Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)

you are no longer accelerating once you reach an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s

If possible, this makes even less sense than equating velocity and force.

look at you freebody diagram again

There is nothing wrong with my free body diagram.  All you have to do is ask me for help and I will derive the formula for you.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:19:22 PM

you are no longer accelerating once you reach an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s

If possible, this makes even less sense than equating velocity and force.

that is because the FE model is so screwed up

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:21:01 PM

look at you freebody diagram again

There is nothing wrong with my free body diagram.  All you have to do is ask me for help and I will derive the formula for you.

if your free body diagram is good then go ahead and rework your equations again

and after you find out that the body does not stop increasing its acceleration until it reaches an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s go ahead and tell me when it lands.

I don't need to rework them.  They were correct the first time.

Just ask for help and I will put an end to your pathetic attempt to act intelligent and to 'put me in my place'.

I don't need to rework them.  They were correct the first time.

Just ask for help and I will put an end to your pathetic attempt to act intelligent and to 'put me in my place'.

so when does the object land

Uh, there are lots of things that need to be defined first.

But, let's not get ahead of ourselves.  I'm still waiting for you to catch up with the rest of us.

Uh, there are lots of things that need to be defined first.

But, let's not get ahead of ourselves.  I'm still waiting for you to catch up with the rest of us.

I am right with you, let us just say a 2kg smooth ball from 5000m up after it reaches its acceleration of 9.8m/s/s so its velocity with respect to the earth is constant when will it hit the ground?

So you accept my equation as correct?

that is because the FE model is so screwed up

I thought we were discussing RET?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:28:02 PM

that is because the FE model is so screwed up

I thought we were discussing RET?

I have no issues the the RE model since it works

I have no issues the the RE model since it works

Apparently you do. TheEngineer's free body diagram applies to RET as well as FET. If we are discussing it in the context of one, so are we in the context of the other.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:44:13 PM

I have no issues the the RE model since it works

Apparently you do. TheEngineer's free body diagram applies to RET as well as FET. If we are discussing it in the context of one, so are we in the context of the other.

Uh, no the accelerations are in opposite directions in RE while in FE they are in the same direction

Uh, no the accelerations are in opposite directions in RE while in FE they are in the same direction

What accelerations?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:50:42 PM

Uh, no the accelerations are in opposite directions in RE while in FE they are in the same direction

What accelerations?

the acceleration from the gravitational field and the acceleration of the FE earth.

So you agree that my equation is correct?


Any interested party my pm me for the derivation of the equation (an agreement of nondisclosure will be assumed by the act of the pm).  I think it's going to be a while before cbarnett will admit his knowledge is lacking. 

So you agree that my equation is correct?


Any interested party my pm me for the derivation of the equation (an agreement of nondisclosure will be assumed by the act of the pm).  I think it's going to be a while before cbarnett will admit his knowledge is lacking. 

I will bite let us see your derivation and reasoning on why it is exactly the same as the RE model

the acceleration from the gravitational field and the acceleration of the FE earth.

So in RET, the person is accelerating in two directions at once?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:53:43 PM

the acceleration from the gravitational field and the acceleration of the FE earth.

So in RET, the person is accelerating in two directions at once?

no 1 acceleration but it is a net acceleration

I will bite let us see your derivation and reasoning on why it is exactly the same as the RE model

"I will bite"  Classic.

I am looking more for "TheEngineer, I need help.  I don't know what it is I am doing."

Or something to that effect.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 10:58:26 PM

I will bite let us see your derivation and reasoning on why it is exactly the same as the RE model

"I will bite"  Classic.

I am looking more for "TheEngineer, I need help.  I don't know what it is I am doing."

Or something to that effect.

You just hold your breath for that and hang on as tight as possible to your EP because I am guessing that is where you are going to run to.

It applies, but no, I did not invoke the EP in my derivation.

It applies, but no, I did not invoke the EP in my derivation.

The you fail at understanding the model you are trying to defend, it is really sad

My equation would indicate that you are wrong.

My equation would indicate that you are wrong.

THe only thing a wrong equation proves is that you fail

But my equation is correct.   

Perhaps you should use your middle school education to derive it.

But my equation is correct.   

Perhaps you should use your middle school education to derive it.

your equation is correct with real life results but it does not relfect the FE model states. so when I ask you about the FE model you are so very wrong

no 1 acceleration but it is a net acceleration

Really? So what provides the downward force?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 19, 2008, 11:02:14 PM

no 1 acceleration but it is a net acceleration

Really? So what provides the downward force?

if you are talking about the FE model there is no force other than the acceleration caused by the air resistance in the RE model the downward force is in the gravitational acceleration and the objects mass

your equation is correct with real life results but it does not relfect the FE model states. so when I ask you about the FE model you are so very wrong

Did you forget the part where I said that I derived it according to the FE model?