It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 282
74
<< 279  280  281    283  284  285 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Bedlam

so you deny that any two physical objects regardless of their mass will accelerate toward Moon surface at the same rate and reach it at the same time?

Why do you think they won't? You suggest heavier object gets to the Moon surface first?


The statement made was "objects fall at the same speed". They don't. No one object maintains any speed for more than delta time, especially in a vacuum.

As I said, they accelerate at the same rate. Acceleration is not speed. To wit:

"Maybe you mean "accelerate at the same rate", there's a definite difference between that and "fall at the same speed"."

Those were my exact words. Acceleration is not speed. Speed is a rate. Acceleration is a change in velocity per unit time. They are not the same things.

If you say "objects fall at the same speed" it is categorically wrong, and you are most likely confusing speed and acceleration.
edit on 29-4-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections

then he simply misunderstood the point I was trying to make.


No, I didn't misunderstand, you stated "all objects in a gravity well fall at the same speed", which is very very wrong.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Bedlam

so you deny that any two physical objects regardless of their mass will accelerate toward Moon surface at the same rate and reach it at the same time?

Why do you think they won't? You suggest heavier object gets to the Moon surface first?


The statement made was "objects fall at the same speed". They don't. No one object maintains any speed for more than delta time, especially in a vacuum.

As I said, they accelerate at the same rate. Acceleration is not speed. To wit:

"Maybe you mean "accelerate at the same rate", there's a definite difference between that and "fall at the same speed"."

Those were my exact words. Acceleration is not speed. Speed is a rate. Acceleration is a change in velocity per unit time. They are not the same things.

If you say "objects fall at the same speed" it is categorically wrong, and you are most likely confusing speed and acceleration.



You have no clue in other words.

My curiosity was to hear others to respond besides two people on this board.

edit on 29-4-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections

You have no clue in other words.


I think your confusion of speed and acceleration shows everyone about having a clue. It's the sort of thing a high school sophomore would get right. Ta.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Bedlam

so you deny that any two physical objects regardless of their mass will accelerate toward Moon surface at the same rate and reach it at the same time?

Why do you think they won't? You suggest heavier object gets to the Moon surface first?






That rate has to to with the magnetic field or wave produced by the swap of particle charge rates not necessarily mass... the sun a lot of charge swaping going on so large magnetic field lots of gravity or equilibrium condensed between the polarities of the primer field and raditation out from those swaps... earth its field is in a flux and has been unbalanced so some areas hasnt been as stable poles do flip and yeah weather patterns etc and the end and beginning of ice ages are typical of the computer models and according to those models last I saw we are overdue for that pole flip by about 30,000 years. As we started getting more anomalies in ours? Mars' magnetic field kicked on and a thin atmosphere started to emerge... whether this is due to all the transport between Earth and Mars through the space fabric or plasma like two balloons with tunnels between them I cant say... but its probable, meaning visiting venus with its atmospshere to make particle channels flow between there and here easier as a pathway may not be a good idea... of course beneficial for Mars if thats where we plan to colonize.

But yeah the moon doesnt really have a magnetic field except the large one of ours sheilding it from the sun... if its dusty surface was exposed without our shielding of it then solar winds would blow its clothes right off... so the moon sort of just hovers in a slow escape velocity trapped in sort of an eddy current and the rate of dropping is similar to zero gravity but in a vaccum meaning same rate of falling.

Now a black hole, so many charge swaps and particle exchanges but very little mass to be observed like an eddy current without really anything in it that grinds or slings off anything not the charge or spin complimentary to its core on its fringes. Like a very strong reductionary process of a particular polarity and condensing only particles matching it... at some point it reaches a sort of steam valve from the heat and compression seen as jets the glows of nebulas of course the different gasses that can combine for various compositions around rocky masses of similar particle charge and form stars or gas giants, the others sort of slowly circulate larger and larger bodies until rings form and more and more of that and rings become moons... of course solar winds stellar winds etc interact with all this mass and jetison them through different systems to be pulled by a star to possibly orbit or collide with something in its rogue or free path.

The magnetic equalibrium between polarities is in my opinion what the large standing wave of gravity but very flat between poles is and why things are pancaked as the total masses of similar charge sit at roughly the same levels or densities but not necesarily the same size... although the smaller and very very multious amounts of it help show the base field density or dead spot of polarity in the field(gravity line) that appears flat... such as the ring formations around a planet that starts forming as mass and into moons as a weak field slowly draws tem together in that magnetic dead zone... as they gain mass the process certinally starts speeding up as they change density in relation to that dust zone or gravity line marking the fields polarity meeting spot... primer fields show this in experiments with great accuracy as a model.

So it is going to vary effect by location as far as rate especially as the doors and windows of how all of this works together as a cohesive whole... weve got all the pieces its just a matter of who mixed up the puzzles removing data not relevant, whos holding this piece... whos been staring at that so long it doesnt even make sense anymore or whos hogging all the blues... well you get the idea. The more interest on solutions instead of diversions of various sorts the quicker it all comes together into a complete picture where ones complete the details on each piece doesnt really matter as much as they once did when part of the whole, although the contribution they add is obvious when all is said and done... looking at the box going done! When the whole picture isnt complete is kinda silly but hey it is a picture thats good enough for wanting to buy it in the first place.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Bedlam

so you deny that any two physical objects regardless of their mass will accelerate toward Moon surface at the same rate and reach it at the same time?

Why do you think they won't? You suggest heavier object gets to the Moon surface first?


The statement made was "objects fall at the same speed". They don't. No one object maintains any speed for more than delta time, especially in a vacuum.

As I said, they accelerate at the same rate. Acceleration is not speed. To wit:

"Maybe you mean "accelerate at the same rate", there's a definite difference between that and "fall at the same speed"."

Those were my exact words. Acceleration is not speed. Speed is a rate. Acceleration is a change in velocity per unit time. They are not the same things.

If you say "objects fall at the same speed" it is categorically wrong, and you are most likely confusing speed and acceleration.


They do or they don't? What do you think?



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

Objects fall at an ever increasing speed (in lieu of impediment). Their speed constantly changes. It is never the same.

Velocity (speed) and acceleration are not the same thing.


(Hah! Say it better than that Tom!)
edit on 4/29/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
They do or they don't? What do you think?


They do or they don't what? You keep flipping back and forth between speed and acceleration.

Do all objects in a gravity field fall at the same speed, NO. Period.

Do all objects in a gravity field accelerate at the same rate, YES.

Is acceleration speed, NO, it's the derivative of speed, the way speed is the derivative of location.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Well, it was good.
But not better.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bedlam

Well, it was good.
But not better.


Hah! A matter of opinion!


eta: I keep reading greenreflection's posts in the voice of Boris Badenov. Maybe because I just watched Deadpool, and I swear Colossus and Negasonic warhead are a 2016 version of Boris and Natasha. I keep expecting them to call Fearless Leader.
edit on 29-4-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam


Do all objects in a gravity field accelerate at the same rate, YES.



So then quite obviously he was wondering;

Do you understand (fundamentally; mechanically; physically) why/how/what causes all objects in a gravity field to accelerate at the same rate?



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi



So then quite obviously he was wondering;

That was not obvious to me.
Thank you for reading his mind for me.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam


Do all objects in a gravity field accelerate at the same rate, YES.



So then quite obviously he was wondering;

Do you understand (fundamentally; mechanically; physically) why/how/what causes all objects in a gravity field to accelerate at the same rate?



No, that's what YOU'D wonder, and then we'd proceed to a Socratic reduction on what gravity was made of, at the end of which, I'd give you some Deadpool-ish answer like "little wooden balls, colored gray" or "frequency" or "it's turtles, all the way down".

HE was wondering if I believed it was true, but unlike you, he can't untangle velocity and acceleration, the way you have issues with photons being a wave but not bouncing up and down. We all have our failures to visualize, I suppose. I couldn't do divergence, curl or convolution until I gave up trying to see it the way the instructor did.
edit on 29-4-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

So then quite obviously I am wondering;

Do you understand (fundamentally; mechanically; physically) why/how/what causes all objects in a gravity field to accelerate at the same rate?

Would it not beg one to question, whether something besides mass must factor into gravity?

If it is assumed primarily, and potentially only, that in vacuum, mass is the physical concept which is responsible for the observed phenomenon termed gravity;

And that a variable; quantity of mass; results in distinctions; such as

Mass A = x

Mass B = x^2

Mass C = x^99

Mass A causes test Mass 1's momentum to alter y

Mass B causes test Mass 1's momentum to alter z

But Mass C causes Mass A and Mass B to accelerate equally

What is physically causing acceleration at all (I have my personal take on Einstein's, aptly titled general theory)

And what is physically causing the acceleration, of two variably quantitative different objects, in the seemingly most relevant sense; to result in equal physical phenomenon?

Wondrous mystery, at least to my current tired mind, and off to dream about it I go.



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greenreflections

Objects fall at an ever increasing speed (in lieu of impediment). Their speed constantly changes. It is never the same.

Velocity (speed) and acceleration are not the same thing.


(Hah! Say it better than that Tom!)



I understand that. Do you think the acceleration of two objects of different mass in a vacuum is dependant of object mass given being inside same gravity well? Lets hear it. They tell me there is a difference in how fast they accelerate?

I'd like to ask to hear more about it.


thank you



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

Do you think the acceleration of two objects of different mass in a vacuum is dependant of object mass given being inside same gravity well?
No. But it brings up an interesting aspect. Since both objects are exerting gravitational influences on the other, both the "object" and the "attractor" accelerate toward each other, though not the same amount.


They tell me there is a difference in how fast they accelerate?
Why would I tell you that? It's not true. Under the conditions specified.

edit on 4/29/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: greenreflections
They do or they don't? What do you think?


They do or they don't what? You keep flipping back and forth between speed and acceleration.



Do all objects in a gravity field accelerate at the same rate, YES.
.



why do I have to force an answer off you every time....


Why do they accelerate at the same rate?



posted on Apr, 29 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: greenreflections
They do or they don't? What do you think?


They do or they don't what? You keep flipping back and forth between speed and acceleration.



Do all objects in a gravity field accelerate at the same rate, YES.
.



why do I have to force an answer off you every time....


Why do they accelerate at the same rate?


That's a different question than the ones you've been asking.

They accelerate at the same rate because that's what you'd expect, given what we know about gravity. That's how it works. Gravity applies force to mass. That causes acceleration. The mass term shows up a couple of times, but the way it shows up (in Newtonian physics) cancels out. So what you're left with is acceleration with no mass term. So all masses accelerate the same in a given gravitic field. If what you're asking is "why do different masses accelerate the same, in a Newtonian sort of gravity field".

If what you're asking is "why does gravity do anything", that's a different question.

And it's different again to 'do all objects fall at the same speed', to which the answer is no.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bedlam

Well, it was good.
But not better.


Hah! A matter of opinion!


eta: I keep reading greenreflection's posts in the voice of Boris Badenov. Maybe because I just watched Deadpool, and I swear Colossus and Negasonic warhead are a 2016 version of Boris and Natasha. I keep expecting them to call Fearless Leader.


Two buttheads compete)
edit on 30-4-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Hi - Below is an excerpt from Hawking's lecture on the Anthropic Principle - can you please explain what the "loops" are that he refers to - specifically, what is an "eight loop diagram"? I did a search but couldn't find anything that explained what he was referring to. Thanks

Quantum Cosmology, M-theory and the Anthropic Principle
Link: www.hawking.org.uk...

Paragraph 3, line 8:





top topics



 
74
<< 279  280  281    283  284  285 >>

log in

join