[TomInAustin]

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.

So you are telling me to belive the text and not my own senses?   Zetetic methodology be damned? 

Also please take a crack at my freefall speed changes by mass changes question.   The bottom line is I fell a lot faster with the added mass of a weight vest with marginally more drag.

You might have missed this in my OP but I have not found the exact quote from Einstein, got it handy?  In his examples, who and where were the observers that could not tell a difference?

And I have no other goal but to think different ideas through and so far it is not convincing. 

[Pete Svarrior]

So you are telling me to belive the text and not my own senses?   Zetetic methodology be damned?

There are two things here:

• Your own senses do not contradict the text. You don't have to choose between the two.
• Yes, fanatical Zeteticism is just as bad as fanatical anything else.

Point #1 is the one to pay attention to, mainly. You are presenting the same scenario twice using different words, and claiming that there is a difference. There isn't. Your intuition is failing you (and I don't blame you for it - relativity is unintuitive. Many things about our surroundings aren't intuitive, that's why it took humanity thousands of years to figure them out), and you're refusing to patch up the gaps in your understanding, just defaulting to a response of "nuh uh i know what i felt". If you don't want to be helped, nobody will be able to help you.

You might have missed this in my OP but I have not found the exact quote from Einstein, got it handy?  In his examples, who and where were the observers that could not tell a difference?

It's not a "quote", it's a principle of physics. RE gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass. Without it, the RE gravitational model cannot work. You'll find comprehensive descriptions of it in any high school physics textbook, and on Wikipedia.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

Well, this is related to what I posted about different masses falling at the same rate. There isn't a fall difference with bodies of different masses in a vacuum. All bodies fall at the same rate regardless of mass in a vacuum according to current experiments.

The reason why heavier things fall faster in the atmosphere is because of air resistance. It requires more force from air particles to move a more massive object.

When you jump out of the plane the earth is still accelerating upwards. It is pushing up the atmosphere. The air is rushing up against you. While in free fall you are otherwise weightless and the atmospheric resistance is pushing you upwards. It takes more force to move a more massive object, so it will push heavier and lighter objects differently.

[TomInAustin]

So you are telling me to belive the text and not my own senses?   Zetetic methodology be damned?

There are two things here:

• Your own senses do not contradict the text. You don't have to choose between the two.
• Yes, fanatical Zeteticism is just as bad as fanatical anything else.

Point #1 is the one to pay attention to, mainly. You are presenting the same scenario twice using different words, and claiming that there is a difference. There isn't. Your intuition is failing you (and I don't blame you for it - relativity is unintuitive. Many things about our surroundings aren't intuitive, that's why it took humanity thousands of years to figure them out), and you're refusing to patch up the gaps in your understanding, just defaulting to a response of "nuh uh i know what i felt". If you don't want to be helped, nobody will be able to help you.

You might have missed this in my OP but I have not found the exact quote from Einstein, got it handy?  In his examples, who and where were the observers that could not tell a difference?

It's not a "quote", it's a principle of physics. RE gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass. You'll find comprehensive descriptions of it in any high school physics textbook, and on Wikipedia.

"nuh uh i know what i felt"

LOL, really?  So much for polite debate. 

In the last post you said "Once again - thanks to the Equivalence Principle, we know there would be no physical difference between the two scenarios."   Like you said, if you will not listen no one can help you.  There is a huge physical difference in the question of what is moving, me or the floor.  Saying I am denying basic physics is a BS excuse for not addressing the actual questions, it is way more of a "nuh uh" than I did.

So again, in my 2 scenarous, sealed in a tube, one falling and the other the floor rushing up, that is the same?  You are telling me I would feel the same exact sensations?   

You also seem to discount the bodies ability to detect a change in velocity, at least until Tom Bs version came out.  Dishonest.  Had you presented that like he did it would be different.   

[Pete Svarrior]

So again, in my 2 scenarous, sealed in a tube, one falling and the other the floor rushing up, that is the same?  You are telling me I would feel the same exact sensations?

No, I already told you what the missing link was in your scenarios. In the "floor rushing up" scenario, you neglected to include the fact that the observer would have to be accelerating upwards prior to being released.

There is a huge physical difference in the question of what is moving, me or the floor. 

Motion is relative. There is no correct answer to your question, and there is no physical difference between the two scenarios. All that changes is the frame of reference.

You also seem to discount the bodies ability to detect a change in velocity, at least until Tom Bs version came out.  Dishonest.

I never did that. If you think I did, you misunderstood. If you're going to accuse me of being dishonest when the issue is simply your misunderstanding of the very physics RET relies on, there is no point in further discussion.

If you don't want to be helped, nobody will be able to help you. This stuff is difficult, and I'm happy to help you work through it, but you're gonna have to try and work with me.

[TomInAustin]

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.

Well, this is related to what I posted about different masses falling at the same rate. There isn't a fall difference with bodies of different masses in a vacuum. All bodies fall at the same rate regardless of mass in a vacuum.

The reason why heavier things fall faster in the atmosphere is because of air resistance. It requires more force from air particles to move a more massive object.

When you jump out of the plane the earth is still accelerating upwards. It is pushing up the atmosphere. The air is rushing up against you. While in free fall you are otherwise weightless and the atmospheric resistance is pushing you upwards. It takes more force to move a more massive object, so it will push heavier and lighter objects differently.

Good explanation, I'll accept that with all the enthusiasm that a minute of thinking about it can muster.  I don't see any holes in it

To recap your explanations, the feeling of falling is just a sense of velocity change due to slowing, not speeding up. (The same thing as far as acceleration is concerned) The difference in the fall rates for objects of the same drag but differing mass is the amount of work by the moving air.

Sounds like a wiki entry to me. 

[TomInAustin]

So again, in my 2 scenarous, sealed in a tube, one falling and the other the floor rushing up, that is the same?  You are telling me I would feel the same exact sensations?

No, I already told you what the missing link was in your scenarios. In the "floor rushing up" scenario, you neglected to include the fact that the observer would have to be accelerating upwards prior to being released.

You also seem to discount the bodies ability to detect a change in velocity, at least until Tom Bs version came out.  Dishonest.

I never did that. If you think I did, you misunderstood. If you're going to accuse me of being dishonest when the issue is simply your misunderstanding of the very physics RET relies on, there is no point in further discussion.

If you don't want to be helped, nobody will be able to help you. This stuff is difficult, and I'm happy to help you work through it, but you're gonna have to try and work with me.

Agree I did miss that part about the tube accelerating upwards.   See the reply to Tom B, case closed as far as I am concerned.   Again that is why I come here, aside from obvious trolling in AR, its a good thought exercise. 

[Pete Svarrior]

I was still editing my post when you replied, so I'll just quote myself here to make sure you saw my most recent remark:

Motion is relative. There is no correct answer to your question, and there is no physical difference between the two scenarios. All that changes is the frame of reference.

And don't worry - I honestly get why you're asking these questions. When I say that I think you misunderstand something, I don't mean it in a mean, personal way - the whole point of this place is to further our understanding of things. And I'm happy to explain my position as best as I can, even if I come across as very blunt in the process.

[TomInAustin]

I was still editing my post when you replied, so I'll just quote myself here to make sure you saw my most recent remark:

Motion is relative. There is no correct answer to your question, and there is no physical difference between the two scenarios. All that changes is the frame of reference.

And don't worry - I honestly get why you're asking these questions. When I say that I think you misunderstand something, I don't mean it in a mean, personal way - the whole point of this place is to further our understanding of things. And I'm happy to explain my position as best as I can, even if I come across as very blunt in the process.

Oh I get it.  No offense taken.  I wish that all the debates would go like this one.  Present question, get responses, ask for clarification and move on.   

I seriously doubt many people have come here and said, "OMG the earth is flat" or the opposite.   While I have given Tom a ton of crap, one has to admire his ability to research and present a case.  He is not always on solid ground(IMHO) but he is consistent. In this case his points were spot on and concise.  You go girl!

PS.  You are a poopy pants (ship that to AR)

[fisherman]

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

.

How can there be air resistance when there is no acceleration?  If you aren’t being accelerated in any direction there is nothing to resist against.

[Tom Bishop]

The Earth is accelerating upwards. The air is on top of the Earth. When you jump out of an airplane you are inert in space, weightless. The Earth pushes up the air into you. You feel air blowing up against your face and see the Earth accelerating up towards you.

[fisherman]

The Earth is accelerating upwards. The air is on top of the Earth. When you jump out of an airplane you are inert in space, weightless. The Earth pushes up the air into you. You feel air blowing up against your face and see the Earth accelerating up towards you.

I get that.  My point is that air resistance can't be the reason the ground makes contact with a less massive object before it makes contact with a more massive object.  Neither object is moving.  As you say, both are inert, so what does air resistance have to do with anything?  It isn't "slowing down" a more massive object if it isn't moving in the first place.

If a bowling ball and a feather are both inert in the air at the same elevation, the earth will reach both of them at the same time.  Air resistance would have no effect.

EDIT:  To be more clear.  If UA is pushing the feather up, then it is being accelerated...it isn't inert.

[Tom Bishop]

The bodies are inert in space while in free-fall. They are not slowing down, they are not moving. They are being pushed upwards by the air. The air is being pushed upwards by the accelerating earth, into the objects. The feather is going to experience more of an effect from the air pushing up against it than a massive bowling ball.

[fisherman]

They are not slowing down, they are not moving. They are being pushed upwards by the air.

How can they be "not moving" and be "pushed upwards" at the same time?  If something is being pushed, it's moving.   The only way it wouldn't be moving is if it is being pulled at the same time, with the same force, in the same opposite direction.

[Tom Bishop]

They are not moving on their own accord. They are being pushed upwards by the air.

In a vaccum a bowling ball and a feather fall together. There are videos of that.

In a Zero G airplane a bowling ball and a feather float together, and are weightless together.

Only in the atmosphere that is pushed upwards by the earth do they not fall together.

[TomInAustin]

They are not slowing down, they are not moving. They are being pushed upwards by the air.

How can they be "not moving" and be "pushed upwards" at the same time?  If something is being pushed, it's moving.   The only way it wouldn't be moving is if it is being pulled at the same time, with the same force, in the same opposite direction.

Obviously not defending UA, but Tom's explanation is consistent with the UA model.   If the ground was indeed moving up pushing the air with it then an object of more mass would be more "work" than one of less mass.

I did not start this thread to argue UA yes or no, just what I felt was an inconsistency I couldn't wrap my head around based on personal observation.  In fact, freefall speeds were not part of my OP but came up as part of the discussion.

[jack44556677]

Well done TomInAustin, the first post is spot on in my perspective.

The diagram tom shared (with the balloon) and your experiential "accelerometer" are in accord.  Gravity is not in any way an acceleration.

To further what tom said about inertia, this is yet another simple proof of gravity's fictional nature.  When I learned about it, I was taught that gravity must travel faster than the speed of light because (effectively instantaneous) information transfer is required to know how much force to apply to each object of varying mass in the larger masses vicinity.  Not unlike the sun and moon appearing the same size - the equivalence principle is preposterous coincidence as a lynch pin in mythology being disingenuously/erroneously presented as science.

[JSS]

Well done TomInAustin, the first post is spot on in my perspective.

The diagram tom shared (with the balloon) and your experiential "accelerometer" are in accord.  Gravity is not in any way an acceleration.

To further what tom said about inertia, this is yet another simple proof of gravity's fictional nature.  When I learned about it, I was taught that gravity must travel faster than the speed of light because (effectively instantaneous) information transfer is required to know how much force to apply to each object of varying mass in the larger masses vicinity.  Not unlike the sun and moon appearing the same size - the equivalence principle is preposterous coincidence as a lynch pin in mythology being disingenuously/erroneously presented as science.

If you were taught that gravity travels faster than light then you were taught wrong and might need to revisit the subject.

Gravity obeys the speed of light, if you move an object, other objects will not 'know' it moved until the information can reach them.

In fact, that's what gravitational waves are that the LIGO has been detecting for some time now.  Those waves travel at the speed of light, so when we measure them we can see how quickly gravity changed for that event, such as two black holes colliding.

[fisherman]

Obviously not defending UA, but Tom's explanation is consistent with the UA model.   If the ground was indeed moving up pushing the air with it then an object of more mass would be more "work" than one of less mass

.

I get that.  I was just pointing out that something can't be at "zero acceleration" and be "pushed up" at the same time.  Zero acceleration means no force is applied...when something is being "pushed up" there is a force.

[AATW]

The bodies are inert in space while in free-fall. They are not slowing down, they are not moving. They are being pushed upwards by the air. The air is being pushed upwards by the accelerating earth, into the objects. The feather is going to experience more of an effect from the air pushing up against it than a massive bowling ball.

Do you believe in a physical dome?
If no then what is keeping the atmosphere in?
If you do then what material could possibly form a dome that size without breaking?

The trouble with the Zetetic method here is you make an observation - you step off a chair and you observe the ground rush towards you. I see you step off and I see you fall. Both are equally plausible explanations (leaving aside everything else) so how does the experiment lead you to one explanation over the other?

Variations in gravity are the discriminator between the two explanations.