Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 16, 2008, 11:03:32 PM

Air resistance.

Here are your Free body diagrams

The FE model:

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 02:57:22 PM

Here are your Free body diagrams

The FE model:

Where is the acceleration of FE?

Because you included gravitation in your other RE model.

You do know that the acceleration of FE is what simulates the effects of gravitation, right?

while we are touching the ground yes, but what does the FE model state; we fall back to the earth or the earth accelerates back up to us?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 10:44:21 PM

while we are touching the ground yes, but what does the FE model state; we fall back to the earth or the earth accelerates back up to us?

The FE accelerates to us...

there you go

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 10:48:07 PM

there you go

What?

Doesn't drag also accelerate the person?

So you believe the force of gravity exists in the RE model?

F=ma

And what would be the acceleration toward the ground in the RE model? Could it be g?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 11:20:26 PM

F=ma

Right, it becomes a fictitious force in a non-inertial frame of reference.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 11:20:26 PM

And what would be the acceleration toward the ground in the RE model? Could it be g?

Free-falling along the geodesics to the center of the Earth. The chair you're sitting right now does not allow that to happen; it applies an upward force. This way, there is no downward force. Motions along geodesics are inertial. This is why free-fall is classified as an inertial motion.

The "acceleration due to gravity"?

and when you couple that with an objects mass what do you get?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 18, 2008, 12:05:51 AM

and when you couple that with an objects mass what do you get?

Technically, it's an object's inertial mass. You get F=ma, which is invalid in non-inertial reference frame.

So your contention is that in the RE model we only need to calculate the objects air resistance to find it terminal velocity?

So if I drop a plastic ball and a steel ball from some height you would not care which one hit you as long as their R value was the same?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 18, 2008, 12:21:38 AM

So your contention is that in the RE model we only need to calculate the objects air resistance to find it terminal velocity?

Uh, no.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 18, 2008, 12:21:38 AM

So if I drop a plastic ball and a steel ball from some height you would not care which one hit you as long as their R value was the same?

Free-falling of the person = Acceleration from drag

                                     |
                                     v
                          Terminal Velocity

So what is the Terminal velocity of a smooth ball, and let us see the math

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 18, 2008, 01:03:10 AM

So what is the Terminal velocity of a smooth ball, and let us see the math

So basically, you're trying to argue that mg is valid even though its refuted completely by GR.

Post evidence.

a RE and FE sun have different masses and volumes therefore you cant mix the numbers.
So you trying to do so, trying to use the RE density n a FE equation makes no senseand shows your ignorant.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 12:15:13 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.