Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)

  • 883 Replies
  • 104956 Views
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #780 on: September 01, 2008, 05:50:19 AM »
I've obviously misinterpreted barnets post. If we're travelling in a plane at a constant speed at a constant height above Sea Level, what is the reading on the acclerometer? And what is it measuring?

9.8 m s-2 upwards. It is measuring its own acceleration.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #781 on: September 01, 2008, 05:50:42 AM »
I've obviously misinterpreted barnets post. If we're travelling in a plane at a constant speed at a constant height above Sea Level, what is the reading on the acclerometer? And what is it measuring?

It's OK, it gets a bit confusing if you start including calibrating it to read zero on the ground and so on.  I am assuming that on the ground/in the plane (constant altitude), the accelerometer is measuring the acceleration due to the contact force of you standing on the floor. What is happening, essentially, is that a test mass is 'falling' towards the ground on one end of a spring. The other end of the spring is attached to you, which can not fall since you are standing on the ground, therefore it measures an extension of the spring and outputs an acceleration.

Now imagine you have just jumped out of the plane. Now the weight on the spring is falling towards the ground, but so are you (at exactly the same rate).  The spring does not extend and so no acceleration is measured. This will be the same in orbit or anywhere else where you are in free fall.  Once you are out of the plane, the drag from the air will start to increase, which means the accelerometer can start to extend again (giving a reading) until you reach terminal velocity and the reading is the same as on the ground.

Does this make sense?
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #782 on: September 01, 2008, 05:55:34 AM »
I like how even Matrix is trying to tell him he's wrong now, and he's an REer.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #783 on: September 01, 2008, 05:59:24 AM »
Hey, nobody's perfect! ;)
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #784 on: September 01, 2008, 07:38:25 AM »
I've obviously misinterpreted barnets post. If we're travelling in a plane at a constant speed at a constant height above Sea Level, what is the reading on the acclerometer? And what is it measuring?

It's OK, it gets a bit confusing if you start including calibrating it to read zero on the ground and so on.  I am assuming that on the ground/in the plane (constant altitude), the accelerometer is measuring the acceleration due to the contact force of you standing on the floor. What is happening, essentially, is that a test mass is 'falling' towards the ground on one end of a spring. The other end of the spring is attached to you, which can not fall since you are standing on the ground, therefore it measures an extension of the spring and outputs an acceleration.

Now imagine you have just jumped out of the plane. Now the weight on the spring is falling towards the ground, but so are you (at exactly the same rate).  The spring does not extend and so no acceleration is measured. This will be the same in orbit or anywhere else where you are in free fall.  Once you are out of the plane, the drag from the air will start to increase, which means the accelerometer can start to extend again (giving a reading) until you reach terminal velocity and the reading is the same as on the ground.

Does this make sense?
Yes. Barnets post said that it measures acceleration in relation to itself, so I thought that meant it registered changes in acceleration and when travelling at a constant velocity it registered 0.

Either way, FE and RE would yield the same reading.
Quote from: General Douchebag[/quote
If Eminem had actually died, I would feel the force realign.
Quote from: ghazwozza
Of course it doesn't make sense, it's Tom Bishop's answer.

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #785 on: September 01, 2008, 07:49:08 AM »
Yes. Barnets post said that it measures acceleration in relation to itself, so I thought that meant it registered changes in acceleration and when travelling at a constant velocity it registered 0.

Either way, FE and RE would yield the same reading.

Yeah, that was my point - barnet's only real mistake was assuming that an accelerometer could measure local gravitational field strength (local g) while in free fall. Pretty much everything else stemmed from that. Hopefully that's resolved now (we'll have to wait for his next post to see).
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #786 on: September 01, 2008, 08:32:06 AM »
Yeah, that was my point - barnet's only real mistake was assuming that an accelerometer could measure local gravitational field strength (local g) while in free fall. Pretty much everything else stemmed from that. Hopefully that's resolved now (we'll have to wait for his next post to see).

Off-topic question, but this thread doesn't have anything too important in it to begin with: does the strong nuclear force ever actually decrease to zero, or does it just act very weakly across large distances?

(I am aware that there is a point where it reduces to zero between its attractive and repulsive modes. I am referring to what happens as one increases the distance between two quarks to infinity.)
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 08:33:48 AM by Osama bin Laden »
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #787 on: September 01, 2008, 08:43:40 AM »
The accelerometer will read as I have described in my previous post. It will change from reading the acceleration due to gravitation/UA in the plane (flying at constant altitude) to reading zero when you leave the plane. It then registers a gradual increase until, at terminal velocity, it measures the same as when you were on the ground/in the plane.

The key is to remember that the accelerometer cannot 'see' the ground, it only has internal workings to go on.  This explains why it can't sense gravitation in free-fall, only the effects of drag (which, at terminal velocity, are the same as the contact acceleration on the ground).
I've obviously misinterpreted barnets post. If we're travelling in a plane at a constant speed at a constant height above Sea Level, what is the reading on the acclerometer? And what is it measuring?

No accelerometer in a plane that I've have ever seen is measured in m/s^2.  What it does say is 1g. Because as you stand in the plane or sit your butt in the seat it feels no different than if your sitting your butt or standing on the ground.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #788 on: September 01, 2008, 08:46:44 AM »
No accelerometer in a plane that I've have ever seen is measured in m/s^2.  What it does say is 1g. Because as you stand in the plane or sit your butt in the seat it feels no different than if your sitting your butt or standing on the ground.

1g = 9.8 m s-2.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #789 on: September 01, 2008, 08:49:14 AM »
But that is not what the gauge reads.  Which is what he asked.

I know they equal each other.  But when we go into 2g and 3g turns you have to be able to measure the Gs for structural limits.  Which are listed in Gs not m/s^2

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #790 on: September 01, 2008, 08:50:35 AM »
But that is not what the gauge reads.  Which is what he asked.

I know they equal each other.  But when we go into 2g and 3g turns you have to be able to measure the Gs for structural limits.  Which are listed in Gs not m/s^2

It's like arguing about whether a car is moving at fifty miles per hour or eighty kilometres per hour. They mean the same thing.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #791 on: September 01, 2008, 08:52:16 AM »
Just admit im right.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #792 on: September 01, 2008, 08:53:44 AM »
Just admit im right.

You are right. I am also right.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #793 on: September 01, 2008, 08:55:44 AM »
We can't have a winner to the debate if we are both right.

Does that mean win for FE?

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #794 on: September 01, 2008, 08:58:24 AM »
our acft dont have an m/s^2 gauge either...
Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #795 on: September 01, 2008, 09:05:00 AM »
Does that mean win for FE?

Sure.

our acft dont have an m/s^2 gauge either...

That doesn't change the fact that it's measuring something for which the SI unit is m s-2.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #796 on: September 01, 2008, 09:19:59 AM »
Is there no limit to the amount of fail cbarnett is capable of?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #797 on: September 01, 2008, 09:51:43 AM »
our acft dont have an m/s^2 gauge either...

What do you fly?

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #798 on: September 01, 2008, 09:56:11 AM »
Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #799 on: September 01, 2008, 10:05:25 AM »
Ft Campbell?

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #800 on: September 01, 2008, 10:16:23 AM »
Ft Campbell?
no, much worse. fort drum. :(
i was stationed at campbell from 98-00 though and loved it. trying to get back over there.
Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #801 on: September 01, 2008, 01:54:53 PM »
Is there no limit to the amount of fail cbarnett is capable of?
how about you answer my question
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #802 on: September 01, 2008, 01:55:56 PM »
im sorry - there was a question?
Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #803 on: September 01, 2008, 02:01:29 PM »
im sorry - there was a question?
oh yeah there was, but it is funny how theengineer skips over questions that show he is wrong
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #804 on: September 01, 2008, 02:06:21 PM »
Or that you fail to grasp simple physics.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #805 on: September 01, 2008, 02:09:55 PM »
Yeah, I don't see the question.  You were making statements two pages back, but no questions.

Restate.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #806 on: September 01, 2008, 02:10:27 PM »
Or that you fail to grasp simple physics.
then it should be a no brainer for him to show me.
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #807 on: September 01, 2008, 02:11:21 PM »
that is the mistake theengineer is making and everyone is following his lead, you can not relate it to the earth until you have reached your point of equalibrium.
It's equilibrium, kid. 

Quote


the whole idea of doing a free body diagram is to look at the forces acting on the body.
And like I said already, there is no balancing force.  Therefore there is a constant acceleration. 

I believe this is too complicated for you to follow.  I thought my derivation was simple enough for you.  Apparently, I gave you too much credit.  We are only interested in the velocity at a certain acceleration.  Is that simple enough for you?
so using the FE model what would an accelerometer show at t=2
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #808 on: September 01, 2008, 02:15:55 PM »
A little under 9.8m/s^2.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where my derivation is wrong.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #809 on: September 01, 2008, 02:16:43 PM »
A little under 9.8m/s^2.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where my derivation is wrong.

I have shown you many many times so how about doing a little math and showing me what it should read
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.