Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Exactly, I can't keep my frame of refernce as the Earth and consider it to be moving BUT this is why I invoked d'Alembert's principle which allows me to treat the Earth as 'static' with the cost of having to consdier inertial forces.The Son of Him said:You have to put your system of reference either on the center of the EARTH ,make it inmovable and refer the movement of the balls to it, or if you want to take in consideration the acceleration of the earth to these bodies you will have to put the system of reference outside the CENTER of EARTH in wich case the best point to put it will be the CENTER of MASS of the system according to NEWTON.
You can not refer this ball moving to EARTH and then move EARTH to the ball while conserving the CENTER of EARTH as system of reference, IS either one or the other !!!!!!!!!!
Which textbooks and are they specifically taking into consideration both the active mass of the object and the differing accelartions?JGMEERT said:JM: It's not just high school textbooks, it's also college and theoretical physics. The fact that in the absence of resistance both accelerate equally and hit and the same time is not really a matter of debate and I can't believe anyone wants to argue otherwise.
Cheers
Joe Meert
JM: Any freshman physics text should be easy enough to understand. I can't believe how much bandwidth has been spent on such a simple misunderstandingAeschylus said:Which textbooks and are they specifically taking into consideration both the active mass of the object and the differing accelartions?
If this were the case two body problems would be alot easier to solve.
plus can you show the specifc fault in the proof.
Consider this situation: what happens when the mass of the ball is so large that the mass of the earth no longer become impornat, is the ball's accelaration still only governed by the mass of the Earth?JGMEERT said:JM: Any freshman physics text should be easy enough to understand. I can't believe how much bandwidth has been spent on such a simple misunderstanding
Cheers
Joe Meert
No, it doesn't. Air resistance is COMPLETELY unaffected by mass. It is ONLY relevant in regard to different shapes of objects.Aeschylus said:Yes, it does though I have not comphrehensively proved it you should still be able to see that air resistance does mean all things being equal heavier objects fall faster.
For EVERYBODY who keeps saying "try it out, do an experiment", please, stop saying it. The entire point is that if they do fall at different speeds, the difference would be infinitesmal, and could NOT be observed.The Son of Him said:NO my friend,
Both balls hit the ground at the same time and at the same speed , provided they have the same outside geometry (OR should I say topology) and that they fall from the same height.
The force between earth and the heavier ball will be greater but so will be its inertia or opposition of the body to change its state of motion.
This was the basis for EISTEINS Equivalence Principle wich he used to give general form to accelerated movement for its special relativity thus rounding GENERAL RELATIVITY.
PLUS Your experiment has already been carried out by GALILEO GALILEI at the tower of PISA with SPHERES as pendulus thus discovering that all bodies fall at the same rate.
All this thanks to the LORD
Aeschylus said:D = Cd * 0.5 * r * v^2 * A
(see the site for an explanation of the formula)
Now we're only inetrested in the effects of mass so we can say:
D = C*v^2
Where C is a constant
Aeschylus said:Consider this situation: what happens when the mass of the ball is so large that the mass of the earth no longer become impornat, is the ball's accelaration still only governed by the mass of the Earth?
Yes I am aware that that formula is only a simplifcation as any single formula would be that hope to concisely the force due to air resistance as for example at low speeds it is better to model the dependance on v than v^2.Dirac_Notation said:This is the specific fault in your proof--your statement that "C is a constant." The parameter Cd you mention in your formula is not in fact a constant for all objects. Your work obscures any possible mass-dependence of this parameter. (And in fact, drag isn't always proportional to velocity squared either. Fluid dynamics is complicated.) To complete the proof, one of two things must happen
option1: The parameter Cd must be proven to be linearly proportional to mass. Then the acceleration is independent of mass, and the two objects fall at precisely the same rate and strike at precisely the same time.
option2: The parameter Cd must be proven to have any other dependence on mass. Then the acceleration is not independent of the mass, and the two objects can strike at different times.
Enjoy yourselves!
When the mass of the ball is something silly like say a googleplex the times of the Earth we can ignore the active mass of the Earth without much worry.Dirac_Notation said:What does this mean? The mass of the earth is always important. It's always part of what determines the gravitational field acting on the ball.
Well brer ket's comment aside, if the force of air resiatnce is independt of mass you should see that this cause heavier objects to fall faster.The Bellman said:No, it doesn't. Air resistance is COMPLETELY unaffected by mass. It is ONLY relevant in regard to different shapes of objects.
Sorry, can you expand on that a bit? I'm not sure I understand.Aeschylus said:Well brer ket's comment aside, if the force of air resiatnce is independt of mass you should see that this cause heavier objects to fall faster.
Hmm...so after 50-odd posts, nobody knows...or rather, everybody knows, but they all disagre
JM: Some of us know. Others think they know and try to sound sophisticated in their answer. Eventually, those with a willingness to learn and comprehend will quickly come to the same realization as I did when I first waded through all these posts, that most have no clue.
Cheers
Joe Meert
Okay, so forget air resistance for a moment. Assume a vacuum. Two objects, same size, but one has weighs a ton and the other weighs a billion tons. Drop them both from 1 mile above the earth. Will they hit the ground at PRECISELY the same time? Or different times, but sufficiently close that we wouldn't notice it?Aeschylus said:two objects of masses of masses of 50kg and 0.5 kg and an air resisantce 1N, take g as 10N:
resulatnt force on the object of mass 50kg:
= 500 - 1 = 499N
therfore the accelration is:
499/50 = 9.98 m/s^2
the resultant force on the object of 0.5 kg is
5 - 1 = 4 N
therfore it's accelartion is:
4/0.5 = 8 m/s^2
JGMEERT said:Hmm...so after 50-odd posts, nobody knows...or rather, everybody knows, but they all disagrePerhaps that's true...but the hard bit is finding out which are the ones that DO have a clue.
JM: Some of us know. Others think they know and try to sound sophisticated in their answer. Eventually, those with a willingness to learn and comprehend will quickly come to the same realization as I did when I first waded through all these posts, that most have no clue.
Cheers
Joe Meert
Well I'm sorry I tried to help you.The Bellman said:For EVERYBODY who keeps saying "try it out, do an experiment", please, stop saying it. The entire point is that if they do fall at different speeds, the difference would be infinitesmal, and could NOT be observed.
JM: Precisely the same time.The Bellman said:Okay, so forget air resistance for a moment. Assume a vacuum. Two objects, same size, but one has weighs a ton and the other weighs a billion tons. Drop them both from 1 mile above the earth. Will they hit the ground at PRECISELY the same time? Or different times, but sufficiently close that we wouldn't notice it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?