If the Earth was accelerating "upward" constantly, bullets/projectiles would not be able to maintain straight lines or altitude for any length of time.
If the Earth was accelerating "upward" constantly, bullets/projectiles would not be able to maintain straight lines or altitude for any length of time.
You realize it would work the same way whether gravity existed or the earth was accelerating, right?
If the Earth was accelerating "upward" constantly, bullets/projectiles would not be able to maintain straight lines or altitude for any length of time.
You realize it would work the same way whether gravity existed or the earth was accelerating, right?
You realize it would NOT work the same way, right?
If the Earth was accelerating "upward" constantly, bullets/projectiles would not be able to maintain straight lines or altitude for any length of time.
You realize it would work the same way whether gravity existed or the earth was accelerating, right?
You realize it would NOT work the same way, right?
False. What do you think happens to a bullet fired "straight" immediately after it leaves the barrel? What difference do you see in gravity vs. acceleration in this instance?
It's clear you lack an understanding of basic physics. Do some research on the Equivalence Principle and apply some critical thinking. If you still have questions, I'll be around.
I presume you mean accelerating, not moving. And also that you mean 9.8m/s^2. Let me know if I'm assuming wrong.
The same thing that would happen if you dropped an object held at 2m from an accelerating object's surface.
Again, this is why we use the proper terms such as "acceleration" and not "movement." 9.8 meters per second isn't acceleration. 9.8 meters per second squared is.
If you drop an object from a height of 2 meters, it will take ~0.64 seconds to reach the ground (or accelerated object in this instance). If someone shot a bullet "straight" from a height of 2m and someone next to him dropped a bullet at the same time the other person fired, both would hit the ground at the same time (ignoring wind resistance).
This is the case for both RE gravity and FE acceleration. They are equivalent.
Again, this is why we use the proper terms such as "acceleration" and not "movement." 9.8 meters per second isn't acceleration. 9.8 meters per second squared is.
If you drop an object from a height of 2 meters, it will take ~0.64 seconds to reach the ground (or accelerated object in this instance). If someone shot a bullet "straight" from a height of 2m and someone next to him dropped a bullet at the same time the other person fired, both would hit the ground at the same time (ignoring wind resistance).
This is the case for both RE gravity and FE acceleration. They are equivalent.
This is demonstrably false. They would not hit the ground at the same time. The fired bullet would take significantly longer than half a second to finally hit the ground.
What was that thing you said about basic physics?
Obviously, this is why you dont like actually answering questions or engaging with visitors.
However, I do understand and appreciate what flat earth is supposed to be - extreme skepticism. The whole Decartes thing. Good day, folks.
Again, this is why we use the proper terms such as "acceleration" and not "movement." 9.8 meters per second isn't acceleration. 9.8 meters per second squared is.
If you drop an object from a height of 2 meters, it will take ~0.64 seconds to reach the ground (or accelerated object in this instance). If someone shot a bullet "straight" from a height of 2m and someone next to him dropped a bullet at the same time the other person fired, both would hit the ground at the same time (ignoring wind resistance).
This is the case for both RE gravity and FE acceleration. They are equivalent.
This is demonstrably false. They would not hit the ground at the same time. The fired bullet would take significantly longer than half a second to finally hit the ground.
What was that thing you said about basic physics?
Obviously, this is why you dont like actually answering questions or engaging with visitors.
However, I do understand and appreciate what flat earth is supposed to be - extreme skepticism. The whole Decartes thing. Good day, folks.
Yikes, okay, I have to assume you're just trolling at this point.
But by all means, please show it being "demonstrably false." You do know this is one of the most basic physics questions students learn the answer to, right? Please stop being so willfully ignorant. Or don't, whatever you want to do is fine. Take care.
the object in the FE model is already and has always been accelerating at the same speed as the flat earth. Because of this, it would not fall any faster then normal because you and the bullet were always accelerating upwards.
Again, this is why we use the proper terms such as "acceleration" and not "movement." 9.8 meters per second isn't acceleration. 9.8 meters per second squared is.
If you drop an object from a height of 2 meters, it will take ~0.64 seconds to reach the ground (or accelerated object in this instance). If someone shot a bullet "straight" from a height of 2m and someone next to him dropped a bullet at the same time the other person fired, both would hit the ground at the same time (ignoring wind resistance).
This is the case for both RE gravity and FE acceleration. They are equivalent.
This is demonstrably false. They would not hit the ground at the same time. The fired bullet would take significantly longer than half a second to finally hit the ground.
What was that thing you said about basic physics?
Obviously, this is why you dont like actually answering questions or engaging with visitors.
However, I do understand and appreciate what flat earth is supposed to be - extreme skepticism. The whole Decartes thing. Good day, folks.
Yikes, okay, I have to assume you're just trolling at this point.
But by all means, please show it being "demonstrably false." You do know this is one of the most basic physics questions students learn the answer to, right? Please stop being so willfully ignorant. Or don't, whatever you want to do is fine. Take care.
Dude, come on...if you shoot a bullet out of a gun at a target 100 (or more) yards away and drop a bullet at the exact moment, not only will they not hit the ground at the same time but the fired bullet wont even hit the ground (assuming a decent shot, anyway!). If the Earth was moving/accelerating (especially if it was accerlerating!) upward towards a fired projectile at ANY speed, straight lines for said projectile would be impossible.
And look, I'm not trolling. To be honest, I like arguing against these ideas because they are entertaining. They necessarily require actual reasoning instead of merely repeating what I've heard. I have to actually ask myself "Why does this version of gravity fail?" and come up with thought experiments and such. Extreme skepticism, in any form, is good for the mind.
Again, this is why we use the proper terms such as "acceleration" and not "movement." 9.8 meters per second isn't acceleration. 9.8 meters per second squared is.
If you drop an object from a height of 2 meters, it will take ~0.64 seconds to reach the ground (or accelerated object in this instance). If someone shot a bullet "straight" from a height of 2m and someone next to him dropped a bullet at the same time the other person fired, both would hit the ground at the same time (ignoring wind resistance).
This is the case for both RE gravity and FE acceleration. They are equivalent.
This is demonstrably false. They would not hit the ground at the same time. The fired bullet would take significantly longer than half a second to finally hit the ground.
What was that thing you said about basic physics?
Obviously, this is why you dont like actually answering questions or engaging with visitors.
However, I do understand and appreciate what flat earth is supposed to be - extreme skepticism. The whole Decartes thing. Good day, folks.
Yikes, okay, I have to assume you're just trolling at this point.
But by all means, please show it being "demonstrably false." You do know this is one of the most basic physics questions students learn the answer to, right? Please stop being so willfully ignorant. Or don't, whatever you want to do is fine. Take care.
Dude, come on...if you shoot a bullet out of a gun at a target 100 (or more) yards away and drop a bullet at the exact moment, not only will they not hit the ground at the same time but the fired bullet wont even hit the ground (assuming a decent shot, anyway!). If the Earth was moving/accelerating (especially if it was accerlerating!) upward towards a fired projectile at ANY speed, straight lines for said projectile would be impossible.
And look, I'm not trolling. To be honest, I like arguing against these ideas because they are entertaining. They necessarily require actual reasoning instead of merely repeating what I've heard. I have to actually ask myself "Why does this version of gravity fail?" and come up with thought experiments and such. Extreme skepticism, in any form, is good for the mind.
Okay, if you're actually interested, then look up the equivalence principle. It will explain to you why gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable. Then do a Google search on "which bullet hits the ground first." You'll find that a bullet dropped at the same time as another leaves the barrel also hits the ground at the same time as the one that was fired (again, from the same height, and ignoring wind resistance). From a technical perspective, no bullet travels in a straight line regardless of the model being used. Projectile motion is parabolic, not linear.
Yes, I clearly lack this understanding. I'm not as old, smart, or experienced as you. I'm trying to understand by asking questions. Its how I learn best. Can you please help me to understand?
1. acceleration is movement and yes: 9.8 meters per second.
This is demonstrably false. They would not hit the ground at the same time. The fired bullet would take significantly longer than half a second to finally hit the ground.
Yes, I clearly lack this understanding. I'm not as old, smart, or experienced as you. I'm trying to understand by asking questions. Its how I learn best. Can you please help me to understand?
No, you aren't trying to understand. He is giving you good answers and you are refusing to believe him. I realize it's rather difficult to believe any physics coming from a flat-earther, but in this case, he is correct. Perhaps you will believe me instead, as someone who does NOT believe the earth is flat?Quote1. acceleration is movement and yes: 9.8 meters per second.
No, acceleration is absolutely NOT the same as movement. 9.8 m/s2 is correct.QuoteThis is demonstrably false. They would not hit the ground at the same time. The fired bullet would take significantly longer than half a second to finally hit the ground.
If you assume no obstacles, air resistance, or curvature of the earth, then yes, they will hit the ground at exactly the same time. Horizontal motion and vertical motion are independent.
It's great that you are trying to learn this stuff, but you really need at least a basic understanding of highschool level physics before trying to argue this stuff. By your comments, I assume you haven't taken physics in highschool yet. If you are going to insult someone for their "understanding of basic physics", you better be REALLY sure you are correct. Better yet, just don't insult them at all.
However it does bring an interesting question to my mind about why we experience gravitational effects when we accelerate at great speeds. What causes the effects felt from what RE's call "multiple G's" in the Flat earth model?
If you assume no obstacles, air resistance, or curvature of the earth, then yes, they will hit the ground at exactly the same time. Horizontal motion and vertical motion are independent.
Ok, if I shoot a bullet at a target 100 yards away and drop a bullet at the same time, one will hit the ground and the other wont even hit the ground. Why?
Sputnik, I think I see where you've made the mistake here about bullets. If you fire the gun at a target above ground level, in order to hit that target and not hit the ground you have to aim somewhat up, above the horizontal. This immediately invalidates the comparison to a dropped bullet, because your fired bullet follows a mostly parabolic path first UP, then eventually down. (I say "mostly" parabolics because air resistance will shape the actual trajectory and deform the parabla)
Alright, lets put the target close enough and below me at an angle such that the parabolic arch would be horizontal to the surface. I'll have to shoot downward and the bullet will definitely not increase its altitude. Then, I'll drop a bullet at the same time. The dropped bullet will hit the ground and the fired projectile will not. Why?
Alright, lets put the target close enough and below me at an angle such that the parabolic arch would be horizontal to the surface. I'll have to shoot downward and the bullet will definitely not increase its altitude. Then, I'll drop a bullet at the same time. The dropped bullet will hit the ground and the fired projectile will not. Why?
Ok, now I feel like you are probably just trolling... but just in case you aren't: The target is in the way. Also, you need to shoot horizontally for the experiment to be valid.
If you don't want to wait until your highschool physics course to learn this stuff, lookup a course in kinematics. Khan academy probably has some pretty good lessons on it. Then move on to Newton's laws of motion. Then special relativity. A bit of calculus wouldn't hurt. THEN you can come and argue this stuff to your heart's content.
It is too bad that this conversation is unable to go anywhere
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)
Also, acceleration is definitely movement.
When you are accelerating, you are moving. Acceleration belongs to the set of movement.
In Other words Don't feed the Troll unless you insist on being apart of a Monty Python Sketch.
Sputnik, please at least read the Wikipedia page on the equivalence principle before trying to argue further. We didn't say that the effect of constant acceleration would be exactly the same as the effect of gravity, Einstein did. Any arguments you have with this particular aspect of our model, you have with him. So I beg you to try to at least grasp the concept of the equivalence principle before posting again. It's not a difficult concept, you only need to read the Wikipedia page to have a basic understanding of the concept.
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.
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.
Acceleration is the change of velocity. Any object that is accelerating is moving. Acceleration is a type of movement.
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.
Acceleration is the change of velocity. Any object that is accelerating is moving. Acceleration is a type of movement.
You can accelerate with zero velocity.
No one here wants to hold your hand through an entire course on kinematics. If you have the entire internet at your finger tips, then use it. Learn kinematics before trying to debate it. No, a cursory glance through wikipedia isn't enough. You need a thorough knowledge of it, including the ability to correctly answer a wide range of related practice problems. There is nothing more annoying than arrogant ignorance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
QuoteThey 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?
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)
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?
Assuming that gravity is real and not a hoax.Rearrange and
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.