Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #406996 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-28 06:58 +1100 |
| Last post | 2017-02-01 12:18 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 79 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-28 06:58 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-27 20:15 +0000
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 14:20 -0600
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-27 20:30 +0000
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-02-02 02:17 +0100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Irvin Starrett <etrrarn@arneir.etr> - 2017-02-02 05:03 +0000
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-02-02 12:37 +0100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-28 00:48 +0000
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-29 09:44 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 15:03 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-27 14:33 -0600
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-29 10:04 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-29 10:31 +0100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-30 06:46 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-29 21:55 +0100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-30 20:40 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-30 21:20 +0100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-31 20:05 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Juanita Forney <iatiet@oetnnrn.org> - 2017-01-31 10:54 +0000
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-01 09:40 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-31 10:20 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-01 09:27 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-31 15:45 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-01 11:04 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-01 11:12 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-01 16:47 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-31 19:42 -0600
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-02 06:58 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-01 14:42 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-02 10:53 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-01 14:00 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-30 17:50 -0500
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? xxein1@att.net - 2017-01-30 17:39 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-31 20:08 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-30 09:06 -0600
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-31 20:12 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-28 12:04 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-28 03:03 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-29 13:26 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-01-29 11:40 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-28 18:21 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-29 13:27 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-29 00:45 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-29 11:52 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-29 12:51 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-29 14:36 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-29 18:04 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-30 23:42 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 20:10 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-31 10:17 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-01 09:43 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-02 22:44 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-02 09:37 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-03 08:24 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-03 16:59 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-04 12:08 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-03 20:18 -0500
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-03 21:39 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-04 12:37 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-04 14:32 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-03 20:23 -0500
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-04 12:06 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-29 19:50 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-29 19:59 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-30 06:50 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-30 09:25 -0600
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-01-31 20:19 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Juanita Forney <iatiet@oetnnrn.org> - 2017-01-31 10:59 +0000
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-31 10:49 -0600
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-01-31 10:44 -0600
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-01 10:10 +1100
Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-30 19:03 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-01-31 10:43 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-01 10:12 +1100
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-01 11:46 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 15:20 -0800
Re: Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-02-02 07:00 +1100
Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 12:13 -0800
Let's Get This Straight. Is Free Falling 'Inertial' or Is it NOT? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 12:18 -0800
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-28 18:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <588D51A9.3D3F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407027 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 28/01/2017 6:58 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > To a person on the ground, an object falling to Earth is accelerating, > > as in dv/dt (ignore air). It also appears to be accelerating relative to > > Earth when viewed from the moon. ...yet it has been claimed here that > > the state of free fall is inertial. > > Note, all massive objects in the universe are freely 'falling' so can > > their 'reference frames' be regarded as inertial? > > A person on the ground is not inertial, so the requirement that the laws > of physics by the same for all inertial observers does not apply to the > person on the ground. An inertial body accelerates in the frame of a > non-inertial observer. > > As for massive bodies being inertial, the problem is that, in common > with all observers, the volume of space regarded as being inertial for > the observer is that volume where the gravitational field doesn't vary > significantly in either intensity or direction. A massive body itself > creates a field that varies in intensity and direction, so the volume of > space regarded as inertial is much smaller than the body. > > Sylvia. the person on the ground is falling.. people fall in holes... the earth is falling everything is falling..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-29 13:27 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ef528kFqm0eU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #407093 |
On 29/01/2017 1:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> On 28/01/2017 6:58 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: >>> To a person on the ground, an object falling to Earth is accelerating, >>> as in dv/dt (ignore air). It also appears to be accelerating relative to >>> Earth when viewed from the moon. ...yet it has been claimed here that >>> the state of free fall is inertial. >>> Note, all massive objects in the universe are freely 'falling' so can >>> their 'reference frames' be regarded as inertial? >> >> A person on the ground is not inertial, so the requirement that the laws >> of physics by the same for all inertial observers does not apply to the >> person on the ground. An inertial body accelerates in the frame of a >> non-inertial observer. >> >> As for massive bodies being inertial, the problem is that, in common >> with all observers, the volume of space regarded as being inertial for >> the observer is that volume where the gravitational field doesn't vary >> significantly in either intensity or direction. A massive body itself >> creates a field that varies in intensity and direction, so the volume of >> space regarded as inertial is much smaller than the body. >> >> Sylvia. > > > > the person on the ground is falling.. > > > people fall in holes... While person is falling into a hole, and not touching anything, they're inertial (ignoring air resistance). Before they started to fall, they were not inertial. When they reach the bottom of the hole, they're again not inertial. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-29 00:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <588DABB2.7B39@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407095 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 29/01/2017 1:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > >> On 28/01/2017 6:58 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > >>> To a person on the ground, an object falling to Earth is accelerating, > >>> as in dv/dt (ignore air). It also appears to be accelerating relative to > >>> Earth when viewed from the moon. ...yet it has been claimed here that > >>> the state of free fall is inertial. > >>> Note, all massive objects in the universe are freely 'falling' so can > >>> their 'reference frames' be regarded as inertial? > >> > >> A person on the ground is not inertial, so the requirement that the laws > >> of physics by the same for all inertial observers does not apply to the > >> person on the ground. An inertial body accelerates in the frame of a > >> non-inertial observer. > >> > >> As for massive bodies being inertial, the problem is that, in common > >> with all observers, the volume of space regarded as being inertial for > >> the observer is that volume where the gravitational field doesn't vary > >> significantly in either intensity or direction. A massive body itself > >> creates a field that varies in intensity and direction, so the volume of > >> space regarded as inertial is much smaller than the body. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > the person on the ground is falling.. > > > > > > people fall in holes... > > While person is falling into a hole, and not touching anything, they're > inertial (ignoring air resistance). Before they started to fall, they > were not inertial. When they reach the bottom of the hole, they're again > not inertial. > > Sylvia. (i was thinking of a bottom less hole) i'm a little confused, the earth is faling with the person at the same time... if they are both falling at the sametime...where is the resistance?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-29 11:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <588E47FF.F26@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407114 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 29/01/2017 1:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> > > >> On 28/01/2017 6:58 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > >>> To a person on the ground, an object falling to Earth is accelerating, > > >>> as in dv/dt (ignore air). It also appears to be accelerating relative to > > >>> Earth when viewed from the moon. ...yet it has been claimed here that > > >>> the state of free fall is inertial. > > >>> Note, all massive objects in the universe are freely 'falling' so can > > >>> their 'reference frames' be regarded as inertial? > > >> > > >> A person on the ground is not inertial, so the requirement that the laws > > >> of physics by the same for all inertial observers does not apply to the > > >> person on the ground. An inertial body accelerates in the frame of a > > >> non-inertial observer. > > >> > > >> As for massive bodies being inertial, the problem is that, in common > > >> with all observers, the volume of space regarded as being inertial for > > >> the observer is that volume where the gravitational field doesn't vary > > >> significantly in either intensity or direction. A massive body itself > > >> creates a field that varies in intensity and direction, so the volume of > > >> space regarded as inertial is much smaller than the body. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > > > > the person on the ground is falling.. > > > > > > > > > people fall in holes... > > > > While person is falling into a hole, and not touching anything, they're > > inertial (ignoring air resistance). Before they started to fall, they > > were not inertial. When they reach the bottom of the hole, they're again > > not inertial. > > > > Sylvia. > > (i was thinking of a bottom less hole) > > i'm a little confused, the earth is faling with the person at the same > time... > if they are both falling at the sametime...where is the resistance? birds don't fly, they fall...but they create a resistance with their wings. i'm not creating any resistance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-29 12:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <588E55C3.2B28@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407141 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > On 29/01/2017 1:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On 28/01/2017 6:58 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > > >>> To a person on the ground, an object falling to Earth is accelerating, > > > >>> as in dv/dt (ignore air). It also appears to be accelerating relative to > > > >>> Earth when viewed from the moon. ...yet it has been claimed here that > > > >>> the state of free fall is inertial. > > > >>> Note, all massive objects in the universe are freely 'falling' so can > > > >>> their 'reference frames' be regarded as inertial? > > > >> > > > >> A person on the ground is not inertial, so the requirement that the laws > > > >> of physics by the same for all inertial observers does not apply to the > > > >> person on the ground. An inertial body accelerates in the frame of a > > > >> non-inertial observer. > > > >> > > > >> As for massive bodies being inertial, the problem is that, in common > > > >> with all observers, the volume of space regarded as being inertial for > > > >> the observer is that volume where the gravitational field doesn't vary > > > >> significantly in either intensity or direction. A massive body itself > > > >> creates a field that varies in intensity and direction, so the volume of > > > >> space regarded as inertial is much smaller than the body. > > > >> > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the person on the ground is falling.. > > > > > > > > > > > > people fall in holes... > > > > > > While person is falling into a hole, and not touching anything, they're > > > inertial (ignoring air resistance). Before they started to fall, they > > > were not inertial. When they reach the bottom of the hole, they're again > > > not inertial. > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > (i was thinking of a bottom less hole) > > > > i'm a little confused, the earth is faling with the person at the same > > time... > > if they are both falling at the sametime...where is the resistance? > > birds don't fly, they fall...but they create a resistance with their > wings. > > i'm not creating any resistance. a baby doesn't learn how to walk...it learns how not to fall, this way or that way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-29 14:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <588E6E82.2D31@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407151 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > > > On 29/01/2017 1:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> On 28/01/2017 6:58 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > > > >>> To a person on the ground, an object falling to Earth is accelerating, > > > > >>> as in dv/dt (ignore air). It also appears to be accelerating relative to > > > > >>> Earth when viewed from the moon. ...yet it has been claimed here that > > > > >>> the state of free fall is inertial. > > > > >>> Note, all massive objects in the universe are freely 'falling' so can > > > > >>> their 'reference frames' be regarded as inertial? > > > > >> > > > > >> A person on the ground is not inertial, so the requirement that the laws > > > > >> of physics by the same for all inertial observers does not apply to the > > > > >> person on the ground. An inertial body accelerates in the frame of a > > > > >> non-inertial observer. > > > > >> > > > > >> As for massive bodies being inertial, the problem is that, in common > > > > >> with all observers, the volume of space regarded as being inertial for > > > > >> the observer is that volume where the gravitational field doesn't vary > > > > >> significantly in either intensity or direction. A massive body itself > > > > >> creates a field that varies in intensity and direction, so the volume of > > > > >> space regarded as inertial is much smaller than the body. > > > > >> > > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the person on the ground is falling.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people fall in holes... > > > > > > > > While person is falling into a hole, and not touching anything, they're > > > > inertial (ignoring air resistance). Before they started to fall, they > > > > were not inertial. When they reach the bottom of the hole, they're again > > > > not inertial. > > > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > > > (i was thinking of a bottom less hole) > > > > > > i'm a little confused, the earth is faling with the person at the same > > > time... > > > if they are both falling at the sametime...where is the resistance? > > > > birds don't fly, they fall...but they create a resistance with their > > wings. > > > > i'm not creating any resistance. > > a baby doesn't learn how to walk...it learns how not to fall, this way > or that way. but if you understand the nature of things, you pick up a stone...let it go, it falls down. it doesn't fall up. or this way or that way...just down.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-29 18:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <588E9F1C.527A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407157 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 29/01/2017 1:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 28/01/2017 6:58 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > > > > >>> To a person on the ground, an object falling to Earth is accelerating, > > > > > >>> as in dv/dt (ignore air). It also appears to be accelerating relative to > > > > > >>> Earth when viewed from the moon. ...yet it has been claimed here that > > > > > >>> the state of free fall is inertial. > > > > > >>> Note, all massive objects in the universe are freely 'falling' so can > > > > > >>> their 'reference frames' be regarded as inertial? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> A person on the ground is not inertial, so the requirement that the laws > > > > > >> of physics by the same for all inertial observers does not apply to the > > > > > >> person on the ground. An inertial body accelerates in the frame of a > > > > > >> non-inertial observer. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> As for massive bodies being inertial, the problem is that, in common > > > > > >> with all observers, the volume of space regarded as being inertial for > > > > > >> the observer is that volume where the gravitational field doesn't vary > > > > > >> significantly in either intensity or direction. A massive body itself > > > > > >> creates a field that varies in intensity and direction, so the volume of > > > > > >> space regarded as inertial is much smaller than the body. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the person on the ground is falling.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people fall in holes... > > > > > > > > > > While person is falling into a hole, and not touching anything, they're > > > > > inertial (ignoring air resistance). Before they started to fall, they > > > > > were not inertial. When they reach the bottom of the hole, they're again > > > > > not inertial. > > > > > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > > > > > (i was thinking of a bottom less hole) > > > > > > > > i'm a little confused, the earth is faling with the person at the same > > > > time... > > > > if they are both falling at the sametime...where is the resistance? > > > > > > birds don't fly, they fall...but they create a resistance with their > > > wings. > > > > > > i'm not creating any resistance. > > > > a baby doesn't learn how to walk...it learns how not to fall, this way > > or that way. > > but if you understand the nature of things, you pick up a stone...let it > go, it falls down. > > it doesn't fall up. > > or this way or that way...just down. let me get this straight.. if i drop two stones they both fall down at the same time.. what difference does it make if one stone is walking on the other stone?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-30 23:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58903FE0.1FC0@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407180 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 29/01/2017 1:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On 28/01/2017 6:58 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > > > > > > >>> To a person on the ground, an object falling to Earth is accelerating, > > > > > > >>> as in dv/dt (ignore air). It also appears to be accelerating relative to > > > > > > >>> Earth when viewed from the moon. ...yet it has been claimed here that > > > > > > >>> the state of free fall is inertial. > > > > > > >>> Note, all massive objects in the universe are freely 'falling' so can > > > > > > >>> their 'reference frames' be regarded as inertial? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> A person on the ground is not inertial, so the requirement that the laws > > > > > > >> of physics by the same for all inertial observers does not apply to the > > > > > > >> person on the ground. An inertial body accelerates in the frame of a > > > > > > >> non-inertial observer. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> As for massive bodies being inertial, the problem is that, in common > > > > > > >> with all observers, the volume of space regarded as being inertial for > > > > > > >> the observer is that volume where the gravitational field doesn't vary > > > > > > >> significantly in either intensity or direction. A massive body itself > > > > > > >> creates a field that varies in intensity and direction, so the volume of > > > > > > >> space regarded as inertial is much smaller than the body. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the person on the ground is falling.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people fall in holes... > > > > > > > > > > > > While person is falling into a hole, and not touching anything, they're > > > > > > inertial (ignoring air resistance). Before they started to fall, they > > > > > > were not inertial. When they reach the bottom of the hole, they're again > > > > > > not inertial. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > > (i was thinking of a bottom less hole) > > > > > > > > > > i'm a little confused, the earth is faling with the person at the same > > > > > time... > > > > > if they are both falling at the sametime...where is the resistance? > > > > > > > > birds don't fly, they fall...but they create a resistance with their > > > > wings. > > > > > > > > i'm not creating any resistance. > > > > > > a baby doesn't learn how to walk...it learns how not to fall, this way > > > or that way. > > > > but if you understand the nature of things, you pick up a stone...let it > > go, it falls down. > > > > it doesn't fall up. > > > > or this way or that way...just down. > > let me get this straight.. > > if i drop two stones > they both fall down > at the same time.. > > what difference does it > make if one stone is > > walking on the other stone? Now, some of yous might be under the impression that what holds the earth also drops the earth.. or the force that keeps the earth from falling is the same force that makes things ....fall. i don't buy it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 20:10 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <efb2j9F24k9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #407314 |
On 31/01/2017 6:42 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Now, some of yous might be under the impression that > what holds the earth also drops the earth.. > or > the force that keeps the earth from falling is the same force that makes > things ....fall. What makes you think that the Earth isn't falling? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-31 10:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5890D4AB.688F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407324 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 31/01/2017 6:42 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Now, some of yous might be under the impression that > > what holds the earth also drops the earth.. > > or > > the force that keeps the earth from falling is the same force that makes > > things ....fall. > > What makes you think that the Earth isn't falling? > > Sylvia. what i mean is 'continously' falling in a straight line...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 09:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o6r3tf$1omb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #407384 |
On 01/02/17 05:17, The Starmaker wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> On 31/01/2017 6:42 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >> >>> Now, some of yous might be under the impression that >>> what holds the earth also drops the earth.. >>> or >>> the force that keeps the earth from falling is the same force that makes >>> things ....fall. >> >> What makes you think that the Earth isn't falling? >> >> Sylvia. > > > what i mean is 'continously' falling in a straight line... Every massive body in the universe is falling in some kind of CURVED n-body orbit...where n = infinity. Please don't try to calculate any...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 22:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <efgkchF6150U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #407384 |
On 1/02/2017 5:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> On 31/01/2017 6:42 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >> >>> Now, some of yous might be under the impression that >>> what holds the earth also drops the earth.. >>> or >>> the force that keeps the earth from falling is the same force that makes >>> things ....fall. >> >> What makes you think that the Earth isn't falling? >> >> Sylvia. > > > what i mean is 'continously' falling in a straight line... > Things rarely do that, even on Earth. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 09:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58936E3C.63E6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407579 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 1/02/2017 5:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > >> On 31/01/2017 6:42 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >> > >>> Now, some of yous might be under the impression that > >>> what holds the earth also drops the earth.. > >>> or > >>> the force that keeps the earth from falling is the same force that makes > >>> things ....fall. > >> > >> What makes you think that the Earth isn't falling? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > what i mean is 'continously' falling in a straight line... > > > > Things rarely do that, even on Earth. > > Sylvia. it falls up?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 08:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5894AEDB.7849@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407579 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 1/02/2017 5:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > >> On 31/01/2017 6:42 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >> > >>> Now, some of yous might be under the impression that > >>> what holds the earth also drops the earth.. > >>> or > >>> the force that keeps the earth from falling is the same force that makes > >>> things ....fall. > >> > >> What makes you think that the Earth isn't falling? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > what i mean is 'continously' falling in a straight line... > > > > Things rarely do that, even on Earth. > > Sylvia. rarely do what? continously fall?? You barely can stay awake, you Fall asleep! You got 6 billion people everyday Falling asleep. You are continously balancing yourself so you don't Fall. You got 6 billion people everyday ...falling. Birds don't fly, they fall. And when you fall, you fall in a straight line. Name on thing that doesn't fall in a straight line? If you can...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 16:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58952777.670B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407689 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 1/02/2017 5:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> > > >> On 31/01/2017 6:42 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >> > > >>> Now, some of yous might be under the impression that > > >>> what holds the earth also drops the earth.. > > >>> or > > >>> the force that keeps the earth from falling is the same force that makes > > >>> things ....fall. > > >> > > >> What makes you think that the Earth isn't falling? > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > > what i mean is 'continously' falling in a straight line... > > > > > > > Things rarely do that, even on Earth. > > > > Sylvia. > > rarely do what? continously fall?? > > You barely can stay awake, you Fall asleep! > > You got 6 billion people everyday Falling asleep. > > You are continously balancing yourself so you don't Fall. > > You got 6 billion people everyday ...falling. > > Birds don't fly, they fall. > > And when you fall, you fall in a straight line. > > Name one thing that doesn't fall in a straight line? If you can... No, i didn't think anyone could come up with one thing that doesn't fall in a straight line... ..don't drop any eggs. or any cats off a roof top.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 12:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <efkns1F1ctqU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #407786 |
On 4/02/2017 11:59 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: >> >> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >>> On 1/02/2017 5:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 31/01/2017 6:42 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Now, some of yous might be under the impression that >>>>>> what holds the earth also drops the earth.. >>>>>> or >>>>>> the force that keeps the earth from falling is the same force that makes >>>>>> things ....fall. >>>>> >>>>> What makes you think that the Earth isn't falling? >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> >>>> what i mean is 'continously' falling in a straight line... >>>> >>> >>> Things rarely do that, even on Earth. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> rarely do what? continously fall?? >> >> You barely can stay awake, you Fall asleep! >> >> You got 6 billion people everyday Falling asleep. >> >> You are continously balancing yourself so you don't Fall. >> >> You got 6 billion people everyday ...falling. >> >> Birds don't fly, they fall. >> >> And when you fall, you fall in a straight line. >> >> Name one thing that doesn't fall in a straight line? If you can... > > > No, i didn't think anyone could come up with one thing that doesn't fall > in a straight line... Cricket balls, shot birds, Apollo return capsules. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 20:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <58952bf2$0$34687$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #407789 |
On 2/3/2017 8:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/02/2017 11:59 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >> The Starmaker wrote: >>> >>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>> On 1/02/2017 5:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 31/01/2017 6:42 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, some of yous might be under the impression that >>>>>>> what holds the earth also drops the earth.. >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> the force that keeps the earth from falling is the same force >>>>>>> that makes >>>>>>> things ....fall. >>>>>> >>>>>> What makes you think that the Earth isn't falling? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> what i mean is 'continously' falling in a straight line... >>>>> >>>> >>>> Things rarely do that, even on Earth. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> rarely do what? continously fall?? >>> >>> You barely can stay awake, you Fall asleep! >>> >>> You got 6 billion people everyday Falling asleep. >>> >>> You are continously balancing yourself so you don't Fall. >>> >>> You got 6 billion people everyday ...falling. >>> >>> Birds don't fly, they fall. >>> >>> And when you fall, you fall in a straight line. >>> >>> Name one thing that doesn't fall in a straight line? If you can... >> >> >> No, i didn't think anyone could come up with one thing that doesn't fall >> in a straight line... > > Cricket balls, shot birds, Apollo return capsules. > > Sylvia. > Apollo return capsule was a hoax and didn't follow any line, Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 21:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58956916.450C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407789 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 4/02/2017 11:59 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > >> > >> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> > >>> On 1/02/2017 5:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 31/01/2017 6:42 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Now, some of yous might be under the impression that > >>>>>> what holds the earth also drops the earth.. > >>>>>> or > >>>>>> the force that keeps the earth from falling is the same force that makes > >>>>>> things ....fall. > >>>>> > >>>>> What makes you think that the Earth isn't falling? > >>>>> > >>>>> Sylvia. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> what i mean is 'continously' falling in a straight line... > >>>> > >>> > >>> Things rarely do that, even on Earth. > >>> > >>> Sylvia. > >> > >> rarely do what? continously fall?? > >> > >> You barely can stay awake, you Fall asleep! > >> > >> You got 6 billion people everyday Falling asleep. > >> > >> You are continously balancing yourself so you don't Fall. > >> > >> You got 6 billion people everyday ...falling. > >> > >> Birds don't fly, they fall. > >> > >> And when you fall, you fall in a straight line. > >> > >> Name one thing that doesn't fall in a straight line? If you can... > > > > > > No, i didn't think anyone could come up with one thing that doesn't fall > > in a straight line... > > Cricket balls, shot birds, Apollo return capsules. > > Sylvia. You're trying to tell me 6 billion on earth are balancing themselves everyday so they wouldn't fall because a force you call Gravity is making them fall? That doesn't make sense. Why would Gravity want to make 6 billion people fall, and hold onto the Earth at the same time????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 12:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58963B7D.28A6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #407801 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 4/02/2017 11:59 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > >> > > >> Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On 1/02/2017 5:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 31/01/2017 6:42 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Now, some of yous might be under the impression that > > >>>>>> what holds the earth also drops the earth.. > > >>>>>> or > > >>>>>> the force that keeps the earth from falling is the same force that makes > > >>>>>> things ....fall. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> What makes you think that the Earth isn't falling? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> what i mean is 'continously' falling in a straight line... > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> Things rarely do that, even on Earth. > > >>> > > >>> Sylvia. > > >> > > >> rarely do what? continously fall?? > > >> > > >> You barely can stay awake, you Fall asleep! > > >> > > >> You got 6 billion people everyday Falling asleep. > > >> > > >> You are continously balancing yourself so you don't Fall. > > >> > > >> You got 6 billion people everyday ...falling. > > >> > > >> Birds don't fly, they fall. > > >> > > >> And when you fall, you fall in a straight line. > > >> > > >> Name one thing that doesn't fall in a straight line? If you can... > > > > > > > > > No, i didn't think anyone could come up with one thing that doesn't fall > > > in a straight line... > > > > Cricket balls, shot birds, Apollo return capsules. > > > > Sylvia. > > You're trying to tell me 6 billion on earth are balancing themselves > everyday so they wouldn't fall because > a force you call Gravity is making them fall? That doesn't make sense. > Why would Gravity want to make > 6 billion people fall, and hold onto the Earth at the same time???? i keep forgetting, gravity is... 'just a theory'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 14:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ce41ff35-c668-420f-adfe-c96ab345a1a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #407872 |
W dniu sobota, 4 lutego 2017 21:37:25 UTC+1 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > > > On 4/02/2017 11:59 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> On 1/02/2017 5:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > >>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On 31/01/2017 6:42 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Now, some of yous might be under the impression that > > > >>>>>> what holds the earth also drops the earth.. > > > >>>>>> or > > > >>>>>> the force that keeps the earth from falling is the same force that makes > > > >>>>>> things ....fall. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> What makes you think that the Earth isn't falling? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Sylvia. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> what i mean is 'continously' falling in a straight line... > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Things rarely do that, even on Earth. > > > >>> > > > >>> Sylvia. > > > >> > > > >> rarely do what? continously fall?? > > > >> > > > >> You barely can stay awake, you Fall asleep! > > > >> > > > >> You got 6 billion people everyday Falling asleep. > > > >> > > > >> You are continously balancing yourself so you don't Fall. > > > >> > > > >> You got 6 billion people everyday ...falling. > > > >> > > > >> Birds don't fly, they fall. > > > >> > > > >> And when you fall, you fall in a straight line. > > > >> > > > >> Name one thing that doesn't fall in a straight line? If you can... > > > > > > > > > > > > No, i didn't think anyone could come up with one thing that doesn't fall > > > > in a straight line... > > > > > > Cricket balls, shot birds, Apollo return capsules. > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > You're trying to tell me 6 billion on earth are balancing themselves > > everyday so they wouldn't fall because > > a force you call Gravity is making them fall? That doesn't make sense. > > Why would Gravity want to make > > 6 billion people fall, and hold onto the Earth at the same time???? > > > > i keep forgetting, gravity is... 'just a theory'. No. There in no gravity theory yet. The gravity is for now just a fact..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web