#### Snoopy

• 37
##### Elevator question
« on: July 13, 2019, 01:47:27 AM »
Assume a 100 lb person

Case 1 Ascending 8 ft/sec^2
2 Ascending stopping decel same
3 Descending same
4 Descending stopping decel same
All accel decel times 2.5 sec

Person is standing on a scale

Case 1 the scale reads 125 lbs while accel
2 75 lbs
3 75 lbs
4 125 lbs
Correct?

Does the persons density (mass/volume) change?
What causes the changes in weight?

What does the scale read after 2.5 sec at constant speed of ~20 ft/sec?

« Last Edit: July 13, 2019, 01:49:09 AM by Snoopy »
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

#### reer

• 36
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2019, 05:07:07 AM »
Your calculations are correct, but your subsequent questions need some explanation. I'll base my answer on standard Round Earth physics. FEers can give their own explanation if they want.

You need to remember that mass and weight are not the same. Mass is something that is inherent to an object. Weight is a force, which depends on both mass and acceleration, with F=ma (Newton's second law).

On the surface of the earth, where the gravitational acceleration is about 9.8m/s2 the "weight" of an object is the same as its mass, i.e. a person with a mass of 100 kg will weigh 100 kg. However, on the moon, where the gravitational acceleration is 1.6 m/s2 they would weigh only 16.3 kg. To avoid the confusion of having kg (or lb) used for both mass and force, in the SI metric system kg is the unit of mass, but force is measured in Newtons (N). 1 N is the force needed to accelerate 1 kg with 1 m/s2. Hence a person with a mass of 100 kg will have a weight of 9800 N on earth, but 1600 N on the moon.

Because the imperial system does not distinguish between mass and weight, I felt I had to give the above explanation in metric units. If you do want talk in imperial units, multiply every instance of kg in the above paragraph by 0.454 and multiply every m by 0.305 to convert to ft.

1. No, the person's density does not change, because neither their mass nor their volume changes.
2. As explained above, a change in weight is not the same as a change in mass. In this case it is simply the acceleration that changes the weight, while the mass stays constant.
3. When going at constant speed there is no acceleration. Hence on earth the scale will read 100. On the moon the same scale will only read 16.3

Trivial fact: there used to be a minor difference (about 1/63000) between the British and US inch. That was finally sorted out when both countries agreed that one inch is exactly 25.4 mm. In other words, they agreed on a metric definition of the inch!

#### Snoopy

• 37
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2019, 02:35:33 PM »
Mass is a quantity of matter
Weight W is a force, in this case generated by gravity

F (lbf) = m x a
Mass m in this case = W (lb)/g in slugs
And a = g ~32 ft/sec^2
g cancels so F = W

My point is density can't explain this phenomenon.

« Last Edit: July 13, 2019, 02:41:24 PM by Snoopy »
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

#### reer

• 36
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2019, 01:27:56 AM »
Mass is a quantity of matter
Weight W is a force, in this case generated by gravity

F (lbf) = m x a
Mass m in this case = W (lb)/g in slugs
And a = g ~32 ft/sec^2
g cancels so F = W

My point is density can't explain this phenomenon.
You start by saying weight is a force, and end up stating weight is a force (W=F). Obviously.

Where does density come into the equation? The weight changes because the acceleration changes. When you are accelerating in earth's gravity field, your acceleration is added to the gravitational acceleration of the earth. That has nothing to do with density. Your error is where you say a=g. That is only true if you are not accelerating. When you are accelerating with an acceleration of x, the equation becomes a=g+x.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9805
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2019, 12:41:55 PM »
My point is density can't explain this phenomenon.
You're in the wrong place for this. Practically nobody here believes that density is a suitable explanation for the sensation of gravity. This is also why our other newcomer friend has no idea what you're talking about.

I'd recommend that you familiarise yourself with the basics, starting with the FAQ and Wiki, as originally advised in READ BEFORE POSTING: Welcome to Flat Earth Theory!
« Last Edit: July 14, 2019, 12:44:27 PM by Pete Svarrior »

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### Snoopy

• 37
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2019, 10:21:37 PM »
Mass is a quantity of matter
Weight W is a force, in this case generated by gravity

F (lbf) = m x a
Mass m in this case = W (lb)/g in slugs
And a = g ~32 ft/sec^2
g cancels so F = W

My point is density can't explain this phenomenon.
You start by saying weight is a force, and end up stating weight is a force (W=F). Obviously.

Where does density come into the equation? The weight changes because the acceleration changes. When you are accelerating in earth's gravity field, your acceleration is added to the gravitational acceleration of the earth. That has nothing to do with density. Your error is where you say a=g. That is only true if you are not accelerating. When you are accelerating with an acceleration of x, the equation becomes a=g+x.

You are stating the obvious
You are mistaken and misunderstand the point
Density has nothing to do with it
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

#### Snoopy

• 37
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2019, 10:42:29 PM »
My point is density can't explain this phenomenon.
You're in the wrong place for this. Practically nobody here believes that density is a suitable explanation for the sensation of gravity. This is also why our other newcomer friend has no idea what you're talking about.

I'd recommend that you familiarise yourself with the basics, starting with the FAQ and Wiki, as originally advised in READ BEFORE POSTING: Welcome to Flat Earth Theory!

So what do you attribute g to?
Can't be the fe's mass or it would be non-uniform over its surface.
Is it the earth being accelerated towards another much larger mass?  Or just accelerating thru a gravity field?  Or the earth is stationary and the field is moving over the earth?
Curious
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9805
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2019, 04:00:02 PM »
I'd recommend that you familiarise yourself with the basics, starting with the FAQ and Wiki, as originally advised in READ BEFORE POSTING: Welcome to Flat Earth Theory!

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### Snoopy

• 37
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2019, 01:39:57 AM »
So the earth is accelerating, thanks
At 32.2 ft/sec^2 it would be traveling at c (speed of light) in 353 days.
In the last 100 years 100c

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6493
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2019, 01:52:56 AM »
So the earth is accelerating, thanks
At 32.2 ft/sec^2 it would be traveling at c (speed of light) in 353 days.
In the last 100 years 100c

The standard model of Special Relativity allows for continual acceleration without reaching c. Frames of reference and lack of absolute coordinates.

If we discard SR due to experimental evidence which seems to contradict it, then there is no speed limit.

It's not really a problem either way.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2019, 02:14:22 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9805
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2019, 11:17:15 AM »
So the earth is accelerating, thanks
At 32.2 ft/sec^2 it would be traveling at c (speed of light) in 353 days.
In the last 100 years 100c
You realise that this is literally the next question in the FAQ, right?

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### Snoopy

• 37
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2019, 05:19:33 PM »
So the earth is accelerating, thanks
At 32.2 ft/sec^2 it would be traveling at c (speed of light) in 353 days.
In the last 100 years 100c

The standard model of Special Relativity allows for continual acceleration without reaching c. Frames of reference and lack of absolute coordinates.

If we discard SR due to experimental evidence which seems to contradict it, then there is no speed limit.

It's not really a problem either way.
If v can't exceed c then a must approach 0, no gravity

If it can we would be traveling age of earth in years x c
v = a t
t is increasing
v = c
a = constant 32.2
So at t = 353 days a must go to 0 for v to be limited to c

No gravity is a problem

Conservation of momentum
If v is limitless, ie limit to infinity and
p = m v
Mass limit goes to 0 for p to be constant
Or the rest of the system must lose p
On top of that kinetic energy
E = 1/2 m v^2 would increase faster
It would consume all energy in the universe or creat some lol

Both cases are a problem

« Last Edit: July 20, 2019, 05:23:32 PM by Snoopy »
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

#### Snoopy

• 37
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2019, 05:53:44 PM »
This raises more 's
What is the source of the force attracting (repelling) the earth?
If we get closer (further) does it change?  Will we hit the source?
How far away is it?

If earth limited to v = c and we shine a flashlight up why does it work?
The light beam must be > c!?
This proves c is not the limit!

So therefore a (g in this case) has propelled us to 5000 x c in the last 5000 years
93e7 or 0.93 billion miles/sec
3.35 trillion mph
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

#### Snoopy

• 37
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2019, 01:07:37 AM »
One argument used to dismiss the earth orbiting the sun is that it is ridiculous to assume the earth is moving ~18.4 mi/sec

But it is plausible for it to be hurtling 'upwards' at c (or 1000's x c)?
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9805
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #14 on: July 23, 2019, 03:59:00 AM »
But it is plausible for it to be hurtling 'upwards' at c (or 1000's x c)?
It was already explained to you that this is not even remotely the case. Read up on Special Relativity.

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 3798
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2019, 01:47:44 PM »
But it is plausible for it to be hurtling 'upwards' at c (or 1000's x c)?
It was already explained to you that this is not even remotely the case. Read up on Special Relativity.
Regardless of the actual velocity, UA theory says that the some mysterious force has been actively accelerating the flat earth upwards for a very, very long time.  How is that more plausible than the more or less a passive phenomenon commonly referred to as gravity?
« Last Edit: July 23, 2019, 01:49:29 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9805
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2019, 01:55:55 PM »
Regardless of the actual velocity, UA theory says that the some mysterious force has been actively accelerating the flat earth upwards for a very, very long time.  How is that more plausible than the more or less a passive phenomenon commonly referred to as gravity?
Presumably you mean gravitation; in which case UA is a superior possibility because it doesn't share gravitation's inconsistency with observed reality.

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 3798
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2019, 02:22:23 PM »
Regardless of the actual velocity, UA theory says that the some mysterious force has been actively accelerating the flat earth upwards for a very, very long time.  How is that more plausible than the more or less a passive phenomenon commonly referred to as gravity?
Presumably you mean gravitation; in which case UA is a superior possibility because it doesn't share gravitation's inconsistency with observed reality.
Please elaborate.  To which "inconsistency with observed reality" are you referring?  Are you suggesting that UA doesn't have its own "inconsistency with observed reality"?
« Last Edit: July 23, 2019, 02:24:17 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 9805
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2019, 02:23:55 PM »
Please elaborate.  To which "inconsistency with observed reality" are you referring?
You and I have had this discussion many times before. I see no reason to repeat myself if you're not even going to bother trying to remember.

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 3798
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Elevator question
« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2019, 02:34:10 PM »
Please elaborate.  To which "inconsistency with observed reality" are you referring?
You and I have had this discussion many times before. I see no reason to repeat myself if you're not even going to bother trying to remember.
Just because we may or may not have had this discussion before, that doesn't necessarily mean that I ever got a satisfactory answer out of you.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.