# Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)

• 883 Replies
• 147947 Views
?

#### Robbyj

• Flat Earth Editor
• 5459
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #540 on: August 23, 2008, 06:34:18 PM »
Once again, acceleration will go down with respect to time.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

#### cbarnett97

• 2746
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #541 on: August 23, 2008, 06:38:53 PM »
Once again, acceleration will go down with respect to time.
No acceleration will go up in the FE model until it equals the acceleration of the air
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

#### Robbyj

• Flat Earth Editor
• 5459
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #542 on: August 23, 2008, 06:42:01 PM »
Nevermind, we are essentially saying the same thing.  The object's acceleration will go up, which is what you are talking about, and the delta acceleration will go down which is what I was talking about.  I still don't agree with your numbers though.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

#### cbarnett97

• 2746
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #543 on: August 23, 2008, 06:45:38 PM »
Nevermind, we are essentially saying the same thing.  The object's acceleration will go up, which is what you are talking about, and the delta acceleration will go down which is what I was talking about.  I still don't agree with your numbers though.
I was just going to bring that up, and I am confident in my numbers, the air resistance is dependent upon the acceleration of the air by the object so if the air is accelerating then after every second the velocity increases but every second the force of the air resitance gives the object a velocity as well so it needs to subtracted to calculate the velocity of the air moving by the object
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

#### cbarnett97

• 2746
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #544 on: August 23, 2008, 06:48:06 PM »
and if you want to calculate tha object velocity in respect to the earth then its velocity would only be around 10 m/s which is half that of the RE prediction
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

#### Robbyj

• Flat Earth Editor
• 5459
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #545 on: August 23, 2008, 07:07:00 PM »
I got 0 m/s2 relative acceleration at t=2.26
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #546 on: August 23, 2008, 07:11:10 PM »
Relative to the Earth?  When your upwards acceleration equals the acceleration of the Earth.

Made this using LaTex and I forgot to resize the page so sorry
Your 'FE' equation is wrong.  Since you let us all have a good laugh, I'll go ahead and post the derivation for you.

The drag force on a body in a fluid is given by

F = .5*Cd*v2*A*rho                                                       (1)

where Cd is the drag coefficient, v is the velocity of the object, A is the cross sectional area of the object and rho is the density of the fluid.

We know from Newton's Second Law of Motion that

F = m*ao                                                                      (2)

where F is force, m is the mass of the object and ao is the acceleration of the object.  Rearranging (2) gives us

ao = F/m                                                                       (3)

Combining (3) and (1) gives

ao = Cd*v2*A*rho/(2*m)                                                 (4)

Now, an object that has reached terminal velocity, vt, has no relative acceleration to the Earth.  Applying this to the FE, that means that the object must have an upwards acceleration equal to that of the Earth's.  It follows then, that

ae - ao = 0                                                                   (5)

where ae is the acceleration of the Earth and ao is the acceleration of the object.

Rearranging (5) gives

ae = ao                                                                        (6)

which, by examination, is correct for all objects whose height is not changing relative to the Earth (aircraft for example).

Combining (6) and (4) leaves us with the equation

ae = Cd*vt2*A*rho/(2*m)                                              (7)

Performing simple algebra on (7) yields the equation

vt = sqrt(2*ae*m/(Cd*A*rho)                                          (8)

which can easily been seen to be the exact same equation as the one for the RE, with the exception that ae refers to the acceleration of the Earth and a in the RE equation refers to the acceleration due to gravity.

Using your numbers, we see that the terminal velocity on the FE is 22.1426 m/s.

p.s.  Your RE equation is wrong.

"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 #547 on: August 23, 2008, 07:11:31 PM »
I got 0 m/s2 relative acceleration at t=2.26
let us see the math
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

#### cbarnett97

• 2746
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #548 on: August 23, 2008, 07:12:47 PM »
Relative to the Earth?  When your upwards acceleration equals the acceleration of the Earth.

Made this using LaTex and I forgot to resize the page so sorry
Your 'FE' equation is wrong.  Since you let us all have a good laugh, I'll go ahead and post the derivation for you.

The drag force on a body in a fluid is given by

F = .5*Cd*v2*A*rho                                                       (1)

where Cd is the drag coefficient, v is the velocity of the object, A is the cross sectional area of the object and rho is the density of the fluid.

We know from Newton's Second Law of Motion that

F = m*ao                                                                      (2)

where F is force, m is the mass of the object and ao is the acceleration of the object.  Rearranging (2) gives us

ao = F/m                                                                       (3)

Combining (3) and (1) gives

ao = Cd*v2*A*rho/(2*m)                                                 (4)

Now, an object that has reached terminal velocity, vt, has no relative acceleration to the Earth.  Applying this to the FE, that means that the object must have an upwards acceleration equal to that of the Earth's.  It follows then, that

ae - ao = 0                                                                   (5)

where ae is the acceleration of the Earth and ao is the acceleration of the object.

Rearranging (5) gives

ae = ao                                                                        (6)

which, by examination, is correct for all objects whose height is not changing relative to the Earth (aircraft for example).

Combining (6) and (4) leaves us with the equation

ae = Cd*vt2*A*rho/(2*m)                                              (7)

Performing simple algebra on (7) yields the equation

vt = sqrt(2*ae*m/(Cd*A*rho)                                          (8)

which can easily been seen to be the exact same equation as the one for the RE, with the exception that ae refers to the acceleration of the Earth and a in the RE equation refers to the acceleration due to gravity.

Using your numbers, we see that the terminal velocity on the FE is 22.1426 m/s.

p.s.  Your RE equation is wrong.

Nice try but learn what the FE model states and then maybe you can contribute to the Conversation
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 #549 on: August 23, 2008, 07:16:01 PM »
You seem to have forgotten to tell us all the part where my derivation is wrong.

How can you be confident in your numbers when I have shown them to be wrong already?  Besides, your RE equation is wrong.

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

?

#### Robbyj

• Flat Earth Editor
• 5459
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #550 on: August 23, 2008, 07:16:46 PM »

0.02 is all the stated variables other than v simplified.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2008, 07:34:41 PM by Robbyj »
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

#### cbarnett97

• 2746
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #551 on: August 23, 2008, 07:30:33 PM »
You seem to have forgotten to tell us all the part where my derivation is wrong.

How can you be confident in your numbers when I have shown them to be wrong already?  Besides, your RE equation is wrong.
Think a bit harder about your understanding of the model, I know it will be tough because you can not look it up on wiki
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

#### cbarnett97

• 2746
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #552 on: August 23, 2008, 07:31:06 PM »

0.02 is all the stated variables other than v simplified.
can you show a bit more detail please
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

#### Robbyj

• Flat Earth Editor
• 5459
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #553 on: August 23, 2008, 07:31:42 PM »
Stupid smiley faces, that is supposed to be 9.8 )
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

#### cbarnett97

• 2746
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #554 on: August 23, 2008, 07:32:49 PM »
Stupid smiley faces, that is supposed to be 9.8 )
Yeah I figured as much
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

#### Robbyj

• Flat Earth Editor
• 5459
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #555 on: August 23, 2008, 07:33:09 PM »
That isn't a constant, it is v=at at t=2.26.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

#### cbarnett97

• 2746
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #556 on: August 23, 2008, 07:35:49 PM »
That isn't a constant, it is v=at at t=2.26.
but you cannot just the RE answer and show that it is the same in FE you need to show why it is the same
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 #557 on: August 23, 2008, 07:36:05 PM »
Strange, I also get vt at 2.26s.

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

#### divito the truthist

• The Elder Ones
• 6903
• Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #558 on: August 23, 2008, 07:37:12 PM »
It seems that cbarnett suffers from sokarulitis as well; everyone else is wrong, and he is right.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

#### cbarnett97

• 2746
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #559 on: August 23, 2008, 07:37:46 PM »
It seems that cbarnett suffers from sokarulitis as well; everyone else is wrong, and he is right.
no just 2 people are wrong
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

#### Roundy the Truthinessist

• Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
• The Elder Ones
• 27043
• I'm the boss.
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #560 on: August 23, 2008, 07:38:38 PM »
It seems that cbarnett suffers from sokarulitis as well; everyone else is wrong, and he is right.

I've noticed that.  I wonder if he lives in the same little world as sokarul or if they each have their own little worlds to live in.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

#### Robbyj

• Flat Earth Editor
• 5459
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #561 on: August 23, 2008, 07:44:07 PM »
That isn't a constant, it is v=at at t=2.26.
but you cannot just the RE answer and show that it is the same in FE you need to show why it is the same

V=at regardless of FE or RE.

Anet=AEarth-AObject

What, in your opinion am I missing?
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

#### Robbyj

• Flat Earth Editor
• 5459
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #562 on: August 23, 2008, 07:46:03 PM »
I've noticed that.  I wonder if he lives in the same little world as sokarul or if they each have their own little worlds to live in.

Well, apparently in sokarul's world, it is retarded for alien eskimo farmhands to pose as mexicans.  Go figure.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

#### cbarnett97

• 2746
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #563 on: August 23, 2008, 07:46:36 PM »
That isn't a constant, it is v=at at t=2.26.
but you cannot just the RE answer and show that it is the same in FE you need to show why it is the same

V=at regardless of FE or RE.

Anet=AEarth-AObject

What, in your opinion am I missing?
You are messing up with regards to the acceleration of the object, which is of course my whole point
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

#### Robbyj

• Flat Earth Editor
• 5459
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #564 on: August 23, 2008, 07:49:03 PM »
That isn't a constant, it is v=at at t=2.26.
but you cannot just the RE answer and show that it is the same in FE you need to show why it is the same

V=at regardless of FE or RE.

Anet=AEarth-AObject

What, in your opinion am I missing?
You are messing up with regards to the acceleration of the object, which is of course my whole point

But we are using the same equation you used in your model.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

#### cbarnett97

• 2746
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #565 on: August 23, 2008, 07:51:32 PM »
That isn't a constant, it is v=at at t=2.26.
but you cannot just the RE answer and show that it is the same in FE you need to show why it is the same

V=at regardless of FE or RE.

Anet=AEarth-AObject

What, in your opinion am I missing?
You are messing up with regards to the acceleration of the object, which is of course my whole point

But we are using the same equation you used in your model.
but you are calculating the acceleration on the object incorrectly, Do this do not think about what happens in reality think about what the model states, and then ask yourself what is causing the acceleration on the object.
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

#### Robbyj

• Flat Earth Editor
• 5459
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #566 on: August 23, 2008, 07:52:06 PM »
reverse drag
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

#### cbarnett97

• 2746
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #567 on: August 23, 2008, 07:53:30 PM »
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

#### Robbyj

• Flat Earth Editor
• 5459
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #568 on: August 23, 2008, 07:54:50 PM »
I am assuming you are going to tell me...
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

#### cbarnett97

• 2746
##### Re: Looking for an intelligent argument.
« Reply #569 on: August 23, 2008, 07:59:10 PM »
I am assuming you are going to tell me...
No I am asking you if there are any other forces before we move on to the next step
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.