to miss the point. You would "feel yourself falling" (a vague term with no meaningful definition) in both scenarios. You're doubling down on what you find intuitive, which is human nature, but there is no justification in physics for why the two would feel any different.

What would your body sense when that trap door is instantaneously released?
RE: Acceleration due to gravitation
FE: Deceleration (i.e. acceleration) due to inertia
« Last Edit: October 02, 2020, 06:18:26 PM by Pete Svarrior »

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10248
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2020, 06:10:03 PM »
I have an experiment too.

Obtain a bowling ball and a marble. Test to see if it takes more force and effort to roll a bowling ball across the floor than a marble. You should be able to verify Newton's second law, that it takes more force to move a more massive object through space.

If some invisible phenomena is pulling them downwards through space, when you drop a bowling ball and a marble they should hit the ground at different times, as it takes more force to move a more massive object through space.

So why is it that Galileo in found in his drop experiments that weights of different masses fall at the same rate? Why should gravity ignore the mass of a body when pulling things down, or treat all masses the same? We verified that it takes more force to move a more massive object through space, so why is gravity applying different amounts of force to different objects depending on their mass to get them to fall at the same rate? Pretty ludicrous.

#### Iceman

• 1823
• where there's smoke there's wires
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2020, 06:18:09 PM »
You can derive the mathematical reason for why the two different masses are accelerated at the same rate in grade 11 physics though.

The little m for the mass of any falling object - you, me, a marble, a bowling ball, the ISS - would appear on both sides of the equation, so that value cancels out, regardless of its value.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15548
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2020, 06:20:39 PM »
You can derive the mathematical reason for why the two different masses are accelerated at the same rate in grade 11 physics though.

The little m for the mass of any falling object - you, me, a marble, a bowling ball, the ISS - would appear on both sides of the equation, so that value cancels out, regardless of its value.
I agree - Tom's argument defies basic physics just as much as Tom's.

We shouldn't distract from the point here. Per the Equivalence Principle, there are no physical differences between the two scenarios. If you try to present a difference, you've already failed, because you've already assumed that basic physics is broken.

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10248
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2020, 06:27:52 PM »
Incorrect. There is no reason for why two bodies of different masses should be accelerated at the same rate if there is an invisible phenomena pulling them downwards through space.

Introduction to Cosmology by the 4th Cosmology School at Cracow, Portland

Introductory Physics: Building Models to Describe Our World, p.112, by astrophysicist Ryan Martin, Et al.

" As you recall, the weight of an object is given by the mass of the object multiplied by the strength of the gravitational field, g. There is no reason that the mass that is used to calculate weight, Fg = mg, has to be the same quantity as the mass that is used to calculate inertia F = ma. Thus, people will sometimes make the distinction between “gravitational mass” (the mass that you use to calculate weight and the force of gravity) and “inertial mass” as described above. Very precise experiments have been carried out to determine if the gravitational and inertial masses are equal. So far, experiments have been unable to detect any difference between the two quantities. As we will see, both Newton’s Universal Theory of Gravity and Einstein Theory of General Relativity assume that the two are indeed equal. In fact, it is a key requirement for Einstein’s Theory that the two be equal (the assumption that they are equal is called the “Equivalence Principle”). You should however keep in mind that there is no physical reason that the two are the same, and that as far as we know, it is a coincidence! "
« Last Edit: October 02, 2020, 06:52:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### TomInAustin

• 1365
• Round Duh
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2020, 06:28:38 PM »
Quote
Exactly as I said.  "I can testify that one can't feel freefall. "  We are not talking freefall, we are talking about transition to freefall.

There is a transition under UA. The Earth is pushing up the atmosphere. The plane is riding on the atmosphere via lift. The floor of the plane is pushing and accelerating you upwards.

When you jump out you will transition from being accelerated upwards to zero acceleration (ignoring air resistance), as you are no longer connected to the floor of the plane.

I like where you are going with this.    You are saying I am experiencing deceleration and not acceleration?   Fascinating logic I did not consider.

What I don't like about that answer is that it ignores mass.   Since terminal velocity is the point where drag overcomes the acceleration of mass, how could that explain the fall rates of same sized objects of differing mass?  Object of the same mass but differing drag is an easy explanation.

Real world example:   In relative work, a skydive thing where people do what amounts to tricks with each other, fall rates matter.  The guys I jumped with were fairly stocky.  Being tall and thin, I would wear a weight vest of up to 15 lbs to keep up with their fall rate.   How could your explanation account for the change in terminal velocity when I was 15 lbs heavier yet maintained the same drag if not a tiny bit more based on the profile of the vest?

Assuming that the air is indeed pushed via UA there would have to be something to keep the air from going over the edge.   A wall or dome perhaps?  But, if that is the case, why would there be air pressure differences at differing altitudes?  I just started thinking about this so forgive me asking what could be obvious questions.

Again the usefulness of this site to me is as a thought experiment.

Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

#### TomInAustin

• 1365
• Round Duh
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2020, 06:34:18 PM »
If the same experiment had me drop towards that floor my inner ear would detect the change.
This is incorrect. You have to compare two scenarios:
• You jump off a plane and accelerate to terminal velocity.
• You're suspended in the air while weightless, and a fan blows upward at you with increasing speed unless the air around you reaches the equivalent of your terminal velocity.

The two must be indistinguishable, because physics. Again, the question isn't of how the human body functions, or what you perceive. It's also not a RE vs FE question. The two scenarios are physically identical.

Any takers, report if you feel yourself falling.
You continue to miss the point. You would "feel yourself falling" (a vague term with no meaningful definition) in both scenarios. You're doubling down on what you find intuitive, which is human nature, but there is no justification in physics for why the two would feel any different.

What would your body sense when that trap door is instantaneously released?
RE: Acceleration due to gravitation
FE: Deceleration (i.e. acceleration) due to inertia

So on one hand you say that I feel "Deceleration (i.e. acceleration) due to inertia" while saying there is no feeling of falling, again a paraphrase of sensing acceleration?  "Does the inner ear sense acceleration or not?" seems to be the real and pertinent question.

Tom B is being more consistent.

Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15548
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2020, 06:36:31 PM »
while saying there is no feeling of falling
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that your interpretation of that feeling is overly specific, and poorly defined.

"Does the inner ear sense acceleration or not?" seems to be the real and pertinent question.
It's not pertinent at all. It blatantly does sense acceleration, relative to the ear itself. The problem with your logic is that that acceleration does not change in any way between the two scenarios.

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### TomInAustin

• 1365
• Round Duh
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2020, 06:43:27 PM »
while saying there is no feeling of falling
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that your interpretation of that feeling is overly specific, and poorly defined.

"Does the inner ear sense acceleration or not?" seems to be the real and pertinent question.
It's not pertinent at all. It blatantly does sense acceleration, relative to the ear itself. The problem with your logic is that that acceleration does not change in any way between the two scenarios.

That is plainly wrong.  If I am suspended in the air and the floor starts rushing up there is no device in the inner ear to sense that floor moving.  In fact if I was in a sealed tube that blocked all vision, hearing, and airflow I would not even know the floor was coming at me.  If however I was suddenly dropped for the same point towards the floor the inner ear would know and tell me so.

« Last Edit: October 02, 2020, 06:45:06 PM by TomInAustin »
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15548
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Zetetic method vs UA
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2020, 06:45:06 PM »
If I am suspended in the air and the floor starts rushing up there is not device in the inner ear to sense that floor moving.
Indeed - if you weren't accelerating in the first place (i.e. no UA and no gravity - a scenario neither of us should be considering). If you were, and you were suddenly released, you would sense deceleration due to inertia.

Once again - thanks to the Equivalence Principle, we know there would be no physical difference between the two scenarios. Every time you think you found a difference, you are necessarily wrong, unless you want to discard basic physics. Note that discarding basic physics immediately disproves RET, and thus doesn't advance your goal.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2020, 06:49:02 PM by Pete Svarrior »