# Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)

• 883 Replies
• 150803 Views

#### Jack

• Administrator
• 5179
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #120 on: August 16, 2008, 11:50:39 PM »
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.
No, you left out energy/momentum/stress-energy tensor.

?

#### Dark Knight

• 103
• There are no athiests in Foxholes
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #121 on: August 16, 2008, 11:54:46 PM »
Ok, simple question,  Gravitation is caused by our constante Acceleration, and I read in another foram that air resistance and contact with the earth hold us in place.  Then wouldn't it be really really windy?  Or since we have a dome over us holding the air in then, if I were to let a balloon float, wouldn't it come crashing down since the earth accelerated into it?  How come we don't fly into the moon?  How did the Jap's in world war 2 use the jetstream to float high altitude balloons to fly east to drop bombs onto the US.  Was the 12 year old that sailed around the world in on this conspiricy?  Is the entire universe accelerating in the same direction and at the same speed?  What is behind us as we Fly in the direction we are going.  And my 8 year old wants to know if you have any pictures of the 150 foot Ice walls that are around the entire world and how deep do these sheets of Ice go.  Wouldn't currents cause some ice to jam up on the sides?
He who goes to bed with itchy but, wakes up with stinky finger.

#### Jack

• Administrator
• 5179
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #122 on: August 16, 2008, 11:55:47 PM »
How did the Jap's in world war 2 use the jetstream to float high altitude balloons to fly east to drop bombs onto the US.
No racism.

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #123 on: August 16, 2008, 11:56:26 PM »
Your full of it. the baseball does not transfer ifnormation to the blanket.
Then tell me, how does the blanket know the baseball is on it?

Quote
The blanket is not alive and intelligent therefore it can not process "information"
What?

Quote
Space does not need to know how much to distort because space is not alive. it cannot "know"
Then how can space distort based on mass if it does not need to know about it?

Quote
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
Wow, that is amazing.  You must not have ever taken a class in physics.

Quote
Like the baseball reaction listed. and like I said, the amount of distortion that poccurs is directly related to the mass!
So, how does the blanket know how much mass is on it?

Quote
so there is no magic in gravity. it is only magic to those who dont know.
You don't know about the need for a mechanism.  So that is magic, by definition.

Quote
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.
They sure can.  You may want to educate yourself prior to arguing with me.

"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 #124 on: August 16, 2008, 11:57:32 PM »
the model predicts the objects acceleration would be zero
Relative to what?

Quote
how about answering my question as it pertains to terminal velocity
I'm working up to that.  I have found that you require painful detail before you can understand anything.

"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 #125 on: August 16, 2008, 11:58:58 PM »
the model predicts the objects acceleration would be zero
Relative to what?

Quote
how about answering my question as it pertains to terminal velocity
I'm working up to that.  I have found that you require painful detail before you can understand anything.
so no answer yet? or does the answer require you to write more than 5 words
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 #126 on: August 17, 2008, 12:02:19 AM »
I don't understand why you won't answer the question.  Is it because you see the error in you way?  Is this some sort of way for you to try to save face?

You said the acceleration would be zero.  I just want to know: Zero relative to what?

"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 #127 on: August 17, 2008, 12:06:35 AM »
I don't understand why you won't answer the question.  Is it because you see the error in you way?  Is this some sort of way for you to try to save face?

You said the acceleration would be zero.  I just want to know: Zero relative to what?

I asked you a question first so how about you either answer it or admit you do not know
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

#### interstellarsphere

• 118
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #128 on: August 17, 2008, 12:06:59 AM »
Your full of it. the baseball does not transfer ifnormation to the blanket.
Then tell me, how does the blanket know the baseball is on it?

Quote
The blanket is not alive and intelligent therefore it can not process "information"
What?

Quote
Space does not need to know how much to distort because space is not alive. it cannot "know"
Then how can space distort based on mass if it does not need to know about it?

Quote
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
Wow, that is amazing.  You must not have ever taken a class in physics.

Quote
Like the baseball reaction listed. and like I said, the amount of distortion that poccurs is directly related to the mass!
So, how does the blanket know how much mass is on it?

Quote
so there is no magic in gravity. it is only magic to those who dont know.
You don't know about the need for a mechanism.  So that is magic, by definition.

Quote
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.
They sure can.  You may want to educate yourself prior to arguing with me.

The Blanket DOESN'T "know" the base ball is on it
Just as the chair Im sitting in doesnt "know" im sitting on it.
the effects of these are purely reactions.
and no, an object without mas produces no distortions. Can you name one instance?

that wouldnt work.
F = GMm/R²
This equation calculates the graitational equation between 2 objects
F is the force of attraction between two objects
G is the universal gravitational constant; G = 6.67*10-11 N-m²/kg². The units of G can be stated as Newton meter-squared per kilogram-squared or Newton square meter per square kilogram.
M and m are the masses of the two objects
R is the distance between the objects, as measured from their centers
GMm/R² is G times M times m divided by R-squared
If one of the masses was 0, the result would be 0, and thus no gravitation.
Therefore, you are wrong.
I need to get an education? your the one who thinks the Earth is flat.
But i have de-mystified the magic behind gravity, and even given you a link to gravities mastr equation.

Im using hard science and equations. Your trying to use conjecture and word play on the word "know"

That blanket example shows you right there how gravity works
Think of the blanket as space and the baseball as Earth. it is the exact same thing, accept for on a much much larger scale.

#### Jack

• Administrator
• 5179
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #129 on: August 17, 2008, 12:11:30 AM »
If one of the masses was 0, the result would be 0, and thus no gravitation.
No, you left out energy/momentum/stress-energy tensor.

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #130 on: August 17, 2008, 12:12:02 AM »
I asked you a question first so how about you either answer it or admit you do not know
I answered the question already.  The two instances are indistinguishable.

Now, let's get back to our little experiment.
We have two big vacuum chambers, one on the RE and the other on the FE.
Both contain a mass at a mere 1m above the ground.
Both masses are released at the same time.
What happens to each 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 #131 on: August 17, 2008, 12:14:16 AM »
The Blanket DOESN'T "know" the base ball is on it
Then how can the blanket distort?

Quote
Just as the chair Im sitting in doesnt "know" im sitting on it.
But the chair does.  You are applying a force to it.  A force is a transfer of information.

Quote
and no, an object without mas produces no distortions. Can you name one instance?
Photons.

Quote
that wouldnt work.
F = GMm/R²
This equation calculates the graitational equation between 2 objects
F is the force of attraction between two objects
G is the universal gravitational constant; G = 6.67*10-11 N-m²/kg². The units of G can be stated as Newton meter-squared per kilogram-squared or Newton square meter per square kilogram.
M and m are the masses of the two objects
R is the distance between the objects, as measured from their centers
GMm/R² is G times M times m divided by R-squared
If one of the masses was 0, the result would be 0, and thus no gravitation.
Therefore, you are wrong.
I need to get an education? your the one who thinks the Earth is flat.
But i have de-mystified the magic behind gravity, and even given you a link to gravities mastr equation.
Explain gravitational lensing, using your 'gravity'.

"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 #132 on: August 17, 2008, 12:15:13 AM »
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
I am still waiting for the answer to this so after you answer it we can then move onto other topics

Your failure to answer is just demonstrating you lack of knowledge here
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 #133 on: August 17, 2008, 12:22:28 AM »
I am still waiting for the answer to this so after you answer it we can then move onto other topics
I'm not on another topic.

/\    acceleration of the earth.  /\     acceleration of the person
|                                          |
|                                          |
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.

|
\/  Acceleration of the person.  /\  Acceleration due to air resistance.
|
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.

Does that help?  I tried to make it so simple a 6th grader could understand.  But I may be giving you too much credit.

"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 #134 on: August 17, 2008, 12:29:00 AM »
The Blanket DOESN'T "know" the base ball is on it
Then how can the blanket distort?

Quote
Just as the chair Im sitting in doesnt "know" im sitting on it.
But the chair does.  You are applying a force to it.  A force is a transfer of information.

Quote
and no, an object without mas produces no distortions. Can you name one instance?
Photons.

Quote
that wouldnt work.
F = GMm/R²
This equation calculates the graitational equation between 2 objects
F is the force of attraction between two objects
G is the universal gravitational constant; G = 6.67*10-11 N-m²/kg². The units of G can be stated as Newton meter-squared per kilogram-squared or Newton square meter per square kilogram.
M and m are the masses of the two objects
R is the distance between the objects, as measured from their centers
GMm/R² is G times M times m divided by R-squared
If one of the masses was 0, the result would be 0, and thus no gravitation.
Therefore, you are wrong.
I need to get an education? your the one who thinks the Earth is flat.
But i have de-mystified the magic behind gravity, and even given you a link to gravities mastr equation.
Explain gravitational lensing, using your 'gravity'.

photons are light and do not produce a gravitationl distortion. gravity can distort light but not the other way around. I just showed you the equation,  which proves it.

As fa as gravitational lensing, easy.
Gravity from a supermassive object will distort spacetime including light from a background source, altering the amount of time it takes to reach on observer due to taking a bent path instead of a straight one.
Just like an optical lens will cause light to bend.
for more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing

?

#### cbarnett97

• 2746
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #135 on: August 17, 2008, 12:33:00 AM »
I am still waiting for the answer to this so after you answer it we can then move onto other topics
I'm not on another topic.

/\    acceleration of the earth.  /\     acceleration of the person
|                                          |
|                                          |
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.

|
\/  Acceleration of the person.  /\  Acceleration due to air resistance.
|
When these are equal, the person has reached terminal velocity.

Does that help?  I tried to make it so simple a 6th grader could understand.  But I may be giving you too much credit.

well you almost answered the question, I know the question was confusing but here it goes again
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.

#### Jack

• Administrator
• 5179
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #136 on: August 17, 2008, 12:36:00 AM »
photons are light and do not produce a gravitationl distortion. gravity can distort light but not the other way around. I just showed you the equation,  which proves it.
Photons have energy and momentum. Thus, they can distort spacetime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_energy_tensor
Do you feel stupid now?

As fa as gravitational lensing, easy.
Gravity from a supermassive object will distort spacetime including light from a background source, altering the amount of time it takes to reach on observer due to taking a bent path instead of a straight one.
Just like an optical lens will cause light to bend.
for more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing

Your argument is refuted

1 Photons are massless.
2 Your version of gravity only affects objects with mass.
3 Your version of gravity cannot affect photons; their paths are not distorted.
---
4 Therefore, gravitational lensing is impossible under your "gravity".

?

#### interstellarsphere

• 118
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #137 on: August 17, 2008, 12:45:02 AM »
photons are light and do not produce a gravitationl distortion. gravity can distort light but not the other way around. I just showed you the equation,  which proves it.
Photons have energy and momentum. Thus, they can distort spacetime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_energy_tensor
Do you feel stupid now?

As fa as gravitational lensing, easy.
Gravity from a supermassive object will distort spacetime including light from a background source, altering the amount of time it takes to reach on observer due to taking a bent path instead of a straight one.
Just like an optical lens will cause light to bend.
for more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing

Your argument is refuted

1 Photons are massless.
2 Your version of gravity only affects objects with mass.
3 Your version of gravity cannot affect photons; their paths are not distorted.
---
4 Therefore, gravitational lensing is impossible under your "gravity".

EHH wrong.
I said only objects with mass distort space time and produce gravity!I guess you dont read very well.
But the force of gravity can effect light, through lensing.
nice try.

#### Parsifal

• Official Member
• 36118
• Bendy Light specialist
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #138 on: August 17, 2008, 01:30:02 AM »
EHH wrong.
I said only objects with mass distort space time and produce gravity!I guess you dont read very well.
But the force of gravity can effect light, through lensing.
nice try.

Now you're confusing Newtonian gravity with Einsteinian gravitation.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

#### WardoggKC130FE

• 11857
• What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #139 on: August 17, 2008, 01:31:41 AM »
No, it doesn't. Gravity only affects things with mass. Photons are massless. Light composes of photons. Gravity can't affect light.

Get smarter.

What about black holes?  Serious question.

#### Jack

• Administrator
• 5179
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #140 on: August 17, 2008, 01:32:49 AM »
EHH wrong.
You can open your eyes now.

I said only objects with mass distort space time and produce gravity!I guess you dont read very well.
Which is why I proved your "gravity" wrong. Not only mass can distort space-time: we have energy, momentum, and stress-energy tensor. It's called gravitation. You ignored two of my posts and did not read the links I just provided. You seem to be naive.

But the force of gravity can effect light, through lensing.
No, it doesn't. Gravity only affects things with mass. Photons are massless. Light composes of photons. Gravity can't affect light.

Get smarter.

?

#### interstellarsphere

• 118
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #141 on: August 17, 2008, 01:34:31 AM »
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.
No, you left out energy/momentum/stress-energy tensor.
energy /momentum/stress arent even all in the same class
Momentum is a force a word to describe a reaction, energy does have mass
because energy is e=Mc2  if mass was 0 the equation would be 0.
try again.

gravity will effect anything within its field.

But only things with mass produce gravity

E=mc2 try again ahahah.

#### Jack

• Administrator
• 5179
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #142 on: August 17, 2008, 01:35:09 AM »
What about black holes?  Serious question.
What about them?

?

#### interstellarsphere

• 118
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #143 on: August 17, 2008, 01:35:37 AM »
EHH wrong.
I said only objects with mass distort space time and produce gravity!I guess you dont read very well.
But the force of gravity can effect light, through lensing.
nice try.

Now you're confusing Newtonian gravity with Einsteinian gravitation.

No Im not. the two agree.
Einstein only built upon the foundation that Newton had laid.

#### WardoggKC130FE

• 11857
• What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #144 on: August 17, 2008, 01:36:22 AM »
No, it doesn't. Gravity only affects things with mass. Photons are massless. Light composes of photons. Gravity can't affect light.

Get smarter.

What about black holes?  Serious question.

Arent black holes so dense that the gravity is so great that not even light can escape?

#### Jack

• Administrator
• 5179
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #145 on: August 17, 2008, 01:47:56 AM »
energy /momentum/stress arent even all in the same class
They aren't. They are sources of a gravitational field.

Momentum is a force a word to describe a reaction, energy does have mass
Huh, momentum is what again?

because energy is e=Mc2  if mass was 0 the equation would be 0.
try again.
You forgot E = pc.

gravity will effect anything within its field.
Except light, of course. There goes your argument.

But only things with mass produce gravity
For gravity, yes. For gravitation, nope.

E=mc2 try again ahahah.
You used the wrong equation. Of course, you wrote the equation wrong, too...

?

#### interstellarsphere

• 118
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #146 on: August 17, 2008, 01:55:59 AM »
energy /momentum/stress arent even all in the same class
They aren't. They are sources of a gravitational field.

Momentum is a force a word to describe a reaction, energy does have mass
Huh, momentum is what again?

because energy is e=Mc2  if mass was 0 the equation would be 0.
try again.
You forgot E = pc.

gravity will effect anything within its field.
Except light, of course. There goes your argument.

But only things with mass produce gravity
For gravity, yes. For gravitation, nope.

E=mc2 try again ahahah.
You used the wrong equation. Of course, you wrote the equation wrong, too...

I didnt right the equation wrong, i just dont know the button to type suoer script.
E = MC squared.

and that is the correct equation for energy, because all matter contains energy.
The atom bomb works by converting matter into energy.

and again your wrong about light.

Because gravity warps space time, and light has to travel through said space time, therefore light is effected by gravity. again, nice try.

#### Jack

• Administrator
• 5179
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #147 on: August 17, 2008, 02:08:01 AM »
I didnt right the equation wrong, i just dont know the button to type suoer script.
E = MC squared.
Still wrong.

and that is the correct equation for energy, because all matter contains energy.
The atom bomb works by converting matter into energy.
So? This is irrelevant. You use E = pc.

and again your wrong about light.
Again, I was right. Your brain is just too small to realize it.

Because gravity warps space time, and light has to travel through said space time, therefore light is effected by gravity. again, nice try.
Gravity (force) can't affect objects without mass, nevermind light. Gravitation can, however. Gravitation affects light's path, bending it. Thus, gravitational lensing occurs.

Quote from: wikipedia
According to general relativity, mass "warps" space-time to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light as a result.

In general relativity, gravity is not construed as a force; hence, if the net force of non-gravitational interactions is negligible, the law that describes motion is Newton's First Law rather than Newton's Second Law. Newton's First Law models position as a function of time in non-relativistic mechanics, but in general relativity the law is rewritten to demand motion along a space-time geodesic. This curvature of space-time causes the path of even a massless particle like a photon to deviate from the straight lines expected from Euclidean intuition; and, in particular, the path is observed to curve in exactly the same way as the geodesics predicted by general relativity.
I recommend you to stop posting to avoid getting pwned more.

?

#### interstellarsphere

• 118
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #148 on: August 17, 2008, 02:11:25 AM »
I didnt right the equation wrong, i just dont know the button to type suoer script.
E = MC squared.
Still wrong.

and that is the correct equation for energy, because all matter contains energy.
The atom bomb works by converting matter into energy.
So? This is irrelevant. You use E = pc.

and again your wrong about light.
Again, I was right. Your brain is just too small to realize it.

Because gravity warps space time, and light has to travel through said space time, therefore light is effected by gravity. again, nice try.
Gravity (force) can't affect objects without mass, nevermind light. Gravitation can, however. Gravitation affects light's path, bending it. Thus, gravitational lensing occurs.

Quote from: wikipedia
According to general relativity, mass "warps" space-time to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light as a result.

In general relativity, gravity is not construed as a force; hence, if the net force of non-gravitational interactions is negligible, the law that describes motion is Newton's First Law rather than Newton's Second Law. Newton's First Law models position as a function of time in non-relativistic mechanics, but in general relativity the law is rewritten to demand motion along a space-time geodesic. This curvature of space-time causes the path of even a massless particle like a photon to deviate from the straight lines expected from Euclidean intuition; and, in particular, the path is observed to curve in exactly the same way as the geodesics predicted by general relativity.
I recommend you to stop posting to avoid getting pwned more.

actually you just proved what i was saying. The gravity itself didnt directly effect the photo, as it cant it has no mass, but the curvature of Space time itself cause light to deviate from its path. Nice try their buddy. PWNED.

if their is a train on its tracks, i cant directly effect the train, but if i change the path of the tracks it travels on, it will be effected indirectly by my actions. you just PWNed yourself, and explained rgavitational lensing, using RE fact, at the same time. Nice try jack.

#### Jack

• Administrator
• 5179
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #149 on: August 17, 2008, 02:21:56 AM »
actually you just proved what i was saying. The gravity itself didnt directly effect the photo, as it cant it has no mass, but the curvature of Space time itself cause light to deviate from its path.
You can't read, right? Nevermind that, you didn't read the whole section I just quoted.

Quote
In general relativity, gravity is not construed as a force. Mass "warps" space-time to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light as a result. This curvature of space-time causes the path of even a massless particle like a photon to deviate from the straight lines expected from Euclidean intuition; and, in particular, the path is observed to curve in exactly the same way as the geodesics predicted by general relativity.

Gravitation, the curved spacetime which affects both mass and massless objects, bends light. Gravity, the force which cannot affect massless objects, cannot bend light.  I suggest you to study more and spend less time on the internets.

Nice try their buddy. PWNED.
You don't even know who is pwning who. Pity.

if their is a train on its tracks, i cant directly effect the train, but if i change the path of the tracks it travels on, it will be effected indirectly by my actions.
Except your analogy is wrong, just like your own created "E = MC squared".