If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II
- Thread starter Seymour Butz
- Start date
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
If something is being acted upon by forces in opposition to each other and is falling, it is not freely falling, even though it may be falling at g, the acceleration we label freefall.
I feel that I should have been charged admission to witness that convolution of reality.
He can do whatever he wants. I don't need to tell him anything.
Criteria presents the dumbest experiments in the history of 9/11 truth.
But it is true, FF failed to figure out the simple part of the question. Is the lack of practical knowledge in physics why you and FF believe in the fantasy of CD?
FF offers no evidence like you do. He claims to have evidence for CD, never produces it; like you. Believing in the fantasy of CD, or thinking Balsamo is an aviation authority is par for 9/11 truth followers who believe in lies and false claims; and have no evidence to much about their failed positions.
Is it frustrating to fall for lies and have no clue the lies you believe in are lies?
Where is the evidence?
Not really. For someone who believes the Fantasy of CD and thinks Balsamo is an avaiation authority...
Have you helped FF with 7.8*1012 fathoms/fortnight2 ; instead of quibbling about BS -
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Fair enough, I was charged admission, only they called it tuition, and at the end I got bachelor's in Physics and Astrophysics, and a Masters in Mechanical Engineering.
Do you always call what you don't understand a "convolution of reality ", because that explains a lot about you then.
No, I call skeptic BS a convolution of reality.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
So tell me, can an object only a he I've an acceleration of 9.81 m/s2 toward the center of the Earth by falling freely, or could it also achieve the same acceleration by a combination of forces?
Are you typing on your phone?
A combination of forces could create a downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s. I think for purposes of discussion we refer to freefall as downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s caused solely by gravity (neglecting air resitance for simplicity in discussion).
I could hold a pen in my left hand and a pen in my right hand. I could drop the pen in my left hand and (with much skill) lower the pen in my right hand at the same rate as the pen in freefall. Is this what you are referring to? If so, I would never say the pen in my right hand is in freefall. I would say I was manually accelerating it downwards at 9.8 m/s/s.
If this is wrong, then please explain in detail what you are referring to.
Last edited:
OK. I owe you an apology. I understand what you are saying.
Normally I don't give any credit to what a skeptic says because it's just BS by default. I think your statement, taken just by itself, is correct.
Not that it matters, but you do have my attention. Please continue your argument if you want to. I will listen.
You mother - f*****...!!
Are you kidding me??!!!
A P-51D??
A Spitfire??
Ohhhhhh, now I hate your miserable azz..!!
("hate" being a synonym for "jealous as hell", of course...)
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Did anyone else notice this?
"I'm not dodging the question, I'm just refusing to answer it".
Which are two completely different things.
OK......
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
You know what's really funny about this?
From the context, the units in use, and the details of the graph, it's possible to guess the answer; in fact, it's almost impossible to guess it wrong.
If you know anything about physics, that is.
Dave
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Seing three horizontal lines, I was immediately (within 3 seconds) confused, thinking "does the NIST really use "feet", aren't they generally on the SI train already?". Because three horizontal lines only make good sense if the scale is xx ft/m2. Took me about 15 seconds more till I scrolled up and saw a graph confirming they indeed use ft.
Hence my immediate guess was correct: ?? = XX xx/s2.
No need to waste time with Excel or Open Office or whatever.
If you know anything about physics, that is.
Edit: OOPS sorry I thought the answer had already been derived and given three different ways by others
Ok, result is of course 3.585 * 1021 mil/a2
Edit 2: Took me three attempts to get the result right in the other dimension
Last edited:
I was already familiar with that graph. femr2 was the first one to post it, AFAIK.
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/483546505.png
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/590673176.png
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/819970289.png
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/513801604.png
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/483546505.png
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/590673176.png
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/819970289.png
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/513801604.png
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
To be fair, I did make an initial guess that was out by a factor fairly close to 3.
Dave
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
- Messages
- 877
Oystein, you got it right! (I saw your value this morning before you redacted it.)
Thanks for the numerous confirmations, all!
It wouldn't be a waste of time at all. You can PROVE you understand physics simply by using popular programs like Microsoft Excel (or Office Libre Calc, available for free) to compute the 1st and 2nd derivatives of the NIST equation posted by TFK.
I was able to do so - a little tricksy, but extremely doable. Here is my result for acceleration, sans the vertical values.
All you have to do to prove some physics competency is to reproduce this acceleration graph from NIST's equation. I'm giving you a big boost by showing you the shape of the acceleration curve (you can check your work against this).
What is the value of acceleration at the ??s?
If you are incompetent at physics, you won't supply an answer.
Well, here's how I got it done. I could have used analytical derivatives, but that NIST equation was a little hairy, so I used numerical derivatives.
You can see that velocity is the time rate of change of position (cell E6), and that acceleration is the time rate of change of velocity (cell F8)
I can say with confidence that FalseFlag's incompetence at physics is a proven, well-documented fact.
#FalseFlagCluelessAtPhysics
NoahFence
Banned
Even I, as someone clueless about physics, can tell he's clueless about physics.