PDA

View Full Version : Energy retention and Mass



edgflyer2
07-13-2007, 07:50 AM
I know this has been gone over time and time again but here is a video of a test done on a ski jump with tires. Even thought the test is done with tires, it shows how mass retains its energy more than less mass.

http://www.break.com/index/rolling-tires-off-a-ski-jump.html

edgflyer2
07-13-2007, 07:50 AM
I know this has been gone over time and time again but here is a video of a test done on a ski jump with tires. Even thought the test is done with tires, it shows how mass retains its energy more than less mass.

http://www.break.com/index/rolling-tires-off-a-ski-jump.html

tigertalon
07-13-2007, 07:57 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Jaws2002
07-13-2007, 08:15 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Those guys standing at the bottom of the hill had Ba||s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

R_Target
07-13-2007, 08:26 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif I wasn't expecting the monster tire to shred the ski jump. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Jaws2002
07-13-2007, 08:57 AM
AnD it stil did 40 meters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

raaaid
07-13-2007, 09:50 AM
isnt this almost exactly as galileo experiment with a different outcome?

how comes that being big wheels having more moment of inertia than the small ones they get to spin faster with the same energy?

so contrary to galileo bigger masses not only drop faster but also spin faster acquiring more inertia both in the spin and linearly

the lie is inmense

M_Gunz
07-13-2007, 11:53 AM
Empty tires rolling down fuzzy carpet well padded underneath then lofted high at 349kph
(slowest) to over 400kph and landing on a slope does not include significant friction?

Bigger diameter tires spread the weight out on a longer patch while wider tires spread the
weight out on a wider patch and all the big tires are also wide. Friction on the slope vs
air friction is a guess which for which tire meant more, but the mixed results of distance
vs ramp exit speed (the racing tire IIRC bled badly in the air) show up different factors.

My fave was the last one. They shoulda knowed better. Good flick.

tigertalon
07-13-2007, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
isnt this almost exactly as galileo experiment with a different outcome?

how comes that being big wheels having more moment of inertia than the small ones they get to spin faster with the same energy?

so contrary to galileo bigger masses not only drop faster but also spin faster acquiring more inertia both in the spin and linearly

the lie is inmense </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

air drag

MEGILE
07-13-2007, 12:24 PM
Josf incoming

raaaid
07-13-2007, 01:18 PM
yes but friction cuadruples as velocity doubles

so the fastest wheels are submitted to more friction, drag, than the slower ones

bigger wheels beat greater friction greater moment of inertia yet they go faster and have a much bigger angular momentum also

this proves gallileo biggest ball dropped faster

edgflyer2
07-13-2007, 01:45 PM
And to think, I just thought it was funnier than heck when the last one went and destroyed the platform. You go Raaaid.

This could turn into 10 pages. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

raaaid
07-13-2007, 03:59 PM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/galileo/experiments.html

whether he ever performed the experiment at the tower is debatable.

this video proves that supposed experiment is a fraud like zenos turtle taking half step each time

the heavier the faster it drops and besides on a flat surface bigger masses with bigger contact surface and at greater speed have more friction

JG14_Josf
07-13-2007, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">zenos turtle taking half step each time </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zeno's paradoxes are not frauds; they are paradoxes as far as written history can guess. Of the original 40 only 8 fragments remain.

It seems clear enough that the idea was to illustrate the difficulties associated with transfering accurate perception and point out the absurdity of those pretending to have absolute authority of knowledge.

Knowledge is a process - not a perception.

If you have tried to move one of those big tires by hand you might have predicted the destruction of the ramp.

raaaid
07-14-2007, 07:36 AM
i was taught zenos talking of a turtle that takes half step each second so it never reaches destination

zeno never said this he wanted to show ilusion of dynamics but the fraudulent paradox shows you the perfection of the world

the fraudulent paradox also wants to show eternity lasts forever while the actual paradox showed you could reach infinite steps making the time for each step tend to 0

so 0 and infinite complement is like infinite comes from 0 but they rather to teach everything energy and eternity comes from a guy with a beard instead of having always been there

sure you can make something infinitally big but you can make it as much infinite small so time has not a beggining nor an end

M_Gunz
07-14-2007, 09:36 AM
The rabbit jumping halfway to the wall and never reaching it is a classic thought experiment.
If you can't figure out how thought experiments differ from reality then you need real help.

However that thought experiment does make a great illustration about points and geometry that
some of the coolest proofs use well.

Raaid, how far you get along in the mathematics?

raaaid
07-14-2007, 09:59 AM
im good at geometry but bad at numbers, my father is a mathematician

he even thought zenos paradox was a turtle taking half steps each time while zeno never told this

JG14_Josf
07-14-2007, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">fraudulent paradox </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How does this work? If you say something over and over again it will become true some day?

The original paradoxes from Zeno are gone. How can you be the authority on Zeno's paradoxes?

Why do you insist upon calling Zeno's paradoxes fraudulent?

Do you even know the meaning of the word Fraud (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=fraud)?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zeno may have been a fraud. Zeno's paradoxes may have been fraudulent. Evindence suggests that Zeno's paradoxes are meant to be paradoxical.

Do you know the meaning of the wordparadox (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradox)?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.
3. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
4. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Intending to discredit Zeno as a deceitful person is beyond understanding. What is the point? Do you suggest that Fraudulent is a synonym for Paradox?

A paradox can be a false proposition. A paradox cannot be fraudulent. A person is fraudulent. A person can create a fraud in the effort to deceive. How can anyone know if Zeno was intending to deceive?

That is ludicrous (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=ludicrous) and asinine (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asinine).

The highest mass tire resisted any effort to accelerate it except the irresistible accelerating force of gravity.

Is that an example of a fraudulent statement?

M_Gunz
07-14-2007, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
im good at geometry but bad at numbers, my father is a mathematician

he even thought zenos paradox was a turtle taking half steps each time while zeno never told this </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Terry Pratchett made great fun of the whole thing in one of the discworld books. Had his
philosophers out shooting turtles while trying to prove they couldn't cause the arrow would
never reach the moving turtle. Ground around covered in turtles with arrows through them
and the philosophers still arguing about why and still shooting turtles.

RegRag1977
07-14-2007, 11:07 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Excellent thread, ahahahahahahahahaha http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Thanks for the good laugh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

raaaid
07-14-2007, 12:36 PM
no i think zeno to be truth but i think they used his name to teach a paradox he never said, that one of a turtle taking half steps each second

WhtBoy
07-14-2007, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
isnt this almost exactly as galileo experiment with a different outcome?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's not even remotely close. A dead rat with a lobotomy could see that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
how comes that being big wheels having more moment of inertia than the small ones they get to spin faster with the same energy?

so contrary to galileo bigger masses not only drop faster but also spin faster acquiring more inertia both in the spin and linearly

the lie is inmense </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above rambling is some of the most asinine you have ever posted. You know NOTHING about those tires except how they look and even less about physics.

The only lies around here are they ones you spout about your level of education.


Answer this one question...

Why haven't you posted any equations of motion for ANY SINGLE THREAD YOU HAVE EVER STARTED where you ramble about how physics is wrong and you are right?

--Outlaw

raaaid
07-15-2007, 10:36 AM
I am not sure what the strating conditions of your balls are.
However, one of the most famous experiments ever performed was by Galileo,
some 400 years ago. He wanted to know whether heavy objects fell faster
than light ones. The famous story is that he went to the top of the leaning
tower of Pisa and dropped two objects, one heavy and one light. He saw that
they fell at the same rate! It has been shown that this was just a story
because Galileo did not have any way to measure the rate at which the
objects fell (he did not have a camera or other high speed recording
device). What he did do is make a ramp out of wood, and roll balls of
various weights down this ramp. The ramp allowed him extra time to measure
how long it took for the balls to reach the bottom. It took the same length
of time, no matter how heavy the balls were. This was the basis for a
well-known law of acceleration due to gravity.


What he did do is make a ramp out of wood, and roll balls of
various weights down this ramp. The ramp allowed him extra time to measure
how long it took for the balls to reach the bottom. It took the same length
of time, no matter how heavy the balls were.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00210.htm

lie lie lie

raaaid
07-15-2007, 10:48 AM
i havent passed physics yet so i cant make what you ask me for but i want to to find out more lies so i want to pass physics soon

i just believe what i see and even though i doubt it

there was this kid with a huge head evrytime he got mad at someone he would call him hey you big head, it was sad and funny at the same time

so plz stop calling me a liar or ill think you are one your self

i was considering making galileo experiment myself but i realized it was imposible you can only do it with ramps so galileo did it with a ramp, another lie

either galileo lied or the japanese guys lied, i believe galileo lied and the system promotes this lies to keep us ignorant away from the truth

im sick of lies

raaaid
07-15-2007, 10:59 AM
The trick is to slow down the motion somehow so that speeds can be measured, without at the same time altering the character of the motion. Galileo knew that dropping something through water that fell fairly gently did alter the character of the motion, it would land as gently on the bottom dropped from ten feet as it did from two feet, so slowing down the motion by dropping something through water changed things completely.

Galileo's idea for slowing down the motion was to have a ball roll down a ramp rather than to fall vertically

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gal_accn96.htm


Galileo also found that the weight of the ball did not matter balls of different weights all arrived at the end of the ramp in the same time.

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/e-h/galileo1.html

does this prove the lie or my unability to make motion equations turns a lie into truth

this japanese guys reproduced the truthfull galileo experiment with a different outcome

raaaid
07-15-2007, 11:07 AM
oh wait maybe i was wrong after all this has definitly convinced me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yqplkRq8FU

AKA_TAGERT
07-15-2007, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
there was this kid with a huge head evrytime he got mad at someone he would call him hey you big head, it was sad and funny at the same time </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/STFU/pinky_and_raaid.jpg

raaaid
07-15-2007, 12:17 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Although he had proved Aristotle wrong, Galileo was instructed by his academic masters to ignore his own findings. He responded sarcastically, 'If experiments are performed thousands of times in all seasons and in every place without once producing the effect described by the philosophers, poets and historians, this means nothing and we must believe their words and not our own eyes

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/e-h/galileo1.html

how appropiate

WhtBoy
07-15-2007, 01:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i havent passed physics yet so i cant make what you ask me for... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By your own admission you are incapable of even the most basic analysis yet you come in here and tell people that they are dumber than children b/c they don't agree with your totally and completely flawed thinking.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i was considering making galileo experiment myself but i realized it was imposible you can only do it with ramps so galileo did it with a ramp, another lie </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even the most basic electronics store (like a Radio Shack here in the US) has everything you need to VERY accurately time how long it takes for an object to fall even a short distance. The most mechanically inept among us could build a small rig to relase and time the masses dropping vertically. Over a short distance, it will be accurate enough.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
either galileo lied or the japanese guys lied, i believe galileo lied and the system promotes this lies to keep us ignorant away from the truth
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't speak Japanese so I can't tell if they are lying. Did you find a translation or did you translate it yourself? What did they say that was a lie?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
so plz stop calling me a liar or ill think you are one your self </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll stop calling you a liar when...

You apologize to all the people that you have said were wrong when it was you that was wrong, admit that you do not have the background to correctly analyze these types of problems, and, go back to every thread where you were wrong and admit to it.

OR...

You back up all of your claims with analysis.

[edit]
Some content removed b/c I wasn't paying attention.
[end edit]

--Outlaw.

M_Gunz
07-15-2007, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
this japanese guys reproduced the truthfull galileo experiment with a different outcome this japanese guys reproduced the truthfull galileo experiment with a different outcome </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is your lie. What those japanese did is far different from what Gaileo did.

The ramps are padded underneath and carpet above, energy-absorbing surfaces.
The tires are not solid but rather hollow with very draggy shapes.
Galileo weighted same sized balls differently, the tires vary in size greatly.
Galileo kept speeds below where air friction would make a real difference,
the video has tires moving at 360+kph.
Galileo did not launch rollers to land on a reverse slope hill, the video does.

The Japanese video introduces several factor elements that Galileo kept out,
so "this japanese guys reproduced the truthfull galileo experiment with a different outcome"
is the real lie.

raaaid
07-16-2007, 03:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Galileo also found that the weight of the ball did not matter balls of different weights all arrived at the end of the ramp in the same time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

raaaid
07-16-2007, 03:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by raaaid:
isnt this almost exactly as galileo experiment with a different outcome?



No, it's not even remotely close. A dead rat with a lobotomy could see that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


is it a lie that dynamic friction on a flat surface increases with contact surface speed and mass?

besides seems that galileo got rid off of friction

you can keep believing this:

Galileo also found that the weight of the ball did not matter balls of different weights all arrived at the end of the ramp in the same time

then you are a phanatic of science because you are believing first others words than your eyes

HellToupee
07-16-2007, 03:36 AM
if more mass makes it go further then why is a 11kg wheel from what looks like a formular 1 car, beaten by all the other wheels, even one 4.8kg or even one the same weight go far further.

Its all very well believing ur eyes, but what are your eyes seeing.

raaaid
07-16-2007, 03:39 AM
besides your changing position gives you away

from galileo did not use ramps to friction is greater in this case

well what can i say i proved galileo used ramps for his conclusions

i proved the bigger the mass the less time in going down the ramp, see video


therefore i proved the lie

hey maybe galileo using a water clock didnt get such precision...

you call me a liar, then go shave your beard you phanatic

and show me where i called anyone dumb, man i respect people contrary to you

HellToupee
07-16-2007, 03:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:


i proved the bigger the mass the less time in going down the ramp, see video
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no you didn't you obviously didnt look at the mass of each tire

raaaid
07-16-2007, 03:55 AM
4.8kg-97km/h

10.2-126

11-131

48-137

11.5-101

220-141

this is enough to discredit galileo experiment with ramps different tyres take different times with different masses and shapes

HellToupee
07-16-2007, 04:45 AM
no its not enough.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

this is enough to discredit galileo experiment with ramps different tyres take different times with different masses and shapes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

for one you cannot test different sizes and shapes and draw any conclusions, as seen one tire mass 11kg and one tire mass 11.5, 11.5 tire is 30kph slower, why its a different shape. Or a tire 4 x as heavy only goes 6kph faster, where a tire 1kg more heavy goes 5kph faster.

Try and graph the results u wont get a line, more likely a portrait of josf.

raaaid
07-16-2007, 05:06 AM
i think the reason for the f1 tyre to go so slow is that it has triple contact surface

to make galileo experiment accurately youd need same shape for the tyres

yet i used to believe in galileo experiment now at the very least i doubt it

WhtBoy
07-16-2007, 06:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
and show me where i called anyone dumb, man i respect people contrary to you </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you have and no you don't. You don't have to say the word "dumb" to call someone dumb. You have repeatedly claimed that even children can see how obvious it is that you are right, which is the same as calling people dumb.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
then you are a phanatic of science because you are believing first others words than your eyes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet another totally incorrect statement. I've never seen ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE to a smooth ramp with steel balls rolling down it, especially in that youtube.com video.

Only a totally clueless person believes that the TV show replicated that experiment.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
from galileo did not use ramps to friction is greater in this case

well what can i say i proved galileo used ramps for his conclusions

i proved the bigger the mass the less time in going down the ramp, see video


therefore i proved the lie </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only thing you have proven is how ignorant you are. As usual, you have NOTHING to back up ANYTHING you say except something as stupid as a youtube.com video and your blathering about moments of inertia and mass.

If you want to prove something, do it with the numbers, not your opinion.


Let me reiterate...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i havent passed physics yet so i cant make what you ask me for... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proof that EVERYTHING you say about physics is WRONG.

I think we should call the above quote, "raaaid's Razor".


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
this is enough to discredit galileo experiment with ramps different tyres take different times with different masses and shapes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again total, complete, and unadulterated ignorance coming from you. Galileo did not experiment with tires of different masses and shapes.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i think the reason for the f1 tyre to go so slow is that it has triple contact surface

to make galileo experiment accurately youd need same shape for the tyres </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you kidding??? A few posts ago Galileo was nothing but a scam artist and a liar and a youtube.com video was the absolute irrefutable 100% accurate truth in physics experiments.

You THINK?? Why don't you do the math so you will KNOW?

By the way, your thinking is WRONG in this case.

YOU are the one who keeps changing your viewpoint. Whether it's from adiabatic to non-adiabatic, melting bullets to non-melting, rubber tires=steel wheels to "youd need same shape for the tyres", or NASA lying about the moon shot, all you do is change your viewpoint.

As usual...

YOU ARE WRONG.

--Outlaw.

HellToupee
07-16-2007, 06:07 AM
whats to doubt?

It shows its not just the weight but the shape size of tire etc, with the right design uld be able to make a 5kg tire go as fast as the 50kg.

You not only need same shape you need distrubution of mass, eg a 5kg tire wouldnt be the size of the 200kg one.

The tires rolling down a hill do not disprove that the speed/acceleration is independent to mass, more it tends to prove it.

raaaid
07-16-2007, 06:38 AM
you said a lobotomized dead rat knows the video doesnt have nothing to do with galileo experiment

do you still doubt galileo did it with ramps?

you were wrong

explain me with motion equations how comes the heavier tyre goes faster having a greater friction

it seems to me that if being frictionless they get same speed with friction acting the one with the biggest friction should be slower yet the japanese experiment proved the opposite

are you gonna argue not you are wrong as ususal with no arguments at all

it seems to me you studied a lot but just memorizing like a robot and believing like a phanatic

result a perfect pawn for this society

raaaid
07-16-2007, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It shows its not just the weight but the shape size of tire etc, with the right design uld be able to make a 5kg tire go as fast as the 50kg. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

of course if the 50kg tyre has 5 times more contact surface than the 10kg theyll make it the same

but from this video do you believe that having the same shape but a greater mass theyll drop at same speed as galileo stated

i used to believe so till i saw this video

you believe everything you are told, ill experiment it and decide by myself

now i have an excuse to buy this:

http://www.amazon.com/Skyrail-Marble-Roller-Coaster-250...c%252e/dp/B0000A1ZF9 (http://www.amazon.com/Skyrail-Marble-Roller-Coaster-250%252dpc%252e/dp/B0000A1ZF9)

M_Gunz
07-16-2007, 07:11 AM
Raaid those tires are not the same shape even. They have different form is easy to see even
if you've never bought tires. First one down was narrow with high walls, next was wider,
did you see the low-wall and wide racing tire? You compare that to what?

M_Gunz
07-16-2007, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
do you still doubt galileo did it with ramps? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact of ramp and rolling objects is the only thing in common with what Galileo did.

The differences more than explains the different results.

You only see as far as meets your needs and makes you feel good about yourself.

HellToupee
07-16-2007, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
it seems to me that if being frictionless they get same speed with friction acting the one with the biggest friction should be slower yet the japanese experiment proved the opposite
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if being frictionless they go the same speed, then when u add in friction and speeds are differnt its logical to assume one has more friction than the other.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
explain me with motion equations how comes the heavier tyre goes faster having a greater friction </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

explain to me with understandable logic where you got how much friction a tire has from a video.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
you believe everything you are told, ill experiment it and decide by myself </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you seem not to belive anything you are told just for the sake of trying to be different whether makes sense or not.

Why should we belive what you tell us then? when it dosn't even make sense.

WhtBoy
07-16-2007, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
you said a lobotomized dead rat knows the video doesnt have nothing to do with galileo experiment

do you still doubt galileo did it with ramps?

you were wrong
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As gunz said, the ONLY similarity is that there is an inclined plane involved. EVERYTHING else is different including the slope, the surface, the test objects (shape - spherical vs cylindrical, material, mass, etc.). No educated person on this planet is dumb enough to believe that you can compare the two results, so, it is safe to say that they are not even remotely close.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
explain me with motion equations how comes the heavier tyre goes faster having a greater friction </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it would mean nothing to you. You couldn't understand it so you wouldn't believe it anyway. Also, see my last point below.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
it seems to me that if being frictionless they get same speed with friction acting the one with the biggest friction should be slower yet the japanese experiment proved the opposite </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your first problem is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FRICTIONLESS. If it was frictionless there would be no rolling at all, just sliding. If the difference in friction is 0.00001% and the difference in the rolling moment is 100% then the friction will make little to no difference in the end result. By watching the video we know nothing about the rolling moment or the friction so NO REASONABLE CONCLUSION CAN BE MADE JUST BY WATCHING THE VIDEO.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
are you gonna argue not you are wrong as ususal with no arguments at all

it seems to me you studied a lot but just memorizing like a robot and believing like a phanatic

result a perfect pawn for this society </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My argument is the accepted physics model used everyday to design and build things like cars, bridges, buildings, aircraft, washing machines, toys, televisions, super colliders, and, in my case, piping systems.

I don't need to prove anything. You are the one who is claiming that they are all wrong so why don't YOU prove it.

--Outlaw.

M_Gunz
07-16-2007, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy:
No educated person on this planet is dumb enough to believe that you can compare the two results, so, it is safe to say that they are not even remotely close. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, there's educated and there's educated including science and math, I am sorry to say.
The latter group are actually a minority in my experience.

Have you ever read Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons" or his and Pohl's "Search the Sky"?

raaaid
07-16-2007, 09:23 AM
actually due to my interest on antigravity i wanted to reproduced galileo experiment

1st i found out that pisa story was made out and he trully did it with ramps

i was gonna buy this sky rail that even includes different size marbles but realized of this:

if you take a double mass same size marble moment of inertia will be greater in the double mass marble so if they end up with the same speed the heavier marble will have much more enrgy since its rotating at the same speed but with a greater moment of inertia

if i take a double size marble same density if they end up with the same speed means the double size will be spinning at half speed but its moment of inertia is 4 times greater than the half size marble due to moment of inertia of an sphere being 2/5 m*r*r

so if it ends spinning at half speed being moment of inertia 4 times greater it means it has double rotating energy and same linear speed than the marble of half volume

so if you take a double mass marble to end up with the same speed as galileo stated youll have double rotating energy on the double mass marble, theres no way around this

no wonder thay made up the story of dropping balls from pisa tower, its easy to see the wrong in the case of a ramp and different mass balls

anyway im still tempted based on this video to race marbles of different sizes just to hang in youtube galileos experiment with an outcome in which greater mass implies ending with both more linear energy and rotational energy

actually that would be a cool way to fight the system hang on youtube experiments that contradict current theories

so far i made a balance that works being center of gravity slightly above spinning axle and i have more ideas

M_Gunz
07-16-2007, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
actually that would be a cool way to fight the system </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

explains so much

WhtBoy
07-16-2007, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
no wonder thay made up the story of dropping balls from pisa tower, its easy to see the wrong in the case of a ramp and different mass balls
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only easy thing to see is that a mass dropping vertically is NOT the same as rolling it down a ramp. Regardless of what Galileo actually did, or, how close the end result is, your claim that a heavier object FALLS faster than a lighter object is NOT proven by rolling something down a ramp.

As I said before, ANY IDIOT can build a small device accurate enough to show that objects in FREE FALL (even though it won't actually be in free fall) accelerate at the same rate.

All this blathering about Galileo and ramps is meaningless.

If you believe that weight determines acceleration in free fall, then prove it by dropping something, not by trying to replicate a poor experiment done hundreds of years ago.

--Outlaw.

tigertalon
07-16-2007, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
of course if the 50kg tyre has 5 times more contact surface than the 10kg theyll make it the same </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. Mass goes with 3rd power of dimension, contact surface goes with 2nd, that's the whole point about it.

If you make an object twice the size of original, it's going to have 8 times its mass and only 4 times it's front surface.

raaaid
07-16-2007, 01:17 PM
ive found out

galileo dropped two different masses from pisa and found out they fell at the same rate

then he tried with ramps and found out that the swallower it was the faster the bigger mass fell as can be seen in the video

this was put into the dark

this imho is due to gravity being the doubling in size of all matter every 30 sec accelerating the ground upwards

the bigger the mass the bigger the inertia and the faster, the same if you acelerate a surface against a marble with a shallow angle

this has consequences as this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

M_Gunz
07-16-2007, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
ive found out

galileo dropped two different masses from pisa and found out they fell at the same rate

then he tried with ramps and found out that the swallower it was the faster the bigger mass fell as can be seen in the video

this was put into the dark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a flat-out lie. You either repeat the lie or made it up.
How do I KNOW? Because I've done the ramps as have other for .*CENTURIES*. and if you don't
screw up the setup, it works.

raaaid
07-17-2007, 03:23 AM
to make it more difficult check this out:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1063274,00.html

btw i dont know what lying means in english but is it the word for holding a wrong point of view?

myself im happy because ive found out why a hammer and a feather free fall at the same rate on vacuum and at the same time a bigger mass falls faster in a ramp

its because of gravity being due to simultaneous expansion of all matter so the ground accelerates upwards

WhtBoy
07-17-2007, 05:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
myself im happy because ive found out why a hammer and a feather free fall at the same rate on vacuum and at the same time a bigger mass falls faster in a ramp
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too bad you are WRONG. But that's OK, if it makes you happy, go on believing your lies.

As for the rest of us, the question has already been answered correctly both by the math and by repeated experiments. As I said before, with just a few dollars, almost anyone can reproduce the experiment.

It is unlikley that you will ever have the ability to understand the question, much less the answer so just sit back, relax, and expand. The rest of us will take care of the complicated stuff.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-17-2007, 05:54 AM
so the raw data is:

on vacuum a feather and hammer fall at the same rate

on a frictionless ramp the feather will make it faster than the hammer

if the masses roll the hammer will make it faster than the feather

ill have some fun trying to figure out why this happens

anyway skyjumping is the most similar example to planes and the lighter the more energy it reatains contrary to the position hold by the original poster

raaaid
07-17-2007, 06:00 AM
outlaw since you are so smart explain about anorexic sky jumpers and in opposition the heavier the tyre the faster it falls

you have no clue your only position is your feeling of self superiority and your putting me down

are you not gonna answer this question and just call me things

tigertalon
07-17-2007, 07:09 AM
Raaid, which one do you think would fly farther (fat and anorexic ski jumper) if you pushed them both down the ramp unconscious?

raaaid
07-17-2007, 07:21 AM
ill make a general easy question:

you drop 2 balls from 10 m in a 45º ramp, same size both but one double density and thereofe double moment of inertia:

what energy will have both balls when at the end?

same speed? then one have double rotational energy and same linear energy

less speed? then what happens with the supposed galileos experiments?

are you gonna call me a liar which is what i understand you are from what i learnt from the big headed kid because your uneducation to respond it?

raaaid
07-17-2007, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Raaid, which one do you think would fly farther (fat and anorexic ski jumper) if you pushed them both down the ramp unconscious? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
yeah ive seen lot of anorexic height bar jumpers

man if theyre so obssed with less weight the anorexic will make it farther

if i were to a physics forums with this questions theyd have no idea they dind study this, i didnt study it nor will study it

WhtBoy
07-17-2007, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
outlaw since you are so smart explain about anorexic sky jumpers and in opposition the heavier the tyre the faster it falls
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only equation necessary to accurately describe the motion of either is...

F=ma

where F=the sum of the forces acting on the object; m=the mass of the object; a=acceleration of the object.

That's it, there is no further explanation required. There is no contradiction or opposition here.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-17-2007, 09:17 AM
i cant figure out from this equation if the double density ball fall at the same speed or not

i understand it does since all links i provided say so

then how comes it has double rotational energy

double mass same volume same linear speed and double rotational energy?

M_Gunz
07-17-2007, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
to make it more difficult check this out:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1063274,00.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoop-dee-doo, an Olympic Trainer gets an idea and that somehow proves that CENTURIES of
repeated experiment is wrong?

Is the Olympic Trainer now also a physicist? Does the article explain WHY he wants his athletes
to weigh less? Maybe he has good reason or maybe he plays with guesses or maybe they find
that ON SKIS the lighter one gets some small advantage? You know when they jump that the
skis are possibly lift surfaces so _maybe_ the lighter athlete stays up .001 second longer
in a sport where the winners all come so very close?

And how do you show just what they do? Article says little.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">btw i dont know what lying means in english but is it the word for holding a wrong point of view? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It means stating falsehood.
If you think that objects move differently by how you think of them then you're either crazy
or stupid. Most who might take that view fit into the second category given that the proofs
are published and easy enough to do and taught in school except to the animal-stupids.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">myself im happy because ive found out why a hammer and a feather free fall at the same rate on vacuum and at the same time a bigger mass falls faster in a ramp

its because of gravity being due to simultaneous expansion of all matter so the ground accelerates upwards </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't accept what you seem unable to learn. Maybe you spend the rest of your life trying
what doesn't work over and over based on new foolish idea each time. You won't be bored at
least!

WhtBoy
07-17-2007, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i cant figure out from this equation if the double density ball fall at the same speed or not
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally said by Yoda:
That, is why you fail. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-17-2007, 10:30 AM
as usual no answer but calling names

then a same density double size ball that has 4 times bigger moment of inertia being half its rotational speed has double rotational energy to keep the same speed than the previous same size double density, same weight double rotational energy, how do you explain this , i bet you dont even understand it

gunz dont try to imitate outlaw he is far smarter than you but uneducated he at least gives arguments you just heehaw insults

you get offended by your unability to respond this question

anorexia is common in sky jumping goggle it

man for the time i dedicate to study i get amazing grades

raaaid
07-17-2007, 10:41 AM
so far youve stated galileo is right without even know what he did

well he stated that in ramps objects fell at same rate indpendently of the mass

the japanes video generate doubts about it

anorexia in ski jumpers generates more doubts

at least i wonder about things, i try to explain things you say oh well somebody smarter must have figured it out

you leave your life in the hands of others letting others do the thinking

raaaid
07-17-2007, 10:45 AM
besides the only difference between galileo experiment and japs guys was marbles vs tyres

not enough for a different outcome

should i start calling you names for not seeing this

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
you leave your life in the hands of others letting others do the thinking </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The dwarf sees farther than the giant, when he has the giant's shoulder to mount on

WhtBoy
07-17-2007, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
so far youve stated galileo is right without even know what he did </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't matter what he did. The finding that has been attributed to him is that all objects in free fall accelerate at the same rate. This is correct and has been PROVEN countless times by experiment. If he didn't actually do the experiment, I don't care since that's not what you are disputing. Your are saying that a heavier object under free fall accelerates faster than a lighter object. Who did what and when they did it makes no difference. YOU ARE STILL WRONG.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
the japanes video generate doubts about it

besides the only difference between galileo experiment and japs guys was marbles vs tyres
not enough for a different outcome </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Show WHY tires vs marbles is, "...not enough for a different outcome...".
You don't know ANYTHING about the tires they used OR the marbles Galileo used so how can you say there is not enough difference?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
anorexia in ski jumpers generates more doubts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again this statement shows your total and complete ignorance and lack of analytical ability. The jump doesn't even START until the END of the ramp. From that point on it's aerodynamics. Unless you also believe that, all other things being equal, a heavier object will fly farther than a lighter object, even a child can see why a light ski-jumper is better.

--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
07-17-2007, 11:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
gunz dont try to imitate outlaw he is far smarter than you but uneducated he at least gives arguments you just heehaw insults
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again pure junk coming out of your mouth. You know nothing about Gunz or myself.

As far as education goes, my degree is in Mechanical Engineering. Not that it matters as you can't even draw a free body diagram, something that is learned in high school physics. If I had dropped out in my junior year of high school I'd still know more physics than you.

If I died right now and you lived for another 200 years I still would have forgotten more about physics that you will ever know.

--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
07-17-2007, 11:57 AM
For the record, I was a little bit worried about the above "...died right now..." comment but I appear to have made it past "right now" plus a few minutes.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-17-2007, 12:43 PM
i agree that at free fall different masses fall equally

but problem arises with shallow ramps or shallow dives

why for spinning things heavier is faster and for not spinning lighter is faster?

or do you disagree with this last statement with the evidences provided on the jap video and anorexia on ski jumpers


i really have no clue why this happens while you say a kid would understand lighter flies farther which is obviously wrong since a paper ball will fly shorter than a metal one

man when i get my degree in engineering contrary to know it all ill have more doubts than ever

WhtBoy
07-17-2007, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
so contrary to galileo bigger masses not only drop faster </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going by this.

My bad, however, YOU ARE STILL WRONG.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
but problem arises with shallow ramps or shallow dives </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, there is no problem. It doesn't matter what Galileo did. It can all be calculated accurately. There is no "lie". YOU ARE WRONG.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i really have no clue why this happens while you say a kid would understand lighter flies farther which is obviously wrong since a paper ball will fly shorter than a metal one </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Balls do not fly, they fall in a ballistic trajectory (for the most part). Ski jumpers develop significant and controlled lift compared to their weight.


--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-17-2007, 01:03 PM
yeah right ski jumpers have wings and even though a wood plane will make it much farther than a paper one for the simple reason that drag will afect more the light one

if i roll down something down a slope potential energy will be transformed into linear speed and rotational speed

the links i provided clearly state that different mass balls fall at the same rate down the ramp

this implies bigger balls will end with more rotational energy and as i said double big the sphere 4 times more moment of inertia and half rotational speed so double rotational energy as the size of the ball doubles

therefore if you calculate speed of different size balls youll find out the bigger one having more rotational speed has to have less linear speed but the jap video proved the opposite

i doubt very much you study transformation of linear motion into spinning motion, its just not studied because gives away physics

M_Gunz
07-17-2007, 04:22 PM
Show the numbers.

tigertalon
07-17-2007, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
yeah right ski jumpers have wings and even though a wood plane will make it much farther than a paper one for the simple reason that drag will afect more the light one

if i roll down something down a slope potential energy will be transformed into linear speed and rotational speed

the links i provided clearly state that different mass balls fall at the same rate down the ramp

this implies bigger balls will end with more rotational energy and as i said double big the sphere 4 times more moment of inertia and half rotational speed so double rotational energy as the size of the ball doubles

therefore if you calculate speed of different size balls youll find out the bigger one having more rotational speed has to have less linear speed but the jap video proved the opposite

i doubt very much you study transformation of linear motion into spinning motion, its just not studied because gives away physics </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, raaid, enough bsing.

Let's calculate speed of a rotating object if you let it down the ramp with height difference of H, shall we?

You do agree that rotational velocity has to be such that the contact surface will rotate around axis with exactly the same speed as the speed with wich object will be traveling down the ramp (otherwise it would be sliding). Let's take a cylinder (just as an example, can be sphere if you want).

v=omega*r
Wkr=(I*Omega^2)/2=I*(v^2)/(2*r^2)=m*v^2/4
Thus Wkt+Wkr=Wp=mgh

and 3mv^2/4=mgh

so - velocity of a rolling cilinder after rolling down the ramp with any angle for the height difference h is:

v=sqrt[4gh/3].

Do I have to emphasyse it's NOT mass or radius dependant? To put it differently, all cilinders (or spheres for that matter) will reach the same speed regardless of mass or radius. Exactly one third of their energy will be in a rotational form, two thirds in translational. Of course their moment of inertia Gama=Omega*I will be different for each of them with different mass/radius, so what? It has nothing to do with the problem.

tigertalon
07-17-2007, 05:51 PM
plus, half rotational speed with double the radius means, equal translational velocity.

raaaid
07-18-2007, 05:08 AM
interesting, apreciatte your time but theres something that i still dont understand since i belive moment of inertia changes it all:

same mass, same rotational speed, double moment of inertia implies double rotational energy

same mass, half rotational speed, cuadruple moment of inertia implies double rotational energy

so i drop a 1 kg sphere 1m radius and then drop 1 kg sphere 2m radius

from the links i provided they end with same linear speed which implies bigger one has half rotational speed

same mass, half rotational speed, cuadruple moment of inertia implies double rotational energy

so the same mass but with double radius ends with same linear energy but double rotatioanl energy

theres no way around this unless double radius mass has less linear speed that would explain the more rotational energy it acquires

any clues on this?

raaaid
07-18-2007, 05:30 AM
btw outlaw you said lighter makes it farther

what will go farther a drop of water at 100 kph or a ton of water at 100 kph?

you are as confused as me with this subject

tigertalon
07-18-2007, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
same mass, half rotational speed, cuadruple moment of inertia implies double rotational energy

so the same mass but with double radius ends with same linear energy but double rotatioanl energy
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. "same mass, half rotational speed, cuadruple moment of inertia implies double rotational energy" No, it does not and I don't know where you got this from. It does not have quadruple moment of inertia, only double, since angular velocity is only half the original and moment of inertia is quadruple.

Let's calculate it. So, we have two spheres, first one m=1 (kg), r=1 (m), second one m=1 (kg), r=2 (m). Moment of inertia for a sphere is I=(2mr^2)/5.

First one rotates at an angular velocity omega, second one at omega/2, right? Then, rotational kinetic energy of the first sphere is:

Wkr1=(I*Omega^2)/2=([(2mr^2)/5]*Omega^2)/2=m*r^2*Omega^2/5.

Now, for the second sphere:

Wkr2=(I*(Omega/2)^2)/2=([(2m<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">(2r)^2)</span> /5]*(Omega/2)^2)/2=m*r^2*Omega^2/5.

Look, what a coincidence! They are the same!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

What you are forgetting here raaaid is, that a double sphere will have QUADRUPLE moment of inertia, not double.

Now let's calculate it AGAIN, this time using moments of inertia http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif:

First sphere will have angular momentum:

Gama1=I1*Omega1=((2mr^2)/5)*(v/r)=(2mrv)/5 since I=(2mr^2)/5 and Omega=v/r.

and, since Wkr=(I*Omega^2)/2 and Gama=I*Omega, we can derive

Wkr=Gama^2/(2*I)=(2mrv)^2/(5^2*(2mr^2)/5) =&gt; Wkr1=(2mv^2)/5

Second sphere will have angular momentum:

Gama2=I2*Omega2=((2m((2r)^2))/5)*(v/2r)=((2m((2r)^2))/5)*(v/2r)= (4mrv)/5

from which we derive rotational kinetic energy same way as above, Wkr=Gama^2/(2*I)

So, Wkr2=Gama2^2/(2*I2)=[(4mrv)/5]^2/[(2*m(2r)^2)/5]=, believe or not, exactly the same as for the first sphere:=&gt; Wkr2=(2mv^2)/5.

Again, half the rotational velocity with double the radius does not imply quadruple angular momentum, only double, since it is the product of angular velocity (which is halved) and moment of inertia (which is quadrupled).

All clear now?

raaaid
07-18-2007, 09:07 AM
thanks tigertalon see it now though was hard since you didnt put the original formulas

WhtBoy
07-18-2007, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
btw outlaw you said lighter makes it farther

what will go farther a drop of water at 100 kph or a ton of water at 100 kph?

you are as confused as me with this subject </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I'm not.

In the real world (ie, on the surface of the Earth), you can't neglect lift and drag forces. Therefore, "...all other things being equal...", the lighter object will go farther. This is obvious b/c the lift to weight ratio increases with decreasing weight. Therefore the lighter object will remain aloft longer.

If your logic were true airplanes would be built to be as heavy as possible instead of as light as possible.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-18-2007, 12:41 PM
i thought a heavier plane had better e retention than a light one, a 190 boom and zooming equivalent to sky jumping in the game makes it better than a zero, maybe games wrong as the anorexic ski jumpers point

besides seems to me that a drop of water has the same weight surface ratio than a giant one of one ton but if you shoot both at 100 kph the heavy one will make it farther because its affected less by drag

definitly ill buy a marble run and test it with different size balls, i really expect bigger marbles making it faster as the video points, if so it would contradict current physics as tiger talon calculations say both must have same speed

tigertalon
07-18-2007, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i thought a heavier plane had better e retention than a light one, a 190 boom and zooming equivalent to sky jumping in the game makes it better than a zero, maybe games wrong as the anorexic ski jumpers point

besides seems to me that a drop of water has the same weight surface ratio than a giant one of one ton but if you shoot both at 100 kph the heavy one will make it farther because its affected less by drag
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Raaid, you are mixing two completely different things up. I posted a serious question before, it was not a joke, I'll repost it: What if you had two unconscious jumpers (heavy and anorexic) and you pushed both of them down the ramp, which one you think will fly farther?

Heavy one of course, due to better mass/drag ratio.

If they are not unconscious, which one will be farther then? Light one, because he has better gliding abilities.

Gliding abilities are something completely different than energy retention. Don't mix the two terms.

If you put an A6M and F-104 in the air at 5000 meters without fuel, which one will be able to glide farther?

If you launched both of them of a ramp at the same speed with their engines off at an angle of 45 degrees, which one should reach higher altitude?

It's F104 by far. Maybe it wouldn't in IL2 '46, but it should IRL.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
definitly ill buy a marble run and test it with different size balls, i really expect bigger marbles making it faster as the video points, if so it would contradict current physics as tiger talon calculations say both must have same speed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you neglect air drag (and with marbles and relatively short ramp it can be neglected), they should and will reach the end of the ramp at same speed. Trust me.

M_Gunz
07-18-2007, 01:41 PM
It's a Jr High physical science demo that when/where I went to school only the problem kids
did not do though some did not get that course until HS.

Raaid is not at all unusual in his view though. I swear over half of my total graduating
class only went through the moves and forgot most of it as they were able as soon as the
final tests were done.

Just mention that "scientists have proven that bees can't fly" and see all the agreements
you will get from 100 randomly chosen people. As has been pointed out, most people did not
do well at all in science courses and feel intimidated by the amount of technology and
science around them and the place those hold in the world. It's like thunder storms and
natural disasters to primitives, something they don't understand that affects them strongly.

Spouting the BS they do is just their way of "fighting back" and "making face".

raaaid
07-19-2007, 03:54 AM
thanks im learning a lot but im still unable to explaing why heavier tyres fell faster

whats your explanation for this?

raaaid
07-19-2007, 06:10 AM
imagine the tyres were frictionless but geared,

should they drop at the same rate?

if you drop a diabolo it will be the slowest because most energy turned to rotation

if you drop a cylinder it will be the one that will transform most energy to linear

if you rdop a ring M=m*r*r so they should fall as spheres at same rate

but in the videon they dont, how if friction is depending on surface, im sure on this i studied it

somethins been wondering my mind:

how about building a water turbine in suez channel, at least ships going up would be free energy, due to a gravity gradient on same level which allows free energy

and how about our uncouncious knowing the principles on antigravity, jump to the end and check out how this guys propels his center of gravity backwards

seen it in mistakenly air imagen on astronauts at 0g turning by moving their arms on an ellipse shape

sheet yo have to wait for the song to load

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y7WDWP8WMs

WhtBoy
07-19-2007, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
besides seems to me that a drop of water has the same weight surface ratio than a giant one of one ton but if you shoot both at 100 kph the heavy one will make it farther because its affected less by drag </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

raaaid, what does the phrase, "...all other things being equal..." mean to you?

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-19-2007, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
besides seems to me that a drop of water has the same weight surface ratio than a giant one of one ton but if you shoot both at 100 kph the heavy one will make it farther because its affected less by drag </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

raaaid, what does the phrase, "...all other things being equal..." mean to you?

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

of course its like that if you change density but an anorexic person doesnt change density so the 1 ton and 1 gram drop is appropiate

WhtBoy
07-19-2007, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
besides seems to me that a drop of water has the same weight surface ratio than a giant one of one ton but if you shoot both at 100 kph the heavy one will make it farther because its affected less by drag </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

raaaid, what does the phrase, "...all other things being equal..." mean to you?

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

of course its like that if you change density but an anorexic person doesnt change density so the 1 ton and 1 gram drop is appropiate </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't ask about density or anorexia, tons or grams. I'm asking what the phrase, "...all other things being equal..." means to you when you translate it (if you translate it)?

--Outlaw

M_Gunz
07-19-2007, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
of course its like that if you change density but an anorexic person doesnt change density so the 1 ton and 1 gram drop is appropiate </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The more fat a person has, the less dense their body is. Go swimming some time.

slipBall
07-19-2007, 02:14 PM
Objects that are exact alike except mass ( weight ) fall at the same rate....there is no such thing as energy retention.....there is only friction resistence...a better air foil design equals the abilty to maintain a better speed longer than a poor design airfoil....no more "energy retention threads" please, you are confusing Raaaid...air foil design threads are welcome http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
07-19-2007, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
thanks im learning a lot but im still unable to explaing why heavier tyres fell faster

whats your explanation for this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Higher mass to drag ratio.

The show gives data in two places. End of ramp speed and then how far down the slope is the
touchdown. And the faster off the ramp is not always the one to go farther -- a great big
CLUE about the ramp and the drag of the tires. I can't say for sure but I can guess that
while on the ground there were close to ground air effects operating on the tires to reduce
air drag from what would be in flight (no air passing under the wheel and interrupted flow
in the center hole -- my guess).
Slowest off ramp was 97 m/s, almost 360 kph! You understand how much drag an EMPTY tire
without wheel hub to block air disturbance creates as opposed to weight of tire?

Here is a clue for you, at much slower speeds of cars on highway -- same car gets better
mileage with windows closed as with windows open because of more drag with windows open.

Unless you are careful about experiments it is easy to introduce factors NOT included in
calculations that will throw results off badly. When you go to extremes of differences
in size and speed (drop of water with LOW Reynolds values to ton of water with higher
Reynolds values -- why bird wings sized up don't work the same for airplanes as for birds)
then you make mockery of your example which makes mockery of YOU.

Get much more reasonable Raaid, and then people will be more reasonable with you.
Till then I hope that your weather is fine and your health is okay.

raaaid
07-19-2007, 03:34 PM
it was not 97 m/s but kph

at that speed biggest effect is dynamic friction which increases with surface

M_Gunz
07-19-2007, 04:17 PM
You are correct, slowest was 97 kph which is still about 60 mph. Not slow.

Surface friction depends on surface area, normal force (how hard pressing down) and type of
friction. For the tires it is rolling friction, less than sliding or static friction but
still amounts to something esp with the padded carpet ramps (if someone falls then it is
not as hard under the hard-packed snow) there.

Air drag is not only the outside of the tread but thanks to the hole in the middle, much
more. You might as well count the inside surface of those as drag-making or at least the
back end.

There is also the matter of tread drag actually helping to keep the tires up longer.
It works the same as a ball moving with top spin. Since the tire is rolling forward during
flight, the top that spins against the direction of motion has more friction that the bottom
that spins away from direction of flight. Result is that air flows slower over the top that
under the bottom which sets up an actual LIFT CIRCULATION PATTERN. To some degree the tire
(or ball as in ping-pong or tennis or baseball that top spin also works on... with side spin
is how curve balls are thrown, also works when throwing stones or slicing golf swings) is
an airfoil just by that and -- the more and deeper the tread and the more surface speed
of the spin, and the faster the tire is moving the more actual lift produced.

I really don't see where Galileo had speeds high enough of such shapes and tread on his
test objects (balls moving slow) to introduce so many factors as operate in that video clip.

If someone tells me I can buy "a new car" for $12000, much as I would like to say "that new
BMW 2 seater is a car and therefore must also cost $12000" and the dealer just agrees since
"a car" is "a car" while ignoring all other differences will never happen.
That example is JUST as ridiculous as comparing that video clip to what Galileo had done.

raaaid
07-20-2007, 04:31 AM
man i dont believe anything

ill make the experiment by myself and find out, ill keep you updated

WhtBoy
07-20-2007, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
man i dont believe anything </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What did I tell you? Even in the face of the math you still won't believe it. If you're not going to believe anything, then why don't you just keep your mouth shut? This shouldn't be your personal psychopathic rant forum.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-20-2007, 10:40 AM
man youre old

maths mean nothing is you see whith your eyes what counts

so when i see bigger masses falling faster i shouldnt believe it because maths say so

bigger surface bigger friction

bigger masses drop faster on a ramp if you doubt it after the video you have no judgement at all

what does your name stand for white boy?

or with boy

i bet is white boy you sound like fascist free thinker hater to me

raaaid
07-20-2007, 11:21 AM
well enough is enough i made the experiment

heaviest ball fell first on a ramp you can test it

ill do farther testing my self i just believe what i see i swear they didnt quite fall at the same rate as the links i provided say they should

yourself if it was in most books hitler was admirable and jews deserve extermination youd call me a psicopath for saying its wrong as you believe the rest of lies

poor gullible old man

JG14_Josf
07-20-2007, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Objects that are exact alike except mass ( weight ) fall at the same rate....there is no such thing as energy retention.....there is only friction resistence...a better air foil design equals the abilty to maintain a better speed longer than a poor design airfoil....no more "energy retention threads" please, you are confusing Raaaid...air foil design threads are welcome </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not worded well enough to be true. Words don't work as well as math for being accurate.

Words should be good enough.

If the size and shape of the object is exactly the same and the only difference is internal mass, then, the higher mass objects will require more force to resist the acceleration of gravity.

If the expert "authorities" on all that is right and true in the world want to express with math these facts, then, do so...

1 meter diameter ball having two different densities (internal mass):

Object A = less density than the same volume of air at any altitude on Earth

Object B = a density equal to Earth's moon

Release both objects from 10,000 meters altitude on Earth and calculate which one accelerates faster by Earth's Gravity?

If your Math predicts that both objects will accelerate at the same rate by Earth's Gravity, then, you may need to go back and recalculate the math problem with a formula that will work.

The lower mass object will accelerate upward as air mass displaces the lower mass object.

The higher mass object will accelerate downward.

That is OPPOSITE. That is not THE SAME.

Increases in mass (all else being equal) increase the force required to accelerate/decelerate the object.

A huge tire is extremely massive. If you have ever had to move one of those huge tires by hand you, like me, would have expected the ramp to disintegrate as the ramp could not accelerate that much mass going fast (momentum). The force required to change trajectory of that much mass going that fast is astronomical.

Words can confuse the facts. The facts do not change no matter how many words confuse them.

slipBall
07-20-2007, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Objects that are exact alike except mass ( weight ) fall at the same rate....there is no such thing as energy retention.....there is only friction resistence...a better air foil design equals the abilty to maintain a better speed longer than a poor design airfoil....no more "energy retention threads" please, you are confusing Raaaid...air foil design threads are welcome </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not worded well enough to be true. Words don't work as well as math for being accurate.

Words should be good enough.

If the size and shape of the object is exactly the same and the only difference is internal mass, then, the higher mass objects will require more force to resist the acceleration of gravity.

If the expert "authorities" on all that is right and true in the world want to express with math these facts, then, do so...

1 meter diameter ball having two different densities (internal mass):

Object A = less density than the same volume of air at any altitude on Earth

Object B = a density equal to Earth's moon

Release both objects from 10,000 meters altitude on Earth and calculate which one accelerates faster by Earth's Gravity?

If your Math predicts that both objects will accelerate at the same rate by Earth's Gravity, then, you may need to go back and recalculate the math problem with a formula that will work.

The lower mass object will accelerate upward as air mass displaces the lower mass object.

The higher mass object will accelerate downward.

That is OPPOSITE. That is not THE SAME.

Increases in mass (all else being equal) increase the force required to accelerate/decelerate the object.

A huge tire is extremely massive. If you have ever had to move one of those huge tires by hand you, like me, would have expected the ramp to disintegrate as the ramp could not accelerate that much mass going fast (momentum). The force required to change trajectory of that much mass going that fast is astronomical.

Words can confuse the facts. The facts do not change no matter how many words confuse them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Josf, I respect you, and alot of what you say from time to time is true. But I can not agree with you on this point, friction, resistence, are the determinate factor's for aircraft, and all objects, dealing with gravity, in the absence of force, thrust

M_Gunz
07-20-2007, 02:04 PM
The balls and ramp experiment was to show how acceleration due to gravity works.
The dropped balls from a height was for side by side compare.

What Galileo set out was to disprove the then-currently held notion that rate of fall was directly
proportional to weight, ie if the ball weighed twice as much it would fall twice as fast.

I don't think that Raaid would back Aristotle on that score. He is smarter than Simplicio.

Here is better described what he did. Raaid, it's been over 30 years since I did the ball and
ramp at school and watched the dropped balls of which none was a ping-pong ball btw. I forget
small details of every little bit but the lesson was clear and not from book but by doing and
measuring. It's fundamental, so fundamental that little else would work the way it does if it
was not true.

Galileo experiment on acceleration due to gravity. (http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gal_accn96.htm)

WhtBoy
07-20-2007, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
1 meter diameter ball having two different densities (internal mass):

Object A = less density than the same volume of air at any altitude on Earth

Object B = a density equal to Earth's moon

Release both objects from 10,000 meters altitude on Earth and calculate which one accelerates faster by Earth's Gravity?

If your Math predicts that both objects will accelerate at the same rate by Earth's Gravity, then, you may need to go back and recalculate the math problem with a formula that will work.

The lower mass object will accelerate upward as air mass displaces the lower mass object.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Galileo's point was that objects in FREE FALL accelerate at the same rate. FREE FALL IS, BY DEFINITION, FALLING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITY ALONE. Falling through the atmosphere is NOT FREE FALL.


A steel ball rolling at low speed on a steel rail (ie, NO DEFORMATION OF THE RAIL, NO DEFORMATION OF THE BALL, AS CLOSE TO SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT WITH NO RELATIVE MOTION BETWEEN THE SURFACE AND THE POINT OF CONTACT AS POSSIBLE) will approximate free fall.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
well enough is enough i made the experiment

heaviest ball fell first on a ramp you can test it

ill do farther testing my self i just believe what i see i swear they didnt quite fall at the same rate as the links i provided say they should </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your experiment is flawed. Post the video of it and multiple people will be able to tell you where you went wrong.

--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
07-20-2007, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
man youre old

maths mean nothing is you see whith your eyes what counts

so when i see bigger masses falling faster i shouldnt believe it because maths say so

bigger surface bigger friction

bigger masses drop faster on a ramp if you doubt it after the video you have no judgement at all

what does your name stand for white boy?

or with boy

i bet is white boy you sound like fascist free thinker hater to me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am 6 years older than you are raaaid.

So, if I pull a coin out from behind your ear, was there a coin behind your ear or was I palming the coin the whole time? There are many things that are quicker than the eye.

IF FRICTION IS ENTERING INTO YOUR EXPERIMENT THEN YOU ARE NOT NOT NOT NOT DOING IT CORRECTLY. THE EXPERIMENT SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE FRICTION AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

As a matter of fact, it is short for White Boy. Amazingly enough, I am white. I also dance poorly. Hence the term, WhtBoy.

--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
07-20-2007, 02:52 PM
raaaid,
Do you agree that, for the ramp experiment to be accurate, the masses should all roll the same distance?

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-20-2007, 03:17 PM
man i was getting to be friends with you but your comment im sycopathic when you know im on meds is not very friendly

of course both balls went same distance

ill test farther if experiments keep pointing heaviest balls fall fastest ill bauy a marble run drop different masses ball and hang it on youtube

ill hang as well a balance in which gravity raises the center of gravity from no motion due to cog being above rotation axle

WhtBoy
07-20-2007, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
of course both balls went same distance </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why won't you answer the questions I ask??

I DID NOT ASK IF THE BALLS IN YOUR EXPIREMENT WENT THE SAME DISTANCE!!!!

Answer the question I asked.

--Outlaw.

MEGILE
07-20-2007, 03:36 PM
planes go wee

JG14_Josf
07-20-2007, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Josf, I respect you, and alot of what you say from time to time is true. But I can not agree with you on this point, friction, resistence, are the determinate factor's for aircraft, and all objects, dealing with gravity, in the absence of force, thrust </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slipball,

I appreciate the personal expression - thanks.

Setting aside anything personal:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> But I can not agree with you on this point... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What point?

If you use words to describe your viewpoint, then, you use words to describe your viewpoint. What does your viewpoint have to do with my point?

It is a fact:

All else being equal except internal mass (density):

Object A accelerates in the opposite direction of object B.

You can do the experiment yourself to see this as fact and remove any question concerning the physical fact. You can remove any doubt or misunderstanding.

You can get extremely precise in your experimentation too.

Here is a suggestion as an experiment to prove the hypothesis:

Get two balloons. Fill one with water. Fill the other one with helium.

Freeze the water balloon to an exacting size and shape of the helium filled balloon.

The process of exacting the two sizes and shapes can be elaborate or simple. The idea, of course, is to reproduce the sizes and shapes to represent something as nearly as possible to a standard of "all else being equal".

The process of changing the density can also be elaborate to a point where the two extremes of density vary in increments of 1 milligram, where, the frozen water balloon is measured and the helium filled balloon is measured and the internal mass of these same size and same shaped objects are somehow filled with substances that vary in mass for every milligram decrease from the water filled balloon and increased from the helium filled balloon.

For the sake of economy the experiment can be done with only the water filled and the helium filled balloons.

The water filled balloon can be frozen in a bed of crushed ice to help maintain a round shape.

Once the two objects of the same size and shape are ready, then, it is necessary to figure out a way to release both objects from the same height and do so at the same time.

Releasing one object sooner than the other object will give one object a head start as gravity forces these objects on trajectories that may, or may not, be the same trajectories.

The idea is to measure the rate of acceleration so it is also needed to measure the time lapsed and the distances traveled.

All the precision can be left behind for this experiment is a no-brainer really.

The increase in mass for the ice balloon will fall while the helium filled balloon will rise.

That is opposites.

The only change is internal mass.

All else is reasonably equal.

One goes up.

The other goes down.

If the formula used to predict the vector and acceleration of these objects predicts that both objects will fall at the same rate of acceleration, then, the formula is insufficient for the task.

The above is fact. The above is provable fact. The above is "My" point.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Josf, I respect you, and alot of what you say from time to time is true. But I can not agree with you on this point, friction, resistence, are the determinate factor's for aircraft, and all objects, dealing with gravity, in the absence of force, thrust </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is your point?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...friction, resistence, are the determinate factor's for aircraft, and all objects, dealing with gravity, in the absence of force, thrust </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason why the ice balloon goes in the opposite direction from the helium filled balloon, and one of the reasons why the P-47, the Fw190A, and the Spitfire don't have the same rates of acceleration is relative density.

The ice filled balloon is denser than the helium filled balloon.

That is a fact.

The ice filled balloon will accelerate in the opposite direction as the helium filled balloon.

If density isn't factored into the performance equation, then, the formula will not factor density into the equation. The equation will predict both objects accelerating at the same rate and on the same vector. The equation will work fine on a planet without an atmosphere.

Is that my point?

From my view; it is my point.

You may have a different viewpoint concerning my expressed viewpoint.

You may also have a different viewpoint concerning how a change in mass affects aircraft performance.

You may even think that my viewpoint suggests that an increase in mass increases all performance variables for all aircraft.

You may even think that an increase in mass decreases all performance for all aircraft.

I don't think either of the last two viewpoints.

My point remains the same as always.

An increase in mass (all else being equal) increases the force required to accelerate/decelerate the object.

If the formula used to predict the performance of the aircraft does not account for the above fact, then, the formula is inaccurate in proportion to that lack of accounting for that fact.

I can rephrase that viewpoint. If the formula in question is put to the test, then, the ice filled balloon will go in the opposite direction as the helium filled balloon according to the formula. If the formula in question fails the test, then, it fails the test.

Again if you have ever tried to move one of those huge tires by hand, then, it is probably no surprise that the ramp was destroyed by the massive tire going fast.

M_Gunz
07-20-2007, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy:
As a matter of fact, it is short for White Boy. Amazingly enough, I am white. I also dance poorly. Hence the term, WhtBoy.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're going use racial stereotype then at least you use one that points at you,
but I'd really rather that all such would not be used as others hear and think it's okay.
It's not okay to pull that with anyone but it sure is common.

slipBall
07-20-2007, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fill the other one with helium. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not a good choice!....Styrofoam would be better choice, and the texture and all factors must be equal and the same in the finale shape for both....your experiment as put forth would be flawed because of the helium (lighter than air), and because the shapes are not exact (the same)

raaaid
07-20-2007, 04:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">raaaid,
Do you agree that, for the ramp experiment to be accurate, the masses should all roll the same distance?

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


yes i agree

also agree in all that the link you provided says because it doesnt mention nowhere the exception of bigger masses going faster on a SLOPE

WhtBoy
07-20-2007, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
yes i agree </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well then, it's obvious that the tires in the youtube video did NOT follow the same path down the ramp and therefore did NOT go the same distance. Furthermore some of them bounced and wobbled quite badly. That is just one of the many things that makes that video totally invalid and incapable of proving anything except the level of stupidity of the person who draws any conclusions from it.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
also agree in all that the link you provided says because it doesnt mention nowhere the exception of bigger masses going faster on a SLOPE </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What link did I post?

--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
07-20-2007, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy:
As a matter of fact, it is short for White Boy. Amazingly enough, I am white. I also dance poorly. Hence the term, WhtBoy.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're going use racial stereotype then at least you use one that points at you,
but I'd really rather that all such would not be used as others hear and think it's okay.
It's not okay to pull that with anyone but it sure is common. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh please. Grow up. It's a freakin' joke, interstingly enough, started by a BLACK GUY who didn't have have his panties wadded up his a$$. So bite me.

--Outlaw.

JG14_Josf
07-20-2007, 04:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not a good choice!....Styrofoam would be better choice, and the texture and all factors must be equal and the same in the finale shape for both....your experiment as put forth would be flawed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SlipBall,

You discredit my hypothesis or my test or both?

Is it possible that your viewpoint has nothing to do with my viewpoint? If so, then, that explains your evaluation of my hypothesis and my test that confirms the hypothesis.

If you are in a position to criticize my hypothesis and/or the test that proves the hypothesis, then, you will do so rather than criticize something unrelated to my hypothesis and the proof that confirms my hypothesis.

What exactly is it that you use to judge my expressed viewpoint? How do you come up with your judgment of "Bad"?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not a good choice!.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am I mistaken? Is bad = not good?

Bad is one word less than not good.

Why is helium not a good choice? Is helium beyond your limits of good conduct?

Where do you set your limit of good conduct?

Do you set your limit of good conduct at the precise point where the volume of the object in question displaces the same mass of air?

If so, then, you remove the evidence that I use to prove the hypothesis.

Why do you do that?

Why do you remove the evidence I use to prove the hypothesis I communicate?

Can you see how this works? If you hypothesis that my hypothesis is wrong, then, all you have to do to prove your point is remove the evidence I use to prove my hypothesis.

Does that make my hypothesis false?

Does that merely make your perception of my hypothesis false?

Did you ignore my hypothesis and then move onto whatever it is that your viewpoint finds to be worthy of your attention?
Hypothesis:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Object A accelerates in the opposite direction of object B. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you do not allow, for some reason, a change in mass that is lower than the displaced air mass, then, my hypothesis cannot be proven.

Is that convenient?

Suppose nothing were placed inside object B. Why do you insist upon using Styrofoam?

You insist upon using something heavier than air? Is that your intention? Why is that your intention?

My viewpoint was to prove my hypothesis. I can prove my hypothesis when filling the object with nothing. I can prove my hypothesis when filling the object with something that is lighter than air.

Why do you find my hypothesis to be not good'?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">....your experiment as put forth would be flawed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My experiment would prove something specific. If you don't want to prove the specific thing that my experiment proves, then, you can easily view my experiment as flawed' for your purpose whatever your purpose may be.

What is your purpose for claiming that my experiment is flawed?

I am curious.

As mass lowers (while size and shape remains the same) there will be less force required to accelerate/decelerate the object.

Compare that to this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Objects that are exact alike except mass ( weight ) fall at the same rate.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is true if both objects are not decelerated by contact with air mass.

That is false if both objects are decelerated by contact with air mass.

That is false if both objects are decelerated by contact with air mass because:

As mass lowers (while size and shape remains the same) there will be less force required to accelerate/decelerate the object.
That can easily be seen with another experiment.

Fly two identical gliders side by side where one glider dumps ballast.

View the results.

raaaid
07-20-2007, 05:15 PM
i was referring to gunz link

M_Gunz
07-20-2007, 09:25 PM
Raaid, you know how if you walk into the middle of a complicated movie it's hard to figure out
what the actors are talking about? Well maybe it would be best if you approached physics the
same way, start off reading some histories and get the background and not go by a bit here and
a piece there. It makes a lot more sense that way.

I had a rather brilliant friend in school who came from a place where they hadn't taught the
basics in pre-algebra (what is a point, what are dimensions, operation precedence order, etc)
so he did miserably going straight into algebra. They hadn't taught a number of other basics
so he ended up in the A track instead of with the Exceptionals where by IQ he belonged.
Imagine learning to read without first learning the alphabet?

Maybe you can find a nice woman who also teaches grade school science and wants boyfriend?
She will know much more and how best to explain. Just don't get her mad of you lose her!

slipBall
07-21-2007, 03:43 AM
Josf, do you agree with this statement, a simple yes or no answer please, then we can move forward after I understand your thought on this basic belief of science


Galileo showed that all things fall at the same rate no matter how much they weigh.

raaaid
07-21-2007, 04:45 AM
haha thats my dream a girl with whom i can discuss physics

unfortunatley all girls i went out with lately were economists

JG14_Josf
07-21-2007, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Josf, do you agree with this statement, a simple yes or no answer please, then we can move forward after I understand your thought on this basic belief of science


Galileo showed that all things fall at the same rate no matter how much they weigh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slipball,

Let's get something straight. You do not dictate to me how I answer anything whatsoever - ever.

You are asking a loaded question.

I don't play these games. If you don't like my answer to your loaded question, then, you don't like it. What does that have to do with me?

Without an atmosphere the force of gravity accelerates objects having diverse mass at the same rate.

So your question can be answered as "YES".

Contact with any resistance against gravitational acceleration changes the rate of acceleration caused by gravity and the greater the object mass the less will be the declaration rate caused by any resistance against gravitational acceleration; therefore your question can be answered with "No".

Only you know why you frame your leading question as you did and only you know why you demand a yes or no answer to your leading question. I can guess.

WhtBoy
07-21-2007, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Contact with any resistance against gravitational acceleration changes the rate of acceleration caused by gravity and the greater the object mass the less will be the declaration rate caused by any resistance against gravitational acceleration; therefore your question can be answered with "No".

Only you know why you frame your leading question as you did and only you know why you demand a yes or no answer to your leading question. I can guess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The heart of this discussion (since the hijack that is) has always been around free fall conditions so why did you come in here to nitpick those statements that did not specifically mention that the assumption is free fall conditions? I can only guess that it is because you enjoy typing long winded posts with practically zero (and in many cases less than zero) real content. There is no need to repeat the free fall conditions assumption with every post. Any marginally intelligent and sane individual should be able to make that assumption based on the context.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-21-2007, 09:39 AM
i agree at free fall on vacuum fall at the same rate

i agree that a fat and anorexic eski jumper get same speed at the end of the ramp

i disagree on different masses rolling down a ramp at same rate, from experience

so it all has to be with rolling or not which explains jap video

JG14_Josf
07-21-2007, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The heart of this discussion (since the hijack that is) has always been around free fall conditions so why did you come in here to nitpick those statements that did not specifically mention that the assumption is free fall conditions? I can only guess that it is because you enjoy typing long winded posts with practically zero (and in many cases less than zero) real content. There is no need to repeat the free fall conditions assumption with every post. Any marginally intelligent and sane individual should be able to make that assumption based on the context. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it safe to say that you are not pleased with my posts?

Why read them?

Why comment on them?

Why not just ignore my posts - please?

WhtBoy
07-21-2007, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i disagree on different masses rolling down a ramp at same rate, from experience

so it all has to be with rolling or not which explains jap video </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You agreed that for the experiment to be accurate all the masses have to travel the same distance BUT IT IS OBVIOUS that the tires in the video DO NOT TRAVEL THE SAME DISTANCE.

Please explain how this observation can be used as a comparison? What measures have you taken to account for the different distances travelled?

Also, some of the tires wobbled badly, some bounced, and IIRC, one even hit the side of the ramp. Furthermore, the surface of the ski ramp was not even close to being smooth and solid.

Once again, what corrections have you made to the raw data to account for the fact that the "experiments", were NOT using the same setup?

Are you going to post a video of the alleged experiment you did? What about a description of what you did and what materials you used?

--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
07-21-2007, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The heart of this discussion (since the hijack that is) has always been around free fall conditions so why did you come in here to nitpick those statements that did not specifically mention that the assumption is free fall conditions? I can only guess that it is because you enjoy typing long winded posts with practically zero (and in many cases less than zero) real content. There is no need to repeat the free fall conditions assumption with every post. Any marginally intelligent and sane individual should be able to make that assumption based on the context. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it safe to say that you are not pleased with my posts?

Why read them?

Why comment on them?

Why not just ignore my posts - please? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I guessed right, although, to be honest this one isn't very long winded. It does pass the no real content test though.

To answer your questions...

Your posts don't twitch my pleasure meter significanly one way or the other.

They're sometimes funny.

Because it makes you respond like the above quote.

I don't want to.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-21-2007, 10:24 AM
i havent made my mind up yet i have to do farther testing

im just suspicious based on the video and my experiments that different mass balls dont roll down at the same speed thought they free fall the same

in fact the link provided about galileo says balls of different masses rolling down the same nowhere

M_Gunz
07-21-2007, 01:19 PM
If you set the ramp up so the slope is 1 in 10 then the balls will accelerate 1/10th as fast
as falling directly. Figure it out from there.

JG14_Josf
07-21-2007, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think I guessed right, although, to be honest this one isn't very long winded. It does pass the no real content test though.

To answer your questions...

Your posts don't twitch my pleasure meter significanly one way or the other.

They're sometimes funny.

Because it makes you respond like the above quote.

I don't want to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whatever,

Do you know the meaning of the term contradiction?

How about an example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It does pass the no real content test though.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What doesn't pass your real content test?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
They're sometimes funny.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can something I write contain "no real content" and yet you continue to respond and while reinforcing your belief in your no content' theory you also, at the same time, claim that my posts are sometimes funny'?

Again if my posts contain no content, then, there isn't anything to inspire a response; yet you respond to nothing and you continue to respond to nothing including a response by you letting me know that some of my posts are funny.

That is a contradiction.

So, again, are you going to respond to this new post of mine that continues to fail or pass your no content test or are you going to find this new post funny due to it's lack of content?

If you are going to respond to this post, because this one somehow qualifies as a post inspiring a response, then, what inspires you to respond beyond a need to contradict yourself?

Again the higher mass object will not be slowed down as much by the same air resistance (all else being equal).

I added that last sentence to remain on-topic and add substance to an otherwise off-topic response to your personal attacks.

WhtBoy
07-21-2007, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
How can something I write contain "no real content" and yet you continue to respond and while reinforcing your belief in your no content' theory you also, at the same time, claim that my posts are sometimes funny'?

Again if my posts contain no content, then, there isn't anything to inspire a response; yet you respond to nothing and you continue to respond to nothing including a response by you letting me know that some of my posts are funny.

That is a contradiction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's not a contradiction. You are limiting the definition of "real" to a point that would support your case that "no real content" is equivalent to "no content", or, an empty or non-existent post. That is not a reasonable thing to do. It is obvious that, in this case, I am using the term "real" to mean "useful". For example, I can safely and reasonably state that the text below...

jfklsadj fksdjvi ochxbjkxcl bhxcjklvhjisdf aofu sdaifojd kcxbvljxclz

contains no real content. It does exist, however, it is meaningless (at least in the context of this post) and therefore not useful.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
So, again, are you going to respond to this new post of mine that continues to fail or pass your no content test or are you going to find this new post funny due to it's lack of content?

If you are going to respond to this post, because this one somehow qualifies as a post inspiring a response, then, what inspires you to respond beyond a need to contradict yourself? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As stated above, it is not a contradiction. My inspiration is to point out how, despite the fact that this entire discussion has been based on free fall conditions, you come in and point out a fact that DOES NOT APPLY UNDER FREE FALL conditions. Therefore, your statement is not useful in the context of this discussion.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Again the higher mass object will not be slowed down as much by the same air resistance (all else being equal). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, the original "all else being equal" statement was based on free fall conditions, which, by definition, neglects air resistance.

--Outlaw.

slipBall
07-21-2007, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Without an atmosphere the force of gravity accelerates objects having diverse mass at the same rate </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


And in a atomosphere as well...the key is that they are exactly alike, except in weight........this is proven basic science, tought in 4th grade all around the world, how you could think other wise is hard to understand.....speed is directly related to a objects friction resistence due to it shape, objects do not retain energy in a free fall, they do pass through the atomosphere better if the surface area is a good design that offers less resistence...drop a paper clip, drop a feather the same weight as the clip, the clip wins, less area exposed to the atomosphere

M_Gunz
07-21-2007, 04:00 PM
Sitting in my chair and not moving in relation to it I am still under acceleration of gravity.

JG14_Josf
07-21-2007, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Again, the original "all else being equal" statement was based on free fall conditions, which, by definition, neglects air resistance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In or Outlaw,

Here is a point for you to ignore as being not real as you define it:

I saw the video of the tires and as the people doing the experiment were obviously breathing which proves that the topic includes an atmosphere.

Why you insist upon replying to things that you find funny and/or lacking in realness or whatever it is that you are trying to communicate is a continuing mystery; however the mystery can remain one forever.

Meanwhile the same amount of air resistance will slow down a less massive object faster than a more massive object "all else being equal".

Slipball,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And in a atomosphere as well... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In an atmosphere the force of gravity is constant as well as without an atmosphere; however the rate of acceleration through the atmosphere is lowered due to an increase in mass (all else being equal) because it takes more force to slow down the rate of acceleration.

Words can make reality confusing. You can try the helium and balloon filled with ice experiment yourself to see how reality works, or, you can continue to write words that can make reality confusing.

The rate of acceleration caused by gravity on the helium filled balloon will be on an opposite heading as the rate of acceleration caused by gravity on the ice filled balloon once both objects are allowed to fall freely (or rise feely) without any resistance to gravitational acceleration (except air resistance).

WhtBoy
07-22-2007, 02:18 AM
Josf,
My attempt to respond to multiple posts at once led me to incorrectly relate your post to the free fall scenario. After reading your initial post again I see that you responded to a very specific statement by slipball that itself specifically mentioned atmospheric forces.

My bad and I apologize for that mistake.

--Outlaw.

P.S.
I still stand by my long winded statement though!

JG14_Josf
07-22-2007, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Josf,
My attempt to respond to multiple posts at once led me to incorrectly relate your post to the free fall scenario. After reading your initial post again I see that you responded to a very specific statement by slipball that itself specifically mentioned atmospheric forces. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WhtBoy,

No Problem and thanks for clearing things up.