*

Offline Clyde Frog

  • *
  • Posts: 639
  • [kʰlaɪ̯d fɹɒg]
    • View Profile
    • Werepenguin
Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2021, 04:35:29 PM »
The Earth's initial velocity with respect to the about-to-be-free-falling object is 0mph. It seems like you aren't taking that into consideration. I don't know why you are choosing an initial velocity of 1000mph, what that velocity is supposed to be relative to, or how you are constructing this in your head, but I think you are adding some extraneous data points that are confusing you.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8721
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #21 on: July 20, 2021, 08:18:26 PM »
There are experiments in there showing that the effect aligns with the equivalence principle.
The first one of those is from NASA. I didn't think you trusted them? Or do you only trust them when you get results which you think back up your views?

If the mainstream narrative is saying that the equivalence principle is being verified to high altitudes, you can't turn around and tell me that it's not. You are arguing yourself into a corner about these gravitational variations that supposedly exist but lack evidence.

Quote
Quote
The word 'emperical' isn't even in there. You appear to just be making things up.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_evidence_do_you_have.3F

Quote
The evidence for a Flat Earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the Sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empirical approach

That's an entirely different article and talking about one type of approach. I don't see what you are ranting about.

Quote
Quote
You are basically screaming at us to ignore evidence, to ignore your logical errors and to just accept uncontrolled experiments.

I'm suggesting you be logically consistent. You are not - a good example of that you have inadvertently exposed in this thread. You claim the results of an experiment as backing up your view. The results of which come from NASA, an organisation who you distrust...except, apparently, when they produce data which you think backs up what you believe. So NASA are faking all their missions...oh, but not the one whose data you want to cherry pick. You see the issue?

Nope. It's completely logical. It presents it as the mainstream narrative on the non-variations seen with time dilation. Mainstream says there are no detectable time variations by altitude, so the RE position is that there are no detectable time variations.

By your logic we should accept the scale experiments that very by latitude, even though they are uncontrolled and we know the atmosphere affects them.

By your logic we should discard the other contradictory experiments by latitude where variations do not manifest.

By your logic, even if the mainstream narrative is that there are no variations seen with time by latitude or altitude, we should discard that data and assume that there are experiments somewhere that prove your spinning globe and gravity.

Totally ridiculous. Totally illogical. The conclusion from these experiments isn't that you are somehow right. The conclusion from the experiments is that you appear to be incorrect unless you have some compelling new data to present.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2021, 08:26:11 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2108
    • View Profile
Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #22 on: July 20, 2021, 10:11:46 PM »
Literally the next paragraph "Latitude Tests" you note that gravity measurements vary by latitude and then explain away why that might be.

And the explanation is that the experiment is not controlled against the environment, with references showing that the environment affects the scale. This hurts your insistence that we take uncontrolled experiments as fact.

In your wiki article, "Weight Variation by Latitude”, you very prominently cite a quote from a paper written by Andrew Huszczuk, Ph.D.:

"Would you take a medication knowing that a pharmacy used an uncalibrated scale to weigh its ingredients? Would you board a plane knowing that the fuel or altitude gauges are not calibrated at frequent intervals?
In these and thousands of other applications scientific bases and rules of metrology must be obeyed to assure chaos-free operation of modern societies. To scrutinize performance of measuring devices a process of calibration must be carried out by means of applying a known standard and getting back a correct reading.


It’s from his paper titled, "Deception of the Douglas Bag Validation Method

Which is a paper about methods used to calibrate Metabolic measurement systems, machines that measure the human bodies metabolic rate.

What does that all have to do with Gravity measurements?

As well, in the addendum that you wrote, it states: “If a scale is affected by any of that then those factors should be excluded, ideally in a vacuum chamber experiment which demonstrates the matter empirically, independent of any assumption about the atmosphere. Merely claiming or asserting that there are no factors that affect the device is insufficient. Yet, a search for examples of this experiment conducted in a vacuum chamber finds none." (bolding, mine)

However, the very design of gravimeters employs the measurement mechanism within a vacuum:

"Absolute gravimeters provide such measurements by determining the gravitational acceleration of a test mass in vacuum. A test mass is allowed to fall freely inside a vacuum chamber and its position is measured with a laser interferometer and timed with an atomic clock.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimetry

So the actual mechanism that is performing the gravity measurement is, in fact, inside of a vacuum.

There is also a link in that section which shows latitude tests which did not see variations by latitude, in contradiction to Einsteins's prediction and the scale latitude experiments. You ignored this.

Which link are you referring to? I couldn't find the one you're describing.

Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2021, 06:23:22 AM »
Quote
The Earth's initial velocity with respect to the about-to-be-free-falling object is 0mph. It seems like you aren't taking that into consideration. I don't know why you are choosing an initial velocity of 1000mph, what that velocity is supposed to be relative to, or how you are constructing this in your head, but I think you are adding some extraneous data points that are confusing you.

If the relative velocity between the object and the earth is 0 and rate of acceleration is the same, the earth and the object will never meet.  The distance between them will always be the same.

Duncan suggested that the object would be subject to some air resistance, which would change the relative velocities.  That’s reasonable. That would mean even though the initial velocities are the same, the rate of acceleration and the velocity of the object would be reduced and eventually the earth and the object would meet.

The problem is they would never meet in the same time frame that we see in reality.

With gravity at 9.8 and air resistance of 2.4 a 50 kg. object will fall 1000 ft. and meet the ground in 10 seconds. That makes the effective rate of acceleration 9.5  That’s what we would expect to see in reality, using standard method of calculation.

So if we have the earth accelerating up from 0 height at 1000 mph and 9.8 and the object accelerating up from an initial height of 1000 ft. at a rate of 9.5, at the end of 10 seconds the object would be at 17225 and the earth would be at 16274.  They are still 951 feet apart.

Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #24 on: July 21, 2021, 07:21:35 AM »
Quote
Nope. It's completely logical. It presents it as the mainstream narrative on the non-variations seen with time dilation. Mainstream says there are no detectable time variations by altitude, so the RE position is that there are no detectable time variations.

You neglected to explain why the time difference is not detectable.  There are two different types of time dilation. One caused by differences in velocity and another caused by differences in the strength of the gravitational field.  They can and often do cancel each other out.  The Pound-Rebka experiment was a good example.  Both also have to be taken into account for GPS to work.

Your own wiki explains why the time difference is not detectable.

arch 2005 Theme Group 2 Quantum Electronics - Some Accomplishments Effects of gravitational potential and motion on proper time measured with Atomic Clocks –Local measurements from five 15 hour aircraft flights over the Chesapeake Bay. Short pulses of laser used to implement Einstein’s prescription for remote time comparison. Accuracy ~1% for gravitational potential effect; ~10% for much smaller motional effect. –No difference found for clock rates at different latitudes on the oblate rotating Earth (Thule, Greenland, compared to Washington, DC): Change in gravitational potential compensates velocity change. –No difference found for clock rates between northern and southern hemispheres at the time of the summer solstice (Christchurch, New Zealand, compared to Washington, DC): Difference in solar gravitational potential is compensated by acceleration of Earth toward Sun. Experimental realization of Einstein’s accelerated elevator gedanken experiment.

Quote
The above authors use Einstein's Equivalence Principle to explain why clocks at sea level all tick at the same rate across the surface of the Earth and champion it as a success of Einstein, despite Albert Einstein making the opposite prediction on the matter. Possessing more knowledge about Einstein's theories than Einstein himself, the writers salvage the matter by telling us that the expected time dilation is erased by the Equivalence Principle

Einstein predicted the time difference due to variations in velocity as part of special relativity, before he came up with the equivalence principle and realized that gravity would also cause time dilation and effectively cancel it out. 

Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #25 on: July 21, 2021, 08:11:25 AM »
If the mainstream narrative is saying that the equivalence principle is being verified to high altitudes, you can't turn around and tell me that it's not.
I'm not telling you that it's not. I'm telling you that it's disingenuous to use evidence from a source which you dismiss all the other data from which shows the earth to be a sphere.
And the equivalence principle holding isn't a contradiction to g varying with altitude, the latter of those disproves UA.

Quote
That's an entirely different article and talking about one type of approach.

It's not an article at all, it's your FAQ and outlines how you form opinions. Except when empirical evidence shows you to be wrong apparently, in which case you either dismiss it or invent a mechanism to explain it.

Quote
Nope. It's completely logical. It presents it as the mainstream narrative on the non-variations seen with time dilation. Mainstream says there are no detectable time variations by altitude, so the RE position is that there are no detectable time variations.

OK. So what? The mainstream narrative is that the earth is a sphere and the source you have presented data from has also presented lots of data to prove that.
Cherry picking the one thing which you think backs up your argument (which I think you have misunderstood anyway) and declaring all the other data to be wrong or lies is disingenuous and cherry picking.

Quote
By your logic we should accept the scale experiments that very by latitude, even though they are uncontrolled and we know the atmosphere affects them.

So design your own experiment then, make sure it's controlled to your satisfaction and then show us the results. You're an empiricist, right?

Quote
The conclusion from the experiments is that you appear to be incorrect unless you have some compelling new data to present.

Lots of compelling data has been presented. You dismiss it because it doesn't fit your narrative. That's my exact point here, just cherry picking data here and there and ignoring the sea of evidence showing you to be wrong is not an honest way of investigating things.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2021, 08:22:16 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #26 on: July 21, 2021, 08:17:27 AM »
Quote
The Earth's initial velocity with respect to the about-to-be-free-falling object is 0mph. It seems like you aren't taking that into consideration. I don't know why you are choosing an initial velocity of 1000mph, what that velocity is supposed to be relative to, or how you are constructing this in your head, but I think you are adding some extraneous data points that are confusing you.

If the relative velocity between the object and the earth is 0 and rate of acceleration is the same, the earth and the object will never meet.  The distance between them will always be the same.

Duncan suggested that the object would be subject to some air resistance, which would change the relative velocities.  That’s reasonable. That would mean even though the initial velocities are the same, the rate of acceleration and the velocity of the object would be reduced and eventually the earth and the object would meet.

The problem is they would never meet in the same time frame that we see in reality.

With gravity at 9.8 and air resistance of 2.4 a 50 kg. object will fall 1000 ft. and meet the ground in 10 seconds. That makes the effective rate of acceleration 9.5  That’s what we would expect to see in reality, using standard method of calculation.

So if we have the earth accelerating up from 0 height at 1000 mph and 9.8 and the object accelerating up from an initial height of 1000 ft. at a rate of 9.5, at the end of 10 seconds the object would be at 17225 and the earth would be at 16274.  They are still 951 feet apart.


Please read my reply #18 again.  I'm not sure if I can make it clearer. 

(In the FE Model); Immediately upon release, the Earth&Atmosphere&Object have identical velocities.  However, while the Earth&Atmosphere continue accelerating up at 9.81 m/s/s, there is now no force whatever acting upon the object so it is at constant velocity, so the Earth&Atmosphere will start to catch up with the Object. 

In the seconds following release, as the accelerating atmosphere begins to have velocity relative to the object, the Object will become subject to aerodynamic drag, which will provide a force Up, beginning to accelerate the Object upwards. 

It is important to note that this is upward force is not a fixed quantity. (I don't know how you came up with a figure of 2.4 (units?) for a 50 kg object).  The upward force is directly proportional to the Object's size and shape (technically, its surface area and Drag Coefficient), to air density (so it is reduced at higher altitudes) and to the square-of-air-velocity.  That "square" is important, as it means the drag force is very small at low velocities, but increases rapidly with higher airspeed.  It is not a constant force, it increases as velocity increases. 

Please note that the upwards force is completely unrelated to mass.  Flat or Round Earth; 

1.   The "downward" force ("gravity" or "UA") is related only to mass and a constant rate of acceleration.
2.   The "upward" force is completely unrelated to mass.  It is related only to size and shape of the Object, air density, and the square of relative-velocity. 

All of this is exactly like RE, applying Jack's pos/neg sign changes. 


*

Offline Clyde Frog

  • *
  • Posts: 639
  • [kʰlaɪ̯d fɹɒg]
    • View Profile
    • Werepenguin
Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #27 on: July 21, 2021, 01:02:26 PM »
Quote
The Earth's initial velocity with respect to the about-to-be-free-falling object is 0mph. It seems like you aren't taking that into consideration. I don't know why you are choosing an initial velocity of 1000mph, what that velocity is supposed to be relative to, or how you are constructing this in your head, but I think you are adding some extraneous data points that are confusing you.

If the relative velocity between the object and the earth is 0 and rate of acceleration is the same, the earth and the object will never meet.  The distance between them will always be the same.
Why would the object continue accelerating upwards when nothing is holding it up anymore? If we're talking about UA, that's why objects fall. They are above the plane of the Earth with nothing suspending them there, so the Earth rises to meet them.



Duncan suggested that the object would be subject to some air resistance, which would change the relative velocities.  That’s reasonable. That would mean even though the initial velocities are the same, the rate of acceleration and the velocity of the object would be reduced and eventually the earth and the object would meet.

The problem is they would never meet in the same time frame that we see in reality.

Quote
So if we have the earth accelerating up from 0 height at 1000 mph
What is the 1000mph relative to?? Do you really think the falling object, in your example, is suddenly moving at 1000mph relative to the surface of the Earth the moment it is dropped? You keep using that number, I do not think it means what you think it means.

In UA, if an object is suspended mid-air somehow (someone holding a rock at shoulder height, for example) and then allowed to fall, in the instant before it begins falling it is moving with a velocity relative to the surface of the Earth of 0m/s and the Earth accelerates in the direction of that object at 9.8m/s/s.

Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #28 on: July 21, 2021, 08:04:17 PM »
Quote
Please read my reply #18 again.  I'm not sure if I can make it clearer.

(In the FE Model); Immediately upon release, the Earth&Atmosphere&Object have identical velocities.  However, while the Earth&Atmosphere continue accelerating up at 9.81 m/s/s, there is now no force whatever acting upon the object so it is at constant velocity, so the Earth&Atmosphere will start to catch up with the Object.

In the seconds following release, as the accelerating atmosphere begins to have velocity relative to the object, the Object will become subject to aerodynamic drag, which will provide a force Up, beginning to accelerate the Object upwards.

It is important to note that this is upward force is not a fixed quantity. (I don't know how you came up with a figure of 2.4 (units?) for a 50 kg object).  The upward force is directly proportional to the Object's size and shape (technically, its surface area and Drag Coefficient), to air density (so it is reduced at higher altitudes) and to the square-of-air-velocity.  That "square" is important, as it means the drag force is very small at low velocities, but increases rapidly with higher airspeed.  It is not a constant force, it increases as velocity increases.

Please note that the upwards force is completely unrelated to mass.  Flat or Round Earth;

1.   The "downward" force ("gravity" or "UA") is related only to mass and a constant rate of acceleration.
2.   The "upward" force is completely unrelated to mass.  It is related only to size and shape of the Object, air density, and the square of relative-velocity.

All of this is exactly like RE, applying Jack's pos/neg sign changes.

I took all of that into account.


Here, I have calculated in meters.  @9.8, without air resistance an object(and the earth) can move will move 490 meters in 10 seconds.
With air resistance, it would take the same object 14 seconds to move the same 490 meters. For 10 seconds, that is an effective acceleration rate with air resistance of 19.29. You see that after 10 seconds, the earth is at 490m (from 0) and the object is at 964.5m.











You have to use the effective acceleration rate because you aren’t accounting for air resistance for the earth. If the earth is accelerating up and pushing on the atmosphere, the atmosphere is pushing back. It’s the whole equal and opposite thing.
If you want to compare the rate of two objects that are falling down, you can’t arbitrarily use air resistance for one and not the other and expect an accurate result. That’s exactly what you want to do.  The object and the earth are both “falling up” so to speak, but you only want to apply air resistance to the object. You either apply air resistance to both or neither. That’s why the only time (at 10s and14 s) the earth and ground meet at the same is if you ignore air resistance for both.  By using the effective acceleration rate of the object, you eliminate the need to apply it to the object.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2021, 08:27:02 PM by Mark1986 »

Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #29 on: July 21, 2021, 09:03:29 PM »
Quote
What is the 1000mph relative to?? Do you really think the falling object, in your example, is suddenly moving at 1000mph relative to the surface of the Earth the moment it is dropped? You keep using that number, I do not think it means what you think it means.

That's a good question...probably best answered by someone who actually believes the earth is accelerating up.  You are the one who claimed that the relative velocity between the object and the earth is 0.  If the relative velocity is zero, the object and earth have the same velocity.  If the earth's velocity is 1000mph, then so is the object's.


*

Offline Clyde Frog

  • *
  • Posts: 639
  • [kʰlaɪ̯d fɹɒg]
    • View Profile
    • Werepenguin
Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #30 on: July 21, 2021, 10:30:25 PM »
Quote
What is the 1000mph relative to?? Do you really think the falling object, in your example, is suddenly moving at 1000mph relative to the surface of the Earth the moment it is dropped? You keep using that number, I do not think it means what you think it means.

That's a good question...probably best answered by someone who actually believes the earth is accelerating up.
You are the one who introduced it to begin with, that's why I am asking you.

Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #31 on: July 22, 2021, 12:16:11 AM »
@Mark, without reprinting the whole thing.  Your Reply#28;

1.  First, nice that you've shown some calculations.  Thank you. 

2.  You seem to be using a mixture of SI, MPH and Ft/Sec which is confusing.

3.   How did you calculate the aerodynamic drag?  I don't see a Cd.  What is its size and shape?  How have you incorporated Velocity-squared? Why is it in units of "Kg/m"?

4.  Why are you doubling the acceleration in the FE case?

5.   Why have you specified a Mass?  Its immaterial.  But you haven't specified a size and shape (Surface area and Cd)

6.  How have you  calculated that "with air resistance it will take 14 seconds ......". 

7.  In FE (and why the f@@@ I am defending FE I'm not sure), the atmosphere is not providing any resistance to the Earth's acceleration, because there is no relative airspeed between the Earth and the atmosphere.  The Earth and its atmosphere are essentially one unit that is being accelerated upwards by a magical force*.  The acceleration of Earth serves to compress the atmosphere at its base, which is why its density decreases with altitude, but it is static, it has no inherent movement relative to the Earth so, so its velocity-squared equals zero, so its drag equals zero. 

8.  I'm with Clyde; why 1000 mph (or m/s on the spreadsheet)?


* As a side issue, we may like to ask ourselves why, in the Earthly realm, Magical Acceleration only acts directly on the Earth.  Everything else is not accelerated, unless it is supported by the Earth directly (like houses, the atmosphere, you and me) or indirectly (like an aircraft supported by the atmosphere, or the 50 kg object in your hand).  Odd thing is, that all this stuff (the houses, the object, the aircraft, molten lava) is all actually made out of Earth, but doesn't float.  Weird. 


Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2021, 12:44:16 AM »
Quote
1.  First, nice that you've shown some calculations.  Thank you. 

2.  You seem to be using a mixture of SI, MPH and Ft/Sec which is confusing.

3.   How did you calculate the aerodynamic drag?  I don't see a Cd.  What is its size and shape?  How have you incorporated Velocity-squared? Why is it in units of "Kg/m"?

4.  Why are you doubling the acceleration in the FE case?

5.   Why have you specified a Mass?  Its immaterial.  But you haven't specified a size and shape (Surface area and Cd)

6.  How have you  calculated that "with air resistance it will take 14 seconds ......". 

7.  In FE (and why the f@@@ I am defending FE I'm not sure), the atmosphere is not providing any resistance to the Earth's acceleration, because there is no relative airspeed between the Earth and the atmosphere.  The Earth and its atmosphere are essentially one unit that is being accelerated upwards by a magical force*.  The acceleration of Earth serves to compress the atmosphere at its base, which is why its density decreases with altitude, but it is static, it has no inherent movement relative to the Earth so, so its velocity-squared equals zero, so its drag equals zero. 

8.  I'm with Clyde; why 1000 mph (or m/s on the spreadsheet)?

* As a side issue, we may like to ask ourselves why, in the Earthly realm, Magical Acceleration only acts directly on the Earth.  Everything else is not accelerated, unless it is supported by the Earth directly (like houses, the atmosphere, you and me) or indirectly (like an aircraft supported by the atmosphere, or the 50 kg object in your hand).  Odd thing is, that all this stuff (the houses, the object, the aircraft, molten lava) is all actually made out of Earth, but doesn't float.  Weird.

 
1. I went back and looked through various old threads and saw the same claim being made over and over, but never could find any calculations to back it up.  I thought that was interesting. Sorry everything was so big.  I couldn't figure out how to make it smaller but still legible.

2.  I may have.  I was going back and forth with different numbers and figures and may have saved the wrong version.  I’ll go back and double check.

3.  All of those figures came from this on line calculator.  The .24 is the standard number for a skydiver.  It was pre-populated.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/free-fall-air-resistance

Quote
The default value of k = 0.24 kg/m corresponds to a person who is skydiving. Feel free to change this value as you'd like, or open the advanced mode to calculate it with the air resistance formula.

4.  Not sure what you mean.  Are you asking why the effective acceleration in 19.29?  If so, that goes back to how the on-line calculator figured it. If the object could fall 490 meters in 14 seconds @9.8, it would fall 490 meters in 10 seconds @ 19.29.  Go into the calculator and input 50 kg. Mass and 490 altitude at 9.8. It will calculate a 14 second fall time.  Change the fall time to 10 seconds and it will recalculate the rate of acceleration to 19.29.

5. Because the calculator was already pre-populated with the air resistance for a skydiver, it wasn’t necessary to include the other numbers.  The 50 kg mass was just random and the calculator wouldn't populate without something in that spot.

6. The on-line calculator figures all that. It will recalculate all the outputs when you change the inputs. See above.

7. Then you would also have to calculate the fall time of the object without air resistance otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.  The formula for distance is a*t^2/2.  9.8*t^2/2 will never give the same distance in the same time as 9.8*t^2-air resistance/2.  Different rates of acceleration without air resistance or same rate of acceleration both with air resistance might, eventually. I'm not even sure about that. But if it does, the question is whether or not it is consistent with reality.

8. It was random.  According to FE, the earth has been accelerating for only God knows how long, so we know it has some initial acceleration.  I was being conservative with 1000, but it could be anything. What’s really relevant is the relative initial velocity between the earth and the object and tbh, I’m still not clear on what that’s supposed to be. If the initial relative velocity is 0, it doesn’t matter as long as they are both the same.  If its not, we’d have to figure it out.  Another problem is the initial velocity of the earth would always be changing, so what might work at one instant in time wouldn’t work in the next instant.

Anyway, I’ll pay around with it some more tonight and double check the units and formulas and see if I come up with anything different.  Because I have no life :).

Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #33 on: July 23, 2021, 01:05:43 AM »
Quote
You are the one who introduced it to begin with, that's why I am asking you.

Sorry I wasn't more clear.  I meant I don't have the answers to that question because it's not my theory.  The earth has been accelerating according to FE, so at any given moment it has an "initial velocity".  I just picked 1000 at random.  And I don't know what it is supposed to be relative to because the story keeps changing.  Is the relative velocity between the earth and a falling object 0?  If so, and they are accelerating at the same rate, then they would never meet.  So the velocity of the falling object must be different, but I don't know what that is supposed to be, so i just started with 9.8 at 1 second.  If you think it should be something else, I can change it.

Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #34 on: July 23, 2021, 08:42:47 AM »
Quote
You are the one who introduced it to begin with, that's why I am asking you.

Sorry I wasn't more clear.  I meant I don't have the answers to that question because it's not my theory.  The earth has been accelerating according to FE, so at any given moment it has an "initial velocity".  I just picked 1000 at random.  And I don't know what it is supposed to be relative to because the story keeps changing.  Is the relative velocity between the earth and a falling object 0?  If so, and they are accelerating at the same rate, then they would never meet.  So the velocity of the falling object must be different, but I don't know what that is supposed to be, so i just started with 9.8 at 1 second.  If you think it should be something else, I can change it.

The velocity and acceleration of a SUSPENDED object are IDENTICAL to EARTH. 

At the INSTANT of RELEASE, the velocity is identical, BUT THE OBJECT STOPS ACCELERATING. 

In the seconds following release, the OBJECT MAINTAINS CONSTANT VELOCITY, BUT THE EARTH CONTINUES TO ACCELERATE, so it starts to catch up with the object. 


Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #35 on: July 23, 2021, 09:03:35 AM »
@Mark re your Reply#32,

Don't sweat it, its an interesting thought experiment, but I don't know what the drag coefficient of our hypothetical object is either.  The thing is, its like a wind tunnel.  Happy with that concept?  Drag increases with velocity, doesn't matter whether our object is accelerating in still (RE) air, or it's stationary in accelerating Wind Tunnel/FE air; same result.  And the relative acceleration is always going to 9.81 m/s/s. 

Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2021, 12:57:47 AM »
@Mark re your Reply#32,

Don't sweat it, its an interesting thought experiment, but I don't know what the drag coefficient of our hypothetical object is either.  The thing is, its like a wind tunnel.  Happy with that concept?  Drag increases with velocity, doesn't matter whether our object is accelerating in still (RE) air, or it's stationary in accelerating Wind Tunnel/FE air; same result.  And the relative acceleration is always going to 9.81 m/s/s.

Turns out life gets in the way after all.  I did end up saving the wrong version.  Instead of doing all over again, I think I found something easier.  Using the same calculator, I started with 50k skydiver, 2000m, with .24 air resistance @9.8.  It gave a fall time of 47 seconds.  From there, I just time time stepped in one 1s increments to come up with distance at any give second between 1-47.  Doing it that way changed the initial altitude a bit, but I don't think it made any significant changes.  As you can see from the chart below, we would expect to see a skydiver reach the ground on a round earth from 1982.2 meters in 47 seconds.  On a flat earth, accelerating up, the earth and the skydiver would meet around 11 seconds (with air resistance) and 8 seconds without it.

Here’s the calculator

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/free-fall-air-resistance

This one is without air resistance. 

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/free-fall



Here is the raw data.  I just cut and pasted from the calculator



I don’ t think it really matters what the drag coefficient or air resistance actually is.  For FE to be valid, every single object in existence must fall at the same rate as on an RE all the time.  I think we could pick any random drag coefficient or air resistance and somewhere there would exist such an object.  Heck, we could build one to meet whatever calculations we want.  And I don’t really think it is the acceleration rate that is the issue either.  It is the differences in velocity.  The fact that the earth and the object are moving at such different rates makes the fact that they are accelerating at the same rate meaningless. Something could be accelerating quickly, but have a lesser velocity than something accelerating slowly but with a higher velocity.  And its the velocity that determines how quickly two moving objects will meet.

Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Reply #37 on: July 25, 2021, 11:57:08 AM »
First of all, your (light brown) "47 second" line is not valid because it is a straight line.  It should be a curve as the object is accelerating, until it reaches terminal velocity, at which point it will become straight.  What is the terminal velocity?; depends on the aerodynamic drag.  You can't just interpolate linear points between zero and 47 seconds. 

Second of all, you seem to be adding the acceleration of the (RE) skydiver to the acceleration of (FE) Earthing in coming to your 8 second and 11 second estimates. 

Third of all, you are still including a hypothetical starting velocity of 100-somethings.  The initial velocity is zero, because that is the relative velocity of Earth and the object/skydiver. 

Look at it again: 

Initial relative velocity of object to Round Earth-and-atmosphere = zero.  Initial relative velocity of object to Flat-Earth-and-atmoplane = zero.

RE acceleration due to gravity = 9.81.  FE acceleration due to magical UA = 9.81. 

Drag-coefficient of object is identical in both scenarios. 

On release, object and Earth initially accelerate towards each other at identical rates in both scenarios. 

Airspeed of the objects develops identically in both scenarios. 

As airspeed is identical, the force of drag is identical. 

RE object will continue to accelerate due to gravity at 9.81, opposed by drag (which is increasing with airspeed) until the force of drag = force of gravity.  At this point, Terminal Velocity, the object will stop accelerating and will continue to fall at constant velocity until impact. 

Flat Earth-and-atmoplane will continue to accelerate at 9.81.  The object is not accelerating due to UA, but begins to feel an upward force due to drag as the atmoplane develops airspeed around it.  The drag increases with airspeed until its force = 9.81.  At this point, Terminal Velocity, the object will have identical acceleration to the Earth-Atmoplane.  Although its acceleration is identical, its universal velocity is lower, so the FE continues to approach it until impact. 

It doesn't matter what the numbers are.  For the same object in the same density air; the relative starting-velocity is zero, the acceleration of the object/air due to gravity/UA is identical, therefore the airspeed is identical, therefore the drag is identical, therefore terminal velocity is identical, therefore time-to-impact is identical.