Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)

  • 883 Replies
  • 107061 Views
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #810 on: September 01, 2008, 02:17:34 PM »
You have not shown it to be even once.


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

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #811 on: September 01, 2008, 02:33:42 PM »
At t=2, your acceleration will be the same as on RE.  IT'S THAT SIMPLE.  NOTHING IS CHANGED EXCEPT THE METHOD IN WHICH GRAVITATION WORKS.  Terminal velocity will be the same.  Everything will be the same.  STFU, GTFO.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #812 on: September 01, 2008, 02:35:14 PM »
At t=2, your acceleration will be the same as on RE.  IT'S THAT SIMPLE.  NOTHING IS CHANGED EXCEPT THE METHOD IN WHICH GRAVITATION WORKS.  Terminal velocity will be the same.  Everything will be the same.  STFU, GTFO.
no it will not calculate the acceleration on the object and you will see that it is not the same
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

Tim Bishop

  • 48
  • Tom's Brother
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #813 on: September 01, 2008, 02:35:29 PM »
All the answers are in the FAQ, check.
Yes, it is a birthmark.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #814 on: September 01, 2008, 02:38:56 PM »
no it will not calculate the acceleration on the object and you will see that it is not the same
Then you have just proved the EP to be incorrect.  Congratulations.  Arguing the exact same point with you page after page, even though numerous other independent posters have shown you to be wrong is getting very old.  And annoying. 


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

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #815 on: September 01, 2008, 02:40:24 PM »
no it will not calculate the acceleration on the object and you will see that it is not the same
Then you have just proved the EP to be incorrect.  Congratulations.  Arguing the exact same point with you page after page, even though numerous other independent posters have shown you to be wrong is getting very old.  And annoying. 
the EP can only be applied after it reaches 9.81 m/s/s not before
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. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #816 on: September 01, 2008, 02:42:17 PM »
Congratulations on making the dumbest post of the day.


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

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #817 on: September 01, 2008, 02:42:58 PM »
At t=2, your acceleration will be the same as on RE.  IT'S THAT SIMPLE.  NOTHING IS CHANGED EXCEPT THE METHOD IN WHICH GRAVITATION WORKS.  Terminal velocity will be the same.  Everything will be the same.  STFU, GTFO.
no it will not calculate the acceleration on the object and you will see that it is not the same

Okay, let's take this one step at a time.

On FE:

1. You drop an object.

2. The Earth begins to accelerate towards the object, pushing air with it.

3. Though the object initially had an acceleration of 0 m/s2, it will now begin to accelerate due to air resistance.

4. The object reaches 9.8 m/s2.  It is now going a constant speed.

Now, this conforms exactly with the equivalence principle.  The only thing changed in this scenario compared to RE is our perspective.

On RE:

1. You drop an object.

2. The object begins to accelerate at 9.8 m/s2 towards the Earth.

3. As it encounters air, friction builds until the object begins to decelerate.

4. The object now has an acceleration of 0 m/s2 and is going a constant speed.

Besides our perspective, there is NOTHING different between the two scenarios.

Now I ask you, what IN THE WORLD would change the acceleration or anything between the two scenarios?

no it will not calculate the acceleration on the object and you will see that it is not the same
Then you have just proved the EP to be incorrect.  Congratulations.  Arguing the exact same point with you page after page, even though numerous other independent posters have shown you to be wrong is getting very old.  And annoying. 
the EP can only be applied after it reaches 9.81 m/s/s not before

WTF?

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #818 on: September 01, 2008, 02:46:34 PM »
you can not relate it to the earth only to the air passing by it. that is why you can't apply the EP to the 2
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #819 on: September 01, 2008, 02:48:23 PM »
Okay then.

1. Object sitting still

2. Air rushing past at g.

3. Object begins to accelerate.

4. Object reaches g.

Tahdah!  No Earth.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #820 on: September 01, 2008, 02:50:26 PM »
now using that show what the accleration will be at t=2 and then show that it will be the same as the RE model and if you want to still claim the EP then proove that the equations are the same
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #821 on: September 01, 2008, 02:57:02 PM »
OK.

I SHALL BE BACK!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #822 on: September 01, 2008, 03:16:35 PM »
if you want to still claim the EP then proove that the equations are the same
vt = sqrt(2*m*ae/(rho*A*Cd)

I seem to have done that already.


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

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #823 on: September 01, 2008, 03:38:31 PM »
*Peeks from behind bunker*

Is the war over?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #824 on: September 01, 2008, 03:39:59 PM »
The war has been over for 15 pages now.  We are all just waiting for cbarnett to catch up.


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

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #825 on: September 01, 2008, 03:40:46 PM »
if you want to still claim the EP then proove that the equations are the same
vt = sqrt(2*m*ae/(rho*A*Cd)

I seem to have done that already.
your reading skills are amazing so how about showing that the EP is valid for t=2 since there is no argument that the EP can be applied to the end results as far as you would be unable to tell if you were moving up or down
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. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #826 on: September 01, 2008, 03:43:44 PM »
Great!  You finally admit you were wrong!  This is a joyous day!


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

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #827 on: September 01, 2008, 03:48:32 PM »
Great!  You finally admit you were wrong!  This is a joyous day!
how about solving the problem at hand.
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #828 on: September 01, 2008, 03:53:11 PM »
Why would the equivalence principle change depending on circumstances?

It doesn't.  Otherwise acceleration and gravitation would not be equivalent and it would be pretty useless.

Find a source that says that the equivalence principle is not valid until such and such acceleration and then I'll continue arguing.

Otherwise, I find your stupidity insulting.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #829 on: September 01, 2008, 06:31:21 PM »
Why would the equivalence principle change depending on circumstances?

It doesn't.  Otherwise acceleration and gravitation would not be equivalent and it would be pretty useless.

Find a source that says that the equivalence principle is not valid until such and such acceleration and then I'll continue arguing.

Otherwise, I find your stupidity insulting.
the EP does not change depending on the Circumstances it either can be applied or it cant. The EP is used to explain identical accelerating frames which is why an accelerating FE can equate the effect of gravitation but it can only be applied to a local FoR that is sufficiently small enough that nothing changes. Now when we relate it to our problem at hand the EP can not be applied because the objects will accelerate at different rates based upon the model. We can apply the EP to describe the behavior after it reaches its terminal velocity because they will be accelerating with the same magnitude
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #830 on: September 01, 2008, 09:02:29 PM »
Why would the equivalence principle change depending on circumstances?

It doesn't.  Otherwise acceleration and gravitation would not be equivalent and it would be pretty useless.

Find a source that says that the equivalence principle is not valid until such and such acceleration and then I'll continue arguing.

Otherwise, I find your stupidity insulting.
the EP does not change depending on the Circumstances it either can be applied or it cant. The EP is used to explain identical accelerating frames which is why an accelerating FE can equate the effect of gravitation but it can only be applied to a local FoR that is sufficiently small enough that nothing changes. Now when we relate it to our problem at hand the EP can not be applied because the objects will accelerate at different rates based upon the model. We can apply the EP to describe the behavior after it reaches its terminal velocity because they will be accelerating with the same magnitude



Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #831 on: September 01, 2008, 09:28:27 PM »
Sorry I didn't have time to go over this "argument", but when did they claim that?
by relating the entire acceleration to the surface of the earth because the end result of the object should be 9.81m/s/s.
But they say there are no balancing forces. There is only a constant upwards acceleration relative to the Earth's.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #832 on: September 01, 2008, 09:35:09 PM »
the EP does not change depending on the Circumstances it either can be applied or it cant. The EP is used to explain identical accelerating frames which is why an accelerating FE can equate the effect of gravitation but it can only be applied to a local FoR that is sufficiently small enough that nothing changes.
The EP only applies to a local FoR because of tidal forces.  In this case, tidal forces are of no consequence, so the EP can be applied as is.

Quote
Now when we relate it to our problem at hand the EP can not be applied because the objects will accelerate at different rates based upon the model. We can apply the EP to describe the behavior after it reaches its terminal velocity because they will be accelerating with the same magnitude
Ok, so let's take air resistance out of the equation.  Let's drop the balls in a vacuum chamber.  Since the balls will never reach terminal velocity, we can't us the EP?  What are the varying accelerations these balls will see, according to you?


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

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #833 on: September 01, 2008, 09:48:58 PM »
the EP does not change depending on the Circumstances it either can be applied or it cant. The EP is used to explain identical accelerating frames which is why an accelerating FE can equate the effect of gravitation but it can only be applied to a local FoR that is sufficiently small enough that nothing changes.
The EP only applies to a local FoR because of tidal forces.  In this case, tidal forces are of no consequence, so the EP can be applied as is.

Quote
Now when we relate it to our problem at hand the EP can not be applied because the objects will accelerate at different rates based upon the model. We can apply the EP to describe the behavior after it reaches its terminal velocity because they will be accelerating with the same magnitude
Ok, so let's take air resistance out of the equation.  Let's drop the balls in a vacuum chamber.  Since the balls will never reach terminal velocity, we can't us the EP?  What are the varying accelerations these balls will see, according to you?
then we can apply the EP with no air resistance. the accleration that is caused by air resistance is why we can not apply the EP. tidal forces get looked at second, after we look to see if the 2 different accelerations are equal in magnitude, if they are then we look at tidal forces, then we can apply the EP, which is why after both objects stop accelerating in reference to the air we can apply the EP but until that point they accelerations are different so hence no EP
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. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #834 on: September 02, 2008, 12:02:20 AM »
But their accelerations will be different.  How can we apply the EP?


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

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #835 on: September 02, 2008, 01:03:16 AM »
barnet, you're wrong.  I'm sorry but you just are.  Your objection was based around what an accelerometer reads a few pages ago, and I have decisively shown that your interpretation is flawed.  FE and RE in this instance give the same results - just please read what I said before about the operation of an accelerometer:

Quote from: Matrix and his best pal, Einstein
What is happening, essentially, is that a test mass is 'falling' towards the ground on one end of a spring. The other end of the spring is attached to you, which can not fall since you are standing on the ground, therefore it measures an extension of the spring and outputs an acceleration.

Now imagine you have just jumped out of the plane. Now the weight on the spring is falling towards the ground, but so are you (at exactly the same rate).  The spring does not extend and so no acceleration is measured. This will be the same in orbit or anywhere else where you are in free fall.  Once you are out of the plane, the drag from the air will start to increase, which means the accelerometer can start to extend again (giving a reading) until you reach terminal velocity and the reading is the same as on the ground.

The equivalence principle applies at all times - it wouldn't be much of a principle otherwise.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #836 on: September 02, 2008, 02:56:27 AM »
Am I the only one who gets a headache from trying to understand cbarnett97's posts?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #837 on: September 02, 2008, 02:57:41 AM »
Who doesn't?

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #838 on: September 02, 2008, 11:05:19 AM »
But their accelerations will be different.  How can we apply the EP?
I am not sure you are the one trying to apply it
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

Re: Looking for an intelligent argument. (Terminal Velocity)
« Reply #839 on: September 02, 2008, 11:21:23 AM »
Why would the equivalence principle change depending on circumstances?

It doesn't.  Otherwise acceleration and gravitation would not be equivalent and it would be pretty useless.

Find a source that says that the equivalence principle is not valid until such and such acceleration and then I'll continue arguing.

Otherwise, I find your stupidity insulting.
the EP does not change depending on the Circumstances it either can be applied or it cant. The EP is used to explain identical accelerating frames which is why an accelerating FE can equate the effect of gravitation but it can only be applied to a local FoR that is sufficiently small enough that nothing changes. Now when we relate it to our problem at hand the EP can not be applied because the objects will accelerate at different rates based upon the model. We can apply the EP to describe the behavior after it reaches its terminal velocity because they will be accelerating with the same magnitude



Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
Here is what the EP states:
1) The forces of gravitation and acceleration are equivalent, and "free fall", orbital motion, and "coasting" cause both to vanish: we deduce from this:
2) the force of gravity is actually the convergent, accelerated motion of spacetime, explaining the equivalence of gravitational weight and inertial mass;
3) Free fall, orbit, (or "coasting") is the condition of co-moving with the metric field, whether accelerated or not;
4) Since all falling, orbiting, (or "coasting") objects are co-movers with the metric field of spacetime, they are also co-movers with each other (or at rest relative to each other), explaining the fact that all objects fall with the same acceleration in a gravitational field.

Since an object moving through air will not truly be in "free fall" because of air resistance we cannot apply the EP
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.