Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)

• 883 Replies
• 150807 Views

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #90 on: August 16, 2008, 11:00:09 PM »
So if someone jumps off a cliff they will accelerate back to the surface of the earth in the FE model?
Terminal velocity.  Do you know what it means?

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

?

cbarnett97

• 2746
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #91 on: August 16, 2008, 11:01:14 PM »
So if someone jumps off a cliff they will accelerate back to the surface of the earth in the FE model?
Terminal velocity.  Do you know what it means?
And according to the FE model how would someone reach their terminal velocity?
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.
« Reply #92 on: August 16, 2008, 11:01:37 PM »
Mr Engineer, the way more mass = more gravity is not magic.  Think of space as a giant blanket stretched out. If you drop a baseball in the middle of a blanket its going to sink into it, and anything that gets close to the dip made y the basemall will sink into it.
The bigger the object on the blanket, the deeper the dip and the wider area effected, say then if you put a bowling ball on the blanket.
This is what keeps us on the Earths surface. we, with the Earth are literally in its dip, and if we jump, we fall down back onto the Earth, (unless of course we acclerate with such a velocity as to ecape the effect of the Earth's gravity, in essence going up and out of the dip)
So, tell me:  What is the mechanism by which space knows how and by how much to distort, based on its distance from an object with mass?

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

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #93 on: August 16, 2008, 11:02:22 PM »
And according to the FE model how would someone reach their terminal velocity?
Acceleration of the person = acceleration of the FE

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

?

cbarnett97

• 2746
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #94 on: August 16, 2008, 11:03:04 PM »
And according to the FE model how would someone reach their terminal velocity?
Acceleration of the person = acceleration of the FE
what accelerates the person?
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.
« Reply #95 on: August 16, 2008, 11:03:32 PM »
Air resistance.

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

?

cbarnett97

• 2746
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #96 on: August 16, 2008, 11:03:52 PM »
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.
« Reply #97 on: August 16, 2008, 11:06:03 PM »
Unless he is wearing a rocket pack...

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

?

cbarnett97

• 2746
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #98 on: August 16, 2008, 11:06:59 PM »
Unless he is wearing a rocket pack...
so how will that give you the same result as the RE model
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.
« Reply #99 on: August 16, 2008, 11:12:34 PM »
How will it not?

Guy jumps out of plane, stops accelerating.  Relative velocity = 0. Relative acceleration = 9.8m/s^2.
As FE keeps accelerating, the air resistance on guy increases.  Relative velocity = less than terminal. Relative acceleration = less than 9.8m/s^2.
Air resistance continues to increase until the guy's acceleration equals that of the FE.  Relative velocity = terminal.  Relative acceleration = 0.

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

?

cbarnett97

• 2746
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #100 on: August 16, 2008, 11:14:19 PM »
How will it not?

Guy jumps out of plane, stops accelerating.  Relative velocity = 0. Relative acceleration = 9.8m/s^2.
As FE keeps accelerating, the air resistance on guy increases.  Relative velocity = less than terminal. Relative acceleration = less than 9.8m/s^2.
Air resistance continues to increase until the guy's acceleration equals that of the FE.  Relative velocity = terminal.  Relative acceleration = 0.
what is his acceleration relative to
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.
« Reply #101 on: August 16, 2008, 11:16:49 PM »
The Earth.  That should have been obvious.

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

?

cbarnett97

• 2746
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #102 on: August 16, 2008, 11:18:08 PM »
The Earth.  That should have been obvious.
I thought that was what you menat but I fail to see how a unconnected body can accelerate the diver? maybe you should look at your force diagram again and get back to us
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.
« Reply #103 on: August 16, 2008, 11:19:22 PM »

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

?

interstellarsphere

• 118
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #104 on: August 16, 2008, 11:20:14 PM »
Mr Engineer, the way more mass = more gravity is not magic.  Think of space as a giant blanket stretched out. If you drop a baseball in the middle of a blanket its going to sink into it, and anything that gets close to the dip made y the basemall will sink into it.
The bigger the object on the blanket, the deeper the dip and the wider area effected, say then if you put a bowling ball on the blanket.
This is what keeps us on the Earths surface. we, with the Earth are literally in its dip, and if we jump, we fall down back onto the Earth, (unless of course we acclerate with such a velocity as to ecape the effect of the Earth's gravity, in essence going up and out of the dip)
So, tell me:  What is the mechanism by which space knows how and by how much to distort, based on its distance from an object with mass?

What do you mean what mechanism? There is no "mechanism" if you do the experiment i mentioned in my post and drop a baseball or bowling ball in a out stretched blanket, (youd prolly have to have 2 people to hold the blanket up while stretching it out) the amount of distortion and dip isnt based on a "mechanism" it is purely by the mass of the bowling ball or base ball what ever you choose.
The amount distorted is directly related to the amount of mass in the object.
The more massive the object the more distortion. try it. The baseball will not dip and distort the blanket as much as the bowling ball.
Space doesnt "choose" the distortion amount, the dip and distortion is a reaction based purely on  how massive said object is.

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #105 on: August 16, 2008, 11:23:35 PM »
What do you mean what mechanism? There is no "mechanism" if you do the experiment i mentioned in my post and drop a baseball or bowling ball in a out stretched blanket, (youd prolly have to have 2 people to hold the blanket up while stretching it out) the amount of distortion and dip isnt based on a "mechanism" it is purely by the mass of the bowling ball or base ball what ever you choose.
Except your experiment is nothing more than circular reasoning.  It requires 'gravity' to already exist.

Quote
Space doesnt "choose" the distortion amount, the dip and distortion is a reaction based purely on  how massive said object is.
So a transfer of information is not needed?
BTW, what about objects without mass?  Why are you leaving them out?

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

?

cbarnett97

• 2746
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #106 on: August 16, 2008, 11:28:23 PM »
the FE model

The RE model

So tell me how they are equal?

Which will give you

FE = R
RE = mg-R
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 11:31:09 PM by cbarnett97 »
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.
« Reply #107 on: August 16, 2008, 11:32:42 PM »
You left out a major part in the FE diagram.  This is the same thing you left out the last time we had this argument, in which you were told, by many of your RE peers, that you were incorrect.

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

?

interstellarsphere

• 118
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #108 on: August 16, 2008, 11:35:50 PM »
What do you mean what mechanism? There is no "mechanism" if you do the experiment i mentioned in my post and drop a baseball or bowling ball in a out stretched blanket, (youd prolly have to have 2 people to hold the blanket up while stretching it out) the amount of distortion and dip isnt based on a "mechanism" it is purely by the mass of the bowling ball or base ball what ever you choose.
Except your experiment is nothing more than circular reasoning.  It requires 'gravity' to already exist.

Quote
Space doesnt "choose" the distortion amount, the dip and distortion is a reaction based purely on  how massive said object is.
So a transfer of information is not needed?
BTW, what about objects without mass?  Why are you leaving them out?
what do you mean transfer of information? this isnt a mechanism.
In the example i cited, would you say the baseball or bowlingball transfers information to the blanket? No it doesnt, the blanket merely reacts  based on the amount of mass.
when you lay on your matress and it indents, does your body transfer information to the matress? no it doesnt. it reacts based on you.
The world is not a giant computer program where information needs to transfer to do everything.
for every action, there is a reaction.

as far as objects without any mass (which the only thing truly without mass is light, so wow  i left light out) and object without mass will not create a distortion in space time.

?

cbarnett97

• 2746
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #109 on: August 16, 2008, 11:36:15 PM »
You left out a major part in the FE diagram.  This is the same thing you left out the last time we had this argument, in which you were told, by many of your RE peers, that you were incorrect.
Then show me, since you just said yourself as to what accelerates a person in the FE model
Air resistance.
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.
« Reply #110 on: August 16, 2008, 11:37:16 PM »
You forgot to put in the acceleration of the FE.  Like you did last time.  When everyone called you an idiot.

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

?

cbarnett97

• 2746
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #111 on: August 16, 2008, 11:38:30 PM »
You forgot to put in the acceleration of the FE.  Like you did last time.  When everyone called you an idiot.
then show me the correct equation using the model not what we see in reality and remember I have already taken into account for the acceleration of the FE in mine
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.
« Reply #112 on: August 16, 2008, 11:40:37 PM »
what do you mean transfer of information? this isnt a mechanism.
Sure it is.  How does space know how and by how much to distort?

Quote
In the example i cited, would you say the baseball or bowlingball transfers information to the blanket?
Yes it does.

Quote
No it doesnt, the blanket merely reacts  based on the amount of mass.
Due to a reaction based on a transfer of information.

Quote
when you lay on your matress and it indents, does your body transfer information to the matress?
Yes it does.

Quote
The world is not a giant computer program where information needs to transfer to do everything.
Uh, yes, information is required for every interaction.

Quote
as far as objects without any mass (which the only thing truly without mass is light, so wow  i left light out) and object without mass will not create a distortion in space time.
You may want to educate yourself on that point.

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

TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #113 on: August 16, 2008, 11:41:40 PM »
then show me the correct equation using the model not what we see in reality and remember I have already taken into account for the acceleration of the FE in mine
No, you sure didn't.

Take the air out.  Perform this same thing in a vacuum.  What will the results be?

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

Jack

• 5179
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #114 on: August 16, 2008, 11:43:10 PM »
as far as objects without any mass (which the only thing truly without mass is light, so wow  i left light out) and object without mass will not create a distortion in space time.
Mass isn't the only source of a gravitational field.

?

cbarnett97

• 2746
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #115 on: August 16, 2008, 11:44:22 PM »
then show me the correct equation using the model not what we see in reality and remember I have already taken into account for the acceleration of the FE in mine
No, you sure didn't.

Take the air out.  Perform this same thing in a vacuum.  What will the results be?
According to the FE model the person will just sit there. now how about my question
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.
« Reply #116 on: August 16, 2008, 11:46:10 PM »
According to the FE model the person will just sit there.
Relative to what?  Not the Earth, I hope.

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

Jack

• 5179
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #117 on: August 16, 2008, 11:46:39 PM »
According to the FE model the person will just sit there. now how about my question
No, the FE accelerates toward the person with no drag under this experiment.

?

interstellarsphere

• 118
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #118 on: August 16, 2008, 11:48:30 PM »
what do you mean transfer of information? this isnt a mechanism.
Sure it is.  How does space know how and by how much to distort?

Quote
In the example i cited, would you say the baseball or bowlingball transfers information to the blanket?
Yes it does.

Quote
No it doesnt, the blanket merely reacts  based on the amount of mass.
Due to a reaction based on a transfer of information.

Quote
when you lay on your matress and it indents, does your body transfer information to the matress?
Yes it does.

Quote
The world is not a giant computer program where information needs to transfer to do everything.
Uh, yes, information is required for every interaction.

Quote
as far as objects without any mass (which the only thing truly without mass is light, so wow  i left light out) and object without mass will not create a distortion in space time.
You may want to educate yourself on that point.

Your full of it. the baseball does not transfer ifnormation to the blanket. The blanket is not alive and intelligent therefore it can not process "information"
Space does not need to know how much to distort because space is not alive. it cannot "know"

the word "know" is meant for something that is capable of storing knowledge of some type, be it a living being, or a computer. Since space itelf is neither, it can not "know" anything
It is a direct reaction.
Like the baseball reaction listed. and like I said, the amount of distortion that poccurs is directly related to the mass!
So the more mass you have, the more distortion will occur
The amount of distortion is DIRECTLY a result of said mass.
If you take two planets with the exact same mass they will distort the exact same amount of spacetime

so there is no magic in gravity. it is only magic to those who dont know.
The equations for this can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

oh and about without mass, if you want to count gluons, sure count those two. But like i said it doesnt matter as anything without mass does not cause any sort of distortion.
So objects without mass are of no consequence as far as gravity is concerned.
Things without mass such as light, can be effected by another body's gravity but produce no distortion or gravity of their own.

?

cbarnett97

• 2746
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #119 on: August 16, 2008, 11:49:15 PM »
According to the FE model the person will just sit there.
Relative to what?  Not the Earth, I hope.
the model predicts the objects acceleration would be zero, now if you want to calculate how long it would take an object to fall back to the ground we can discuss that later but how about answering my question as it pertains to terminal velocity
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.