Debunking (so-called professor) Brian Cox gravity experiment in vacuum for BBC

  • 108 Replies
  • 33405 Views
*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Ready to admit that the feather drop in a vacuum is different to the feather drop in air yet?

Or are you conveniently not seeing that?

They are different. But last example is a "real time experiment" oppositely to others. So more reliable. Others are already fiction, not real.

There are many mistakes in this video except this one. The number of these mistakes will increase in this evening. Now I haven't time for it that waste. For a basic hint, the answer is "fallen motionless objects".

Last example is bad editing.

Both examples are shown earlier in the video.

Immediately after the one that you think is faked they show the descent in vacuum. The feather and ball are falling at the same rate and land together.

Explain this.

Prof Cox is a genuine professor. He's been outside his basement and everything. You abuse him in your OP, but he also has some choice words for people like you.

He has a twitter account. Why not contact him @ProfBrianCox
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25654
  • Soul Transformer
Ready to admit that the feather drop in a vacuum is different to the feather drop in air yet?

Or are you conveniently not seeing that?

They are different. But last example is a "real time experiment" oppositely to others. So more reliable. Others are already fiction, not real.

There are many mistakes in this video except this one. The number of these mistakes will increase in this evening. Now I haven't time for it that waste. For a basic hint, the answer is "fallen motionless objects".

Last example is bad editing.

Both examples are shown earlier in the video.

Immediately after the one that you think is faked they show the descent in vacuum. The feather and ball are falling at the same rate and land together.

Explain this.

Prof Cox is a genuine professor. He's been outside his basement and everything. You abuse him in your OP, but he also has some choice words for people like you.

He has a twitter account. Why not contact him @ProfBrianCox

I show everything by clearly.

The video created by method of "cut-paste". If you don't believe to my debunking, you free to think it as 4:16 started with ordinary experiment, 4:17 turned to in vacuum experiment. This situation should be an evidence for you it is a "cut-past" created video. So there is something here is "dishonest". It must be an experiment show the experiment in vacuum "real time, start to end" but there is no experiment like this. there is only one experiment that I debunked only start with in vacuum and finishes in vacuum but you refute it.

I saw his videos from Zero Gravity plane. Also I saw that he supported many different nasa topics. This proves he is a slave, a dog from NASA. He is Poisoning people with lies as a snake.

I haven't a twitter adress. I used it one time in several years ago but they closed it by nonsence. I don't trust twitter. They are sons of satan.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2017, 03:20:58 AM by İntikam »
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

İgnored: Disputeone

?

Kami

  • 1162
Quote
there is only one experiment that I debunked only start with in vacuum and finishes in vacuum but you refute it.
Where did you debunk that?

Ready to admit that the feather drop in a vacuum is different to the feather drop in air yet?

Or are you conveniently not seeing that?

They are different. But last example is a "real time experiment" oppositely to others. So more reliable. Others are already fiction, not real.

There are many mistakes in this video except this one. The number of these mistakes will increase in this evening. Now I haven't time for it that waste. For a basic hint, the answer is "fallen motionless objects".

Last example is bad editing.

Both examples are shown earlier in the video.

Immediately after the one that you think is faked they show the descent in vacuum. The feather and ball are falling at the same rate and land together.

Explain this.

Prof Cox is a genuine professor. He's been outside his basement and everything. You abuse him in your OP, but he also has some choice words for people like you.

He has a twitter account. Why not contact him @ProfBrianCox

I show everything by clearly.

The video created by method of "cut-paste". If you don't believe to my debunking, you free to think it as 4:16 started with ordinary experiment, 4:17 turned to in vacuum experiment. This situation should be an evidence for you it is a "cut-past" created video. So there is something here is "dishonest". It must be an experiment show the experiment in vacuum "real time, start to end" but there is no experiment like this. there is only one experiment that I debunked only start with in vacuum and finishes in vacuum but you refute it.

I saw his videos from Zero Gravity plane. Also I saw that he supported many different nasa topics. This proves he is a slave, a dog from NASA. He is Poisoning people with lies as a snake.

I haven't a twitter adress. I used it one time in several years ago but they closed it by nonsence. I don't trust twitter. They are sons of satan.

Congratulations on finding the editing mistake in the video.  It was poorly edited.

However, there is enough intact footage to demonstrate that both items fell at the same rate in a vacuum.

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
Ready to admit that the feather drop in a vacuum is different to the feather drop in air yet?

Or are you conveniently not seeing that?

They are different. But last example is a "real time experiment" oppositely to others. So more reliable. Others are already fiction, not real.

There are many mistakes in this video except this one. The number of these mistakes will increase in this evening. Now I haven't time for it that waste. For a basic hint, the answer is "fallen motionless objects".
No. The last "example" is a combination of the prior 2 experiments. The screwed up the editing. You can see that exact footage earlier in the video.

The prior 2 experiments were done in real time, but recorded with a high speed camera (I assume) to allow smoother playback.

You being ignorant of gravity and relativity isn't a mistake. It is you being ignorant.
So I take it the number of examples of your dishonesty shall increase.

The simple fact is that this shows that gravity (or some other force or phenomenon) accelerates objects the same while they are in a vacuum and it is external forces like air resistance and buoyancy that results in apparent differences.

I show everything by clearly.

The video created by method of "cut-paste". If you don't believe to my debunking, you free to think it as 4:16 started with ordinary experiment, 4:17 turned to in vacuum experiment. This situation should be an evidence for you it is a "cut-past" created video. So there is something here is "dishonest". It must be an experiment show the experiment in vacuum "real time, start to end" but there is no experiment like this. there is only one experiment that I debunked only start with in vacuum and finishes in vacuum but you refute it.
No. You intentionally misrepresent it.

All videos like this are done by "cut-paste". Do you think the camera magically changed position?
There is no evidence of dishonesty.
They most likely made an editing mistake, where they screwed up and put the wrong start footage for the experiment.

However I have come to realise that may be an error on my part.
They could have meant to put that there to show the difference, and show that in air, the bowling ball appears to move much faster, while in a vacuum they fall together.

The only dishonesty is your analysis of the video.

Why do you want an experiment which shows the vacuum drop in real time?

If you want that, look at the moon landing video. They dropped a hammer and feather.
There are plenty of other experiments on you-tube.
Like this one:


With real-time, it is all over far too quickly, and people miss it.
The slow motion makes it quite easy for people to take it in.

I saw his videos from Zero Gravity plane. Also I saw that he supported many different nasa topics. This proves he is a slave, a dog from NASA. He is Poisoning people with lies as a snake.
No. It doesn't.
However this debate tactic of yours shows how dishonest you are and how you have no rational argument.
Rather than rationally concluding he is a liar and that Earth is flat and gravity isn't real, you start from the assumption that Earth is flat, and gravity isn't real and then "conclude" anyone that doesn't agree and instead promotes a round Earth like NASA must be lying and controlled by Satan, and then anyone linked to them must be as well.

Quit with your slander and disrespecting people. Start trying to act like a rational adult.

I haven't a twitter adress. I used it one time in several years ago but they closed it by nonsence. I don't trust twitter. They are sons of satan.
Was it because you kept spouting abuse at people for no reason, or spamming that you were ignoring them?

Why not trust sons of Satan, Satan is the good one in the Abrahamic faiths.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25654
  • Soul Transformer
Ready to admit that the feather drop in a vacuum is different to the feather drop in air yet?

Or are you conveniently not seeing that?

They are different. But last example is a "real time experiment" oppositely to others. So more reliable. Others are already fiction, not real.

There are many mistakes in this video except this one. The number of these mistakes will increase in this evening. Now I haven't time for it that waste. For a basic hint, the answer is "fallen motionless objects".

Last example is bad editing.

Both examples are shown earlier in the video.

Immediately after the one that you think is faked they show the descent in vacuum. The feather and ball are falling at the same rate and land together.

Explain this.

Prof Cox is a genuine professor. He's been outside his basement and everything. You abuse him in your OP, but he also has some choice words for people like you.

He has a twitter account. Why not contact him @ProfBrianCox

I show everything by clearly.

The video created by method of "cut-paste". If you don't believe to my debunking, you free to think it as 4:16 started with ordinary experiment, 4:17 turned to in vacuum experiment. This situation should be an evidence for you it is a "cut-past" created video. So there is something here is "dishonest". It must be an experiment show the experiment in vacuum "real time, start to end" but there is no experiment like this. there is only one experiment that I debunked only start with in vacuum and finishes in vacuum but you refute it.

I saw his videos from Zero Gravity plane. Also I saw that he supported many different nasa topics. This proves he is a slave, a dog from NASA. He is Poisoning people with lies as a snake.

I haven't a twitter adress. I used it one time in several years ago but they closed it by nonsence. I don't trust twitter. They are sons of satan.

Congratulations on finding the editing mistake in the video.  It was poorly edited.

However, there is enough intact footage to demonstrate that both items fell at the same rate in a vacuum.

My finding enuogh to believe the video is fake. There is also no need to work anymore on it.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

İgnored: Disputeone

*

FaKaN

  • 34
  • Think before
One thing and nothing more, why they changed the camera 🎥
Don't be shy to say, They fooled us, and now I waked up

?

tomato

  • 175
  • Shine on you crazy diamonds.
Wow really? Maybe I'll start an "ignore list" of my own, and he can be the only one on it, I wonder how he would react to that lol
Maybe he'll put you on his ignore list  ;D
I think he already did because apparently pointing out his flaws means that I'm an alt of the dreaded "swearers" so my mothers a whore or something like that

he is just 17, from Michigan. Posted 80 message in a month. I have ignored him, then he has announced he ignored me. And he has resigned the forum.

This is what we call as "shill".

Anyway.

Images in first post are updated. It is hard to find a reliable upload website nowadays.

I guess I just still have a question. Graviters say parachutes work by air resistance. You are saying that instead, lighter things fall slowly. Can we make a parachute by just tying a string to something light like a feather? Then, like in the video, the feather falls slow even without air resistance and should work like a parachute.
Tomato puree

?

Dirk

  • 200
I guess I just still have a question. Graviters say parachutes work by air resistance. You are saying that instead, lighter things fall slowly. Can we make a parachute by just tying a string to something light like a feather? Then, like in the video, the feather falls slow even without air resistance and should work like a parachute.

Tying a parachutist to a feather does not make the parachutist lighter.  :)

But thank you, “parachute” is the right word. We all agree, that an adult parachutist weighs more than a bowling ball, even without parachute. Why does the bowling ball falls faster than the parachutist with deployed parachute?

Or the parachutist without deployed parachute faster than with deployed parachute?

PS: Back in school, we made the same experiment in physics with a feather and a coin, one time with air and another with (almost) no air. The drop was only 3 meters, but you could see that without air both the feather and the coin fall with the same acceleration. It was also filmed on video for confirmation, because the drop took less than a second.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2018, 01:14:25 PM by Dirk »

The attempts at debunking that clip are some of the worst I have read on this forum. It makes me wonder why I joined this board.
Be gentle

It's a demonstration, not an experiment.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25654
  • Soul Transformer
Wow really? Maybe I'll start an "ignore list" of my own, and he can be the only one on it, I wonder how he would react to that lol
Maybe he'll put you on his ignore list  ;D
I think he already did because apparently pointing out his flaws means that I'm an alt of the dreaded "swearers" so my mothers a whore or something like that

he is just 17, from Michigan. Posted 80 message in a month. I have ignored him, then he has announced he ignored me. And he has resigned the forum.

This is what we call as "shill".

Anyway.

Images in first post are updated. It is hard to find a reliable upload website nowadays.

I guess I just still have a question. Graviters say parachutes work by air resistance. You are saying that instead, lighter things fall slowly. Can we make a parachute by just tying a string to something light like a feather? Then, like in the video, the feather falls slow even without air resistance and should work like a parachute.

I missed your question because or intensive floods by regular trolls/shills of this forum. The parachutes works because they are forcing to holding the air inside. After a while downing, inside of the parachute fills with air. When it continue due downing, but the air inside of the parachute becomes heavier than the air the outside. Because you are forcing the air to be jam. In other say, inside of the parachute has jamed air and it is heavier than the air outside. So that, another force happens in the edges of the parachute to the outside. Upper side, edges and the bottom of the parachute has more heavier air than the outside. The air in the bottom can flee. But the air in the edges and upper side can't flee the out. So a force happens to parachute to towards the sides and up. This force slows down the parachute.

Shortly,

The mechanism of the parachut is related the ratio of the parachut catch the air. If it missed to catch air, doesn't work. Whatever an object has a "orange peel effect", but can't hold the air, neverdessly slows down. But only does it with if it holds the jammed air inside.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

İgnored: Disputeone

Wow really? Maybe I'll start an "ignore list" of my own, and he can be the only one on it, I wonder how he would react to that lol
Maybe he'll put you on his ignore list  ;D
I think he already did because apparently pointing out his flaws means that I'm an alt of the dreaded "swearers" so my mothers a whore or something like that

he is just 17, from Michigan. Posted 80 message in a month. I have ignored him, then he has announced he ignored me. And he has resigned the forum.

This is what we call as "shill".

Anyway.

Images in first post are updated. It is hard to find a reliable upload website nowadays.

I guess I just still have a question. Graviters say parachutes work by air resistance. You are saying that instead, lighter things fall slowly. Can we make a parachute by just tying a string to something light like a feather? Then, like in the video, the feather falls slow even without air resistance and should work like a parachute.

I missed your question because or intensive floods by regular trolls/shills of this forum. The parachutes works because they are forcing to holding the air inside. After a while downing, inside of the parachute fills with air. When it continue due downing, but the air inside of the parachute becomes heavier than the air the outside. Because you are forcing the air to be jam. In other say, inside of the parachute has jamed air and it is heavier than the air outside. So that, another force happens in the edges of the parachute to the outside. Upper side, edges and the bottom of the parachute has more heavier air than the outside. The air in the bottom can flee. But the air in the edges and upper side can't flee the out. So a force happens to parachute to towards the sides and up. This force slows down the parachute.

Shortly,

The mechanism of the parachut is related the ratio of the parachut catch the air. If it missed to catch air, doesn't work. Whatever an object has a "orange peel effect", but can't hold the air, neverdessly slows down. But only does it with if it holds the jammed air inside.

Okay, then by all means, could you explain why certain types of parachutes have holes in them?



Surely, that would cause the rammed air to flow out, no?

Parachutes work because of drag. That’s it. Full explanation here: http://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-parachutes-work.html

Be gentle

Wow really? Maybe I'll start an "ignore list" of my own, and he can be the only one on it, I wonder how he would react to that lol
Maybe he'll put you on his ignore list  ;D
I think he already did because apparently pointing out his flaws means that I'm an alt of the dreaded "swearers" so my mothers a whore or something like that

he is just 17, from Michigan. Posted 80 message in a month. I have ignored him, then he has announced he ignored me. And he has resigned the forum.

This is what we call as "shill".

Anyway.

Images in first post are updated. It is hard to find a reliable upload website nowadays.

I guess I just still have a question. Graviters say parachutes work by air resistance. You are saying that instead, lighter things fall slowly. Can we make a parachute by just tying a string to something light like a feather? Then, like in the video, the feather falls slow even without air resistance and should work like a parachute.

I missed your question because or intensive floods by regular trolls/shills of this forum. The parachutes works because they are forcing to holding the air inside. After a while downing, inside of the parachute fills with air. When it continue due downing, but the air inside of the parachute becomes heavier than the air the outside. Because you are forcing the air to be jam. In other say, inside of the parachute has jamed air and it is heavier than the air outside. So that, another force happens in the edges of the parachute to the outside. Upper side, edges and the bottom of the parachute has more heavier air than the outside. The air in the bottom can flee. But the air in the edges and upper side can't flee the out. So a force happens to parachute to towards the sides and up. This force slows down the parachute.

Shortly,

The mechanism of the parachut is related the ratio of the parachut catch the air. If it missed to catch air, doesn't work. Whatever an object has a "orange peel effect", but can't hold the air, neverdessly slows down. But only does it with if it holds the jammed air inside.

Hang on. Is he saying the heavier air trapped inside the parachute falls slower than the lighter air on the outside?

Or is he saying the escaping air at the edges of the parachute create a slowing down force on the chute?

I am not understanding

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
In other say, inside of the parachute has jamed air and it is heavier than the air outside.
If the air inside was heavier it should fall faster.

?

tomato

  • 175
  • Shine on you crazy diamonds.
Wow really? Maybe I'll start an "ignore list" of my own, and he can be the only one on it, I wonder how he would react to that lol
Maybe he'll put you on his ignore list  ;D
I think he already did because apparently pointing out his flaws means that I'm an alt of the dreaded "swearers" so my mothers a whore or something like that

he is just 17, from Michigan. Posted 80 message in a month. I have ignored him, then he has announced he ignored me. And he has resigned the forum.

This is what we call as "shill".

Anyway.

Images in first post are updated. It is hard to find a reliable upload website nowadays.

I guess I just still have a question. Graviters say parachutes work by air resistance. You are saying that instead, lighter things fall slowly. Can we make a parachute by just tying a string to something light like a feather? Then, like in the video, the feather falls slow even without air resistance and should work like a parachute.

I missed your question because or intensive floods by regular trolls/shills of this forum. The parachutes works because they are forcing to holding the air inside. After a while downing, inside of the parachute fills with air. When it continue due downing, but the air inside of the parachute becomes heavier than the air the outside. Because you are forcing the air to be jam. In other say, inside of the parachute has jamed air and it is heavier than the air outside. So that, another force happens in the edges of the parachute to the outside. Upper side, edges and the bottom of the parachute has more heavier air than the outside. The air in the bottom can flee. But the air in the edges and upper side can't flee the out. So a force happens to parachute to towards the sides and up. This force slows down the parachute.

Shortly,

The mechanism of the parachut is related the ratio of the parachut catch the air. If it missed to catch air, doesn't work. Whatever an object has a "orange peel effect", but can't hold the air, neverdessly slows down. But only does it with if it holds the jammed air inside.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm still thinking about how jammed/heavier air makes a force on the edges and upper side but I think it makes sense.
Tomato puree

*

Macarios

  • 2093
The whole story here is to try to convince people that heavier objects fall faster.
In that case I have to ask again:
Quote
Choose height H (for example 2 meters) fo all experiments the same, and drop all objects below from the same height H.

Drop 100 grams clay ball.
Measure the time T1.
Drop two 100 grams clay bals.
Measure the time T2.
Stick together the same two 100 grams clay balls and drop.
Measure the T3.
Will two 100 grams clay balls fall at same or different rate with or withour being stuck together?
Should T2 be the same as T1?
Should T3 be the same as T2?
If yes, why?
If not, why?

Drop two 100 grams woodden sticks and measure T4.
Tie thin thread from one stick to another and then drop them again, measure T5.
Glue the two sticks together and drop them again. Measure T6.
Should T5 be the same as T4?
Should T6 be the same as T5?
If yes, why?
If no, why?

Drop metal bar, measure T7.
Cut the bar into two halves and drop halves together, measure T8.
Drop just one half, measure T9.
Compare times T7, T8 and T9.
Should they be the same?
Why?

If boy and girl jump together into pool, will they fall faster if they hold hands?
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25654
  • Soul Transformer

If boy and girl jump together into pool, will they fall faster if they hold hands?


Sit down, zero.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

İgnored: Disputeone

*

Macarios

  • 2093

If boy and girl jump together into pool, will they fall faster if they hold hands?


Sit down, zero.

See?
You are beginning to understand where is your mistake.
There is still hope for you.

So, will two bals of 100 grams fall faster or slower than one ball of 200 grams?
Why?
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25654
  • Soul Transformer

If boy and girl jump together into pool, will they fall faster if they hold hands?


Sit down, zero.

See?
You are beginning to understand where is your mistake.
There is still hope for you.

So, will two bals of 100 grams fall faster or slower than one ball of 200 grams?
Why?

I've already writed the equation about it.

a= K* ((m1-m2)/m1)

I have pre agreed K as 9,811 but new tests show it may be more than 9,811. Anyway, we'll use it as this value for now.

a= 9,811* ((m1-m2)/m1)

Volume of the ball is important. I'll take them two equal to a voleyball ball.

R preagreed as: 25 cms. (pre acceptance, maybe wrong)

Volume: pixr^3/4= 25x25x25x3,14/4= 49062/4 =~12.000cm^3 = 0,01 m^3

Air weight for this volume>>

Air specific weight= 1,225kg/m^3

Air weight for this volume= 1,225*0,01= 0,01 kg.

First object: 0,20kgs.

Second object: 0,10kgs.

Remind a= 9,811* ((m1-m2)/m1)

accelerate 1 (for object 200 gram)=  9,811 * (0,2-0,01)/0,2 = 9,32 m/sn^2

accelerate 2 (for object 100 gram)=  9,811 * (0,1-0,01)/0,1 = 8,83 m/sn^2

As a result, ball object has 200 grs weight falls 5% faster than object 100 grs.

You may test it with two balls has equal volume and one of them 200 gram and the other one 100 gram. You'll see the first one falls first. But not so so. In 2 metres you maybe don't see the difference but it is more effective in a high more than 10 metres.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

İgnored: Disputeone

*

JackBlack

  • 22527
I've already writed the equation about it.

a= K* ((m1-m2)/m1)
Which you got wrong.
It isn't a case of m1 and m2, it is a case of rho1 and rho2.
They are the density of the object and medium respectively.
This is gravity.

You have no justification for your formula other than gravity.

Until you provide a justification, you are just using gravity and pretending it is something else.

It also completely ignores drag.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
a= K* ((m1-m2)/m1)

I have pre agreed K as 9,811 but new tests show it may be more than 9,811. Anyway, we'll use it as this value for now.

a= 9,811* ((m1-m2)/m1)

And your equation proves that both the ball and the feather accelerate downwards at 9.811 m/s2 in a vacuum, so Brian Cox is correct!

After reading some of the comments here I wonder if one or two of the contributors never went to school. Regardless of the shape of the earth how objects with different masses  fall in a near vacuum can be easily tested and is done so possibly millions of times every year in schools/colleges/universities around the world. Its not something open for debate as the answer will allways be the same and can’t suddenly be anything else. All things irrespective of mass will fall at the same rate in a vacuum. If you find this hatd to accept, just go and see the experiment being carried out. There is no conspiracy involved in this one, trying to fabricate or pretend there is another answer is just an excersise in futility.
Destroyer of the future mind who travels time under the name of Shifter.”
Ps  I didnt have any red ink left!

*

Macarios

  • 2093

If boy and girl jump together into pool, will they fall faster if they hold hands?


Sit down, zero.

See?
You are beginning to understand where is your mistake.
There is still hope for you.

So, will two bals of 100 grams fall faster or slower than one ball of 200 grams?
Why?

I've already writed the equation about it.

a= K* ((m1-m2)/m1)

I have pre agreed K as 9,811 but new tests show it may be more than 9,811. Anyway, we'll use it as this value for now.

a= 9,811* ((m1-m2)/m1)

Volume of the ball is important. I'll take them two equal to a voleyball ball.

R preagreed as: 25 cms. (pre acceptance, maybe wrong)

Volume: pixr^3/4= 25x25x25x3,14/4= 49062/4 =~12.000cm^3 = 0,01 m^3

Air weight for this volume>>

Air specific weight= 1,225kg/m^3

Air weight for this volume= 1,225*0,01= 0,01 kg.

First object: 0,20kgs.

Second object: 0,10kgs.

Remind a= 9,811* ((m1-m2)/m1)

accelerate 1 (for object 200 gram)=  9,811 * (0,2-0,01)/0,2 = 9,32 m/sn^2

accelerate 2 (for object 100 gram)=  9,811 * (0,1-0,01)/0,1 = 8,83 m/sn^2

As a result, ball object has 200 grs weight falls 5% faster than object 100 grs.

You may test it with two balls has equal volume and one of them 200 gram and the other one 100 gram. You'll see the first one falls first. But not so so. In 2 metres you maybe don't see the difference but it is more effective in a high more than 10 metres.

First of all, even the simplest thing like volume you did wrong.
V = 4/3 Pi r3 and not Pi r3 / 4
Logically, required radius for projected volume will be r = (3V / 4Pi)1/3 (third root). Diameter D = 2 r .

Second, if you use iron, it is 7300 kg/m3 and air is 1.225 kg/m3.
Obviously, iron is 5959 times more massive than air for the same volume.

So, iron ball of 100 grams (0.1 kg) will have volume of 1 / 73000 m3, which is ball with diameter of 0.03 m (3 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.00001678 kg (0.01678 g).

Iron ball of 200 grams (0.2 kg) will have volume of 1 / 36500 m3, which is ball with diameter of 0.037 m (3.7 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.00003356 kg (0.03356 g).

Acceleration g in Ankara is 9.8024 m/s2.
Acceleration g in Istanbul is 9.808 m/s2.
Distance d = v0 t + a t2 / 2 , while v0 = 0 , so t = SQRT(2d / g).

From height of 2 meters in Istanbul:
First ball will fall SQRT(2 * 2m / 9.808) = 0.638 seconds.
Second ball will fall SQRT(2 * 2m / 9.808) = 0.638 seconds.

Now take different balls from different ball bearings and drop them together from your wardrobe to your carpet.
Do something real.
(Others can do the same thing, so watch your mouth.)



EDIT: If you want to work with wet clay, it is 1826 kg / m3
100 g ball is 1 / 18 260 m3
200 g ball is 1 / 9 130 m3
« Last Edit: April 29, 2018, 09:41:53 PM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25654
  • Soul Transformer

If boy and girl jump together into pool, will they fall faster if they hold hands?


Sit down, zero.

See?
You are beginning to understand where is your mistake.
There is still hope for you.

So, will two bals of 100 grams fall faster or slower than one ball of 200 grams?
Why?

I've already writed the equation about it.

a= K* ((m1-m2)/m1)

I have pre agreed K as 9,811 but new tests show it may be more than 9,811. Anyway, we'll use it as this value for now.

a= 9,811* ((m1-m2)/m1)

Volume of the ball is important. I'll take them two equal to a voleyball ball.

R preagreed as: 25 cms. (pre acceptance, maybe wrong)

Volume: pixr^3/4= 25x25x25x3,14/4= 49062/4 =~12.000cm^3 = 0,01 m^3

Air weight for this volume>>

Air specific weight= 1,225kg/m^3

Air weight for this volume= 1,225*0,01= 0,01 kg.

First object: 0,20kgs.

Second object: 0,10kgs.

Remind a= 9,811* ((m1-m2)/m1)

accelerate 1 (for object 200 gram)=  9,811 * (0,2-0,01)/0,2 = 9,32 m/sn^2

accelerate 2 (for object 100 gram)=  9,811 * (0,1-0,01)/0,1 = 8,83 m/sn^2

As a result, ball object has 200 grs weight falls 5% faster than object 100 grs.

You may test it with two balls has equal volume and one of them 200 gram and the other one 100 gram. You'll see the first one falls first. But not so so. In 2 metres you maybe don't see the difference but it is more effective in a high more than 10 metres.

First of all, even the simplest thing like volume you did wrong.
V = 4/3 Pi r3 and not Pi r3 / 4
Logically, required radius for projected volume will be r = (3V / 4Pi)1/3 (third root). Diameter D = 2 r .

Second, if you use iron, it is 7300 kg/m3 and air is 1.225 kg/m3.
Obviously, iron is 5959 times more massive than air for the same volume.

So, iron ball of 100 grams (0.1 kg) will have volume of 1 / 73000 m3, which is ball with diameter of 0.03 m (3 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.00001678 kg (0.01678 g).

Iron ball of 200 grams (0.2 kg) will have volume of 1 / 36500 m3, which is ball with diameter of 0.037 m (3.7 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.00003356 kg (0.03356 g).

Acceleration g in Ankara is 9.8024 m/s2.
Acceleration g in Istanbul is 9.808 m/s2.
Distance d = v0 t + a t2 / 2 , while v0 = 0 , so t = SQRT(2d / g).

From height of 2 meters in Istanbul:
First ball will fall SQRT(2 * 2m / 9.808) = 0.638 seconds.
Second ball will fall SQRT(2 * 2m / 9.808) = 0.638 seconds.

Now take different balls from different ball bearings and drop them together from your wardrobe to your carpet.
Do something real.
(Others can do the same thing, so watch your mouth.)



Firstly, I did not look the book for volumes. But it can't the result of my calculation because both experiments are affected by same mistake.

Secondly, you were talking about balls, and turned to a iron ball. I don't recommend you to use the iron ball.

Thirdly, you did not your own experiment. These are a result of a working of a dishonest liar like Brian Cox, all are fraud and lie. None of these measurements are made.

Either do your own experiment, or don't put forward others frauds.

Yeah, I was made a calculation error, but at least, it was my working, you got it? I was not stealed that working from anywhere.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

İgnored: Disputeone

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Secondly, you were talking about balls, and turned to a iron ball. I don't recommend you to use the iron ball.

Wet clay is 1826 kg / m3, 1491 times more massive than air.

Ball of 100 grams has volume of 1 / 18260 m3, which is in diameter 0.047 m (4.7 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.000067 kg (0.067 g).

Ball of 200 grams has volume of 1 / 9130 m3, which is in diameter 0.059 m (5.9 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.000134 kg (0.134 g).

Thirdly, you did not your own experiment. These are a result of a working of a dishonest liar like Brian Cox, all are fraud and lie. None of these measurements are made.
Either do your own experiment, or don't put forward others frauds.

Calling me "dishonest" is just your dirty mouth.
What makes you think I didn't make my own experiments?

I'm 57 years old physicist, with enough experience to know exactly what I'm talking about.
Next to my Faculty, building to building, is Institute of Physics.
During my study we did all kind of experiments there, with well calibrated equipment.

(Even before my faculty, I was doing different experiments. That's why I studied physics.)

Later, while worked in Electro Technical School, I also did many experiments together with my students.
I was working in that school for 11 years.

Be careful who you call "liar".

Yeah, I was made a calculation error, but at least, it was my working, you got it? I was not stealed that working from anywhere.

No, you've made conceptual error, with no connection to reality.
That's why I told you to do it by your own hands.

EDIT:
Take two chunks of clay, 100 grams each, and third chunk of 200 grams.
Drop them all together from the same height and see.
Do you expect 200 grams of clay to fall faster as one chunk, than same 200 grams divided in two chunks of 100 grams each?

Try it.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2018, 10:28:44 PM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25654
  • Soul Transformer
tl, tr.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

İgnored: Disputeone

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25654
  • Soul Transformer
Secondly, you were talking about balls, and turned to a iron ball. I don't recommend you to use the iron ball.

Wet clay is 1826 kg / m3, 1491 times more massive than air.

Ball of 100 grams has volume of 1 / 18260 m3, which is in diameter 0.047 m (4.7 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.000067 kg (0.067 g).

Ball of 200 grams has volume of 1 / 9130 m3, which is in diameter 0.059 m (5.9 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.000134 kg (0.134 g).

Thirdly, you did not your own experiment. These are a result of a working of a dishonest liar like Brian Cox, all are fraud and lie. None of these measurements are made.
Either do your own experiment, or don't put forward others frauds.

Calling me "dishonest" is just your dirty mouth.
What makes you think I didn't make my own experiments?

I'm 57 years old physicist, with enough experience to know exactly what I'm talking about.
Next to my Faculty, building to building, is Institute of Physics.
During my study we did all kind of experiments there, with well calibrated equipment.

(Even before my faculty, I was doing different experiments. That's why I studied physics.)

Later, while worked in Electro Technical School, I also did many experiments together with my students.
I was working in that school for 11 years.

Be careful who you call "liar".

Yeah, I was made a calculation error, but at least, it was my working, you got it? I was not stealed that working from anywhere.

No, you've made conceptual error, with no connection to reality.
That's why I told you to do it by your own hands.

EDIT:
Take two chunks of clay, 100 grams each, and third chunk of 200 grams.
Drop them all together from the same height and see.
Do you expect 200 grams of clay to fall faster as one chunk, than same 200 grams divided in two chunks of 100 grams each?

Try it.

You're ignorant about basic phsics. I'm not talking about mass. I'm talking about "spesific mass". These are different things. 100 grams and 200 grams clay downs together, because spesific mass are same. We are talking completely different things.

before you learn basic phsics, I deny to discuss with you in this issue.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

İgnored: Disputeone

?

SphericalEarther

  • 237
  • Programmer. I believe in logic.
Secondly, you were talking about balls, and turned to a iron ball. I don't recommend you to use the iron ball.

Wet clay is 1826 kg / m3, 1491 times more massive than air.

Ball of 100 grams has volume of 1 / 18260 m3, which is in diameter 0.047 m (4.7 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.000067 kg (0.067 g).

Ball of 200 grams has volume of 1 / 9130 m3, which is in diameter 0.059 m (5.9 cm).
Air displaced by that volume will have mass of 0.000134 kg (0.134 g).

Thirdly, you did not your own experiment. These are a result of a working of a dishonest liar like Brian Cox, all are fraud and lie. None of these measurements are made.
Either do your own experiment, or don't put forward others frauds.

Calling me "dishonest" is just your dirty mouth.
What makes you think I didn't make my own experiments?

I'm 57 years old physicist, with enough experience to know exactly what I'm talking about.
Next to my Faculty, building to building, is Institute of Physics.
During my study we did all kind of experiments there, with well calibrated equipment.

(Even before my faculty, I was doing different experiments. That's why I studied physics.)

Later, while worked in Electro Technical School, I also did many experiments together with my students.
I was working in that school for 11 years.

Be careful who you call "liar".

Yeah, I was made a calculation error, but at least, it was my working, you got it? I was not stealed that working from anywhere.

No, you've made conceptual error, with no connection to reality.
That's why I told you to do it by your own hands.

EDIT:
Take two chunks of clay, 100 grams each, and third chunk of 200 grams.
Drop them all together from the same height and see.
Do you expect 200 grams of clay to fall faster as one chunk, than same 200 grams divided in two chunks of 100 grams each?

Try it.

You're ignorant about basic phsics. I'm not talking about mass. I'm talking about "spesific mass". These are different things. 100 grams and 200 grams clay downs together, because spesific mass are same. We are talking completely different things.

before you learn basic phsics, I deny to discuss with you in this issue.

Your understanding of physics is so abysmal you don't even know it when you see it.

I could easily follow his example, and I believe in his background. What he explained was physics, with clear numbers to back it up. And we can use those physics to calculate and predict exactly how objects will move through air with gravity. We can predict exactly what we will observe.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
You're ignorant about basic phsics. I'm not talking about mass. I'm talking about "spesific mass". These are different things. 100 grams and 200 grams clay downs together, because spesific mass are same. We are talking completely different things.

before you learn basic phsics, I deny to discuss with you in this issue.

What is your point?  That objects of different mass but the same volume will fall at different rates outside of a vacuum.  Simple physics.  Reasons why: Force vs Resistance.  Perform the experiment in a vacuum chamber and you will see them fall at the same rate.  Their specific mass will mean squat.  The same result occurs in a vacuum chamber if they have the same mass, but different volumes.
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.