Can you acknowledge that acceleration still exists?
Say I lift off, if I am not Calibrating for any perceived 'ahift' the pilot would likely not get his license. So first off, I think a lot of this is steady and pretty subtle at our time frame and scales of reference. So when the plane moves, it's accelerating relative to the ground ....so that relative frame of reference is important because it is how we 'measure' speed..
The velocity of the plane relative to the center....is another matter entirely (angular velocity matters there and so does angular momentum. What I mean is that the plane is being brought around with the earths system. Which also includes the ground reference point. So when we accelerate and measure out speed it is towards the ground ..but that moves with reference to the center....does that make sense?
So the reason you don't feel the perceived difference is because your always referencing the ground, but not the center.
Like that body and earth are separate.....somehow....you imagine a vacuum between them....
You say things like density....but ignore the air....just stop it. It's so obvious the mistake you have made to me...it's just in your blind spot and it's annoying because to me...you are making a logical fallacy....
To make an analogy. You could code your ideas and they are logically consistent with your assumptions.
But...you couldn't feed real world data in and get out valid responses, because you are missing some assumptions (also called axioms)
I am not calling out your 'logic' with the rules you have in your mind. I am calling out the assumptions they rest on.
Your assumptions are all simplifications which are ignoring many real world elements that would have actual tangible effects on your outcomes.
Namely wind resistance, the fact you are not 'leaving' the earth until you get to orbit ...etc.
You math was wrong....just sorry...but that's how the math calculation works.
You want to redefine math too to make it work???
You misunderstood change in velocity...as in what that even means.....you need a reference....so what is the reference???
--
You also don't realise that angular momentum and angular velocity are at play.... Which have different references to your 'observations'
Can you acknowledge that acceleration still exists?
Say I lift off, if I am not Calibrating for any perceived 'ahift' the pilot would likely not get his license. So first off, I think a lot of this is steady and pretty subtle at our time frame and scales of reference. So when the plane moves, it's accelerating relative to the ground ....so that relative frame of reference is important because it is how we 'measure' speed..
The velocity of the plane relative to the center....is another matter entirely (angular velocity matters there and so does angular momentum. What I mean is that the plane is being brought around with the earths system. Which also includes the ground reference point. So when we accelerate and measure out speed it is towards the ground ..but that moves with reference to the center....does that make sense?
So the reason you don't feel the perceived difference is because your always referencing the ground, but not the center.
You have no physical understanding....sorry you cannot think...you actually think air is separate....wow......hahahahahaha
You also believe in the electric universe....so.....yeah....why would the air....not have charge ...not be connected....Jesus you are so helpless...
Wave you hand in front your face....feel the air....wow....miracle.
No grab a kite....and fly it...wowowwww holy fucking shit!!! How could it be??
You are so wrong man...it's sad, not funny.
You seem to think the system isnt closed....
Like that body and earth are separate.....somehow....you imagine a vacuum between them....
You say things like density....but ignore the air....just stop it. It's so obvious the mistake you have made to me...it's just in your blind spot and it's annoying because to me...you are making a logical fallacy....
To make an analogy. You could code your ideas and they are logically consistent with your assumptions.
But...you couldn't feed real world data in and get out valid responses, because you are missing some assumptions (also called axioms)
I am not calling out your 'logic' with the rules you have in your mind. I am calling out the assumptions they rest on.
Your assumptions are all simplifications which are ignoring many real world elements that would have actual tangible effects on your outcomes.
Namely wind resistance, the fact you are not 'leaving' the earth until you get to orbit ...etc.
You need to keep the assumptions in line.