It's not rocket science

[Manc33]

It's only an accelerative constant in the absence of other forces (like drag)

There is no proof drag is causing objects of differing densities to fall at different rates of acceleration.

There's is proof density is causing objects of differing densities to fall at different rates of acceleration.

What you're claiming doesn't have any proof to it and while the objects have different densities, there is something physical to show why they fall at different rates. You're expecting me to dismiss a physical fact (different density levels) and instead believe something that makes less sense?

If the objects had the same density you might have a point, but they don't. This drag you speak of is not even a variable. The only variable is the density of the objects, which should be a clue as to why one falls faster than another.

It's a force proportional to the mass of the object - which, based on Newton's second law, will result in a constant acceleration *in the absence of other forces*

The faster a ball pushes on water the more water particles there are and it slows the ball down, right... but this is because the ball has enough density to sink at all in water, so what?

So what if the force is proportional?

It can be!

That doesn't somehow magically nullify anything I am pointing out, just the same as having drag there doesn't nullify it.

The reason we don't drop things in water is because it's far easier to use a vacuum than to do the maths and eliminate the variable effects of drag.

Drag isn't "a variable" if water is used in one tank and water is used in the other tank.

Scientists drop things "in a vacuum" all the time because it is the one environment where no one could measure any difference in the rate of falling objects due to the density differences being too drastic.

I mean you're dropping solid objects in a zero density environment, of course they are going to appear to fall at the "same" speed.

People just haven't worked that out yet, or they are pushing an agenda and know it full well, either way I am not interested, I want the truth, not some stupid fantasy that never gets proven (not even one component of it does).

[[XAP]Bob]

Drag is a variable - the two balls have different mass

So the same net drag force (assume they are, at some point, travelling at the same speed) will decelerate the lower mass object more than the higher mass object.

That's the definition of a variable effect.

[[XAP]Bob]

People just haven't worked that out yet, or they are pushing an agenda and know it full well, either way I am not interested, I want the truth, not some stupid fantasy that never gets proven (not even one component of it does).

Some stupid fantasy - like density being some magic force, and orbs doing impossible things...

Seriously - you need to be able to actually come up with a rebuttal that is more than "but I don't understand maths"

[Manc33]

Drag is a variable - the two balls have different mass

Drag isn't a variable.

So are you telling me if you used water in both tanks and an identical steel ball in both tanks, because of a variable in drag, sometimes one ball might fall faster and sometimes they might fall at the same time?

That is definitely nonsense.

So the same net drag force (assume they are, at some point, travelling at the same speed) will decelerate the lower mass object more than the higher mass object.

That's the definition of a variable effect.

The effect only is a variable due to the densities of the two balls being different.

This is why nothing ever gets dropped in water - it makes a mockery of the G constant. No G, no constant.

[[XAP]Bob]

If the two steel balls had different mass for the same drag force then yes - they would fall differently.

G is constant.

Take a ball of mass 1kg - it has a 10N force from gravity
Take a ball of mass 2 kg - it has a 20N force from gravity

Drop them through water - let them start at 1m/s

Both balls experience a drag force of 5N

The 2kg ball now has a net force of 15N acting on 2kg (~7m/s^2 resultant acceleration)
The 1kg ball now has a net force of 5N acting on 1kg (~5m/s^2)


The difference is caused by the failure to eliminate the variable - drag.



The variable is the effect of drag on balls of different mass. If you arranged them to have the same drag coefficient then two objects of the same density but different mass would fall at different rates.

The drag force acts disproportionately on a lower mass object - density has nothing to do with it.
Density is useful when looking at buoyancy, not gravity.

[Postboxer]

And of course you can measure drag. Drop your two balls in water, draw a graph of their acceleration against the speed they were going, calculate the resultant force on them, don't forget buoyancy, then calculate what the force of drag must have been at each speed.

Then, to test this, measure the force on the same ball as it travels horizontally through the same fluid, at different speeds, this force is the force of drag, being measured, then compare this against the first experiment to check if both values of drag are the same at the same speeds.

Drag is dependent of velocity, one ball has more mass and therefore more weight to overcome the same drag force, so accelerates faster.

Oh and there is a naturally occurring vacuum. It's called space.

[kwackers]

You believe things on the basis of 'being presented with it' (without proof required) like Earth's rotation, its curvature, it having gravity. None of these three key things have any proof to them. It would start to become acceptable to me if one thing of those three things (rotation, curvature or gravity) had proof, but none of them do and thus, it is a problem, it throws heliocentrism into disrepute.

You believe in it regardless and that.... doesn't suck?!

Actually I believe all that crap because as an engineer I can prove it myself. On the other hand I've tried to explain it to you as have others and you fall right at the first hurdle - you don't even understand basic Newtonian mechanics nor do you even attempt to, so time and time again demonstrate your ignorance and fall back to 3rd rate videos made by fellow delusionals.

Sucks to be me? Nope, I like understanding the universe at least at a basic level and I'd hate not being able to understand basic maths & physics.
I'd also hate having to rely on using 'proofs' I can't explain in order to try and disprove something I don't understand.

[53x13]

What's the point trying to explain it to someone who believes the tat that they roll out on YouTube without even questioning it's authenticity or it's authorship.

The entire thread is an exercise in the most banal futility.

Only one person laughing here and that's OP, at the ludicrousness of it all And more likely at you, the contributors..

[kwackers]

What's the point trying to explain it to someone who believes the tat that they roll out on YouTube without even questioning it's authenticity or it's authorship.

The entire thread is an exercise in the most banal futility.

Only one person laughing here and that's OP, at the ludicrousness of it all And more likely at you, the contributors..

Nah, come on. It's amusing if nothing else!

We've had mountains high enough to hide the sun at night (presumably Australia is on the other side of these stupidly high mountains), clouds that appear at just the right time to hide the sun each evening. Bizarre interpretations of motion that has things speeding up and slowing down when they're in a steady state. Rings of ice around the edge of the world, planes that can fly off the world, pigeons that are too dense to fly, moons that go transparent during the day, objects that move around the sky in complex patterns presumably changing velocity with no explainable force, Millions of people getting together in a conspiracy of epic proportions (including some folk I actually know!), a whole boat load of stuff that can't be explained using flat earth theory but must be true because the alternative - that gravity is just a force of nature is apparently too absurd to be true.

A handful of simple formulae that can be derived fairly easily by anyone who paid attention in school predicts everything we see to many orders of magnitude accuracy.
Using them I can point my telescope at the co-ordinates I calculate from data that's several years old and frame a celestial object to within a few arc-seconds of accuracy. In contrast there's no model at all that can explain how the flat earth works - not even close.

So on the one hand manc's fairy tales are highly amusing but on the other as someone who used the internet before the WWW and dreamt of an era of 'enlightenment' as people had free access to information I'm somewhat saddened that the converse has happened and the internet has made a lot of us; more rather than less stupid.

[53x13]

What's the point trying to explain it to someone who believes the tat that they roll out on YouTube without even questioning it's authenticity or it's authorship.

The entire thread is an exercise in the most banal futility.

Only one person laughing here and that's OP, at the ludicrousness of it all And more likely at you, the contributors..

Nah, come on. It's amusing if nothing else!

We've had mountains high enough to hide the sun at night (presumably Australia is on the other side of these stupidly high mountains), clouds that appear at just the right time to hide the sun each evening. Bizarre interpretations of motion that has things speeding up and slowing down when they're in a steady state. Rings of ice around the edge of the world, planes that can fly off the world, pigeons that are too dense to fly, moons that go transparent during the day, objects that move around the sky in complex patterns presumably changing velocity with no explainable force, Millions of people getting together in a conspiracy of epic proportions (including some folk I actually know!), a whole boat load of stuff that can't be explained using flat earth theory but must be true because the alternative - that gravity is just a force of nature is apparently too absurd to be true.

A handful of simple formulae that can be derived fairly easily by anyone who paid attention in school predicts everything we see to many orders of magnitude accuracy.
Using them I can point my telescope at the co-ordinates I calculate from data that's several years old and frame a celestial object to within a few arc-seconds of accuracy. In contrast there's no model at all that can explain how the flat earth works - not even close.

So on the one hand manc's fairy tales are highly amusing but on the other as someone who used the internet before the WWW and dreamt of an era of 'enlightenment' as people had free access to information I'm somewhat saddened that the converse has happened and the internet has made a lot of us; more rather than less stupid.

Yes, but it's Ad Nauseum, fifty pages of the snake eating it's tail. And boring.

Change the record Manc. This ones crumbled into dust.

[Manc33]

The difference is caused by the failure to eliminate the variable - drag.

The density of the balls is the only variable. Drag is not a variable in the first place, to need eliminating.

The density of a ball acts on the density of the water and vice versa, to create "drag". It isn't a force, it is a coming together of densities. Drag itself could only be viewed as a variable as long as the density of the objects passing through it are different. Even then you have to ignore the physical demonstrability of each ball being different densities in the real world and instead choose to believe in things like gravity that aren't proven. All I am doing is following logic.

You can "rule out" that the objects have different densities and this means them falling at different speeds in water is due to something else (drag), but this isn't anything I am going to believe no matter how many times you give the same answer, because it physically can be shown why one falls faster, it isn't drag and anyway, drag isn't a variable if the same two liquids are used (they are). Only one thing is a variable then, the densities of the two balls.

It is absurd to suggest drag is a variable when the only thing varying (and observably so) is different density levels of the balls.

The variable is the effect of drag on balls of different mass.

Them being of a different mass causes a difference in the rate of acceleration, the drag is merely a consequence of "metal meets water" or "plastic meets water".

The drag force acts disproportionately on a lower mass object - density has nothing to do with it.
Density is useful when looking at buoyancy, not gravity.

Density and buoyancy is all you can look at. You might think you're "looking at density when looking at buoyancy" but you're just observing densities or, the "scale of density" we live in.

How can someone in Turkey and someone in Guam see the sun at the same time?

Your answer will be "they can't" but it was proven on a 24h hangout.

Saw this and thought of this thread lol...

[kwackers]

How can someone in Turkey and someone in Guam see the sun at the same time?

Except of course they can.

Get a globe, tilt it about 23 degrees from the vertical away from you to simulate summer and keep your eyes level with it. Turn it until both Turkey and Guam are visible.
(I've just done it)

Not only that but the globe predicts sunrise and sunset times that match the actual sunset and sunrise times.

Now explain that using a flat earth, if you can't it's not true.

[53x13]

How can someone in Turkey and someone in Guam see the sun at the same time?

Except of course they can.

Get a globe, tilt it about 23 degrees from the vertical away from you to simulate summer and keep your eyes level with it. Turn it until both Turkey and Guam are visible.
(I've just done it)

Not only that but the globe predicts sunrise and sunset times that match the actual sunset and sunrise times.

Now explain that using a flat earth, if you can't it's not true.

Of course he can't. All Manc can do is post hyperlinks to fictional YouTube 'proofs', made by clever and cynical individuals to monetise the slow of thinking and the gullible into paying $9.99 to watch 'the really good stuff's.

It's desperate, well marketed nonsense, and proof really that the internet makes you stupid. It dumbs down everything to the level a five year old would shake it's head and say 'Nah. That's garbage '.

[sjs]

Guam is 8 hours ahead of turkey in summer...
Which is another way of saying that it is 16 hours behind (but on a different day)

In the height of summer Turkey has over 15 hours of daylight, and Guam has 13 - so this result would be expected...

You are forgetting the 23 tilt of the earth's axis, and the fact that it is a globe.
Try again in winter...

Midsummer, based on nautical twilight, just about works.

[[XAP]Bob]

The difference is caused by the failure to eliminate the variable - drag.

The density of the balls is the only variable. Drag is not a variable in the first place, to need eliminating.

The density of a ball acts on the density of the water and vice versa, to create "drag". It isn't a force, it is a coming together of densities. Drag itself could only be viewed as a variable as long as the density of the objects passing through it are different. Even then you have to ignore the physical demonstrability of each ball being different densities in the real world and instead choose to believe in things like gravity that aren't proven. All I am doing is following logic.

You can "rule out" that the objects have different densities and this means them falling at different speeds in water is due to something else (drag), but this isn't anything I am going to believe no matter how many times you give the same answer, because it physically can be shown why one falls faster, it isn't drag and anyway, drag isn't a variable if the same two liquids are used (they are). Only one thing is a variable then, the densities of the two balls.

It is absurd to suggest drag is a variable when the only thing varying (and observably so) is different density levels of the balls.

The variable is the effect of drag on balls of different mass.

Them being of a different mass causes a difference in the rate of acceleration, the drag is merely a consequence of "metal meets water" or "plastic meets water".

The drag force acts disproportionately on a lower mass object - density has nothing to do with it.
Density is useful when looking at buoyancy, not gravity.

Density and buoyancy is all you can look at. You might think you're "looking at density when looking at buoyancy" but you're just observing densities or, the "scale of density" we live in.

How can someone in Turkey and someone in Guam see the sun at the same time?

Your answer will be "they can't" but it was proven on a 24h hangout.

Saw this and thought of

I've answered you re turkey and Guam.

Drag is not caused by density, but by surface, surface area and frontal area.
Otherwise a large and small steel ball would fall at the same rate through water, but they won't. Because drag differs. Nothing to do with density at all...