Qbasicnews.com
December 13, 2019, 02:01:16 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Back to Qbasicnews.com | QB Online Help | FAQ | Chat | All Basic Code | QB Knowledge Base
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8
  Print  
Author Topic: So I was in the shower today...  (Read 20359 times)
Torahteen
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 744



« Reply #90 on: June 14, 2006, 01:11:31 AM »

I didn't bother to read all of the posts, but maybe tomorrow when I have the time.

Quote from: "Agamemnus"
...And I was thinking about various things that teachers tell you that aren't exactly correct.

For instance, I think it was Newton who showed that two cannonballs of different size have the same downward acceleration, disproving an earlier theory that one will fall faster because it is bigger. The earlier theory may have been extrapolated from observing the effect of air on falling objects: lighter (eg. less dense) (and sometimes smaller) objects will fall slower through air.


Alright somebody already answered this. Basically, you're mostly correct, but then again, you're saying exactly what I've known since I was first told that so... I'm not sure what your point is.

Quote

Some people, and some textbooks, ironically make the same logical mistake: that gravity is the same regardless of the mass of the object in question. This is of course in direct violation of relativity. Objects that are bigger in mass will have higher attraction towards the Earth than smaller objects, but at miniscule ratios this is not visible at all. (In case you would have any doubts about it, think about an object as massive as the Sun attracting the earth. It's gravitational pull towards the earth is much bigger than that of a cannonball)


How is this in direct violation of relativity? Imagine a ball made completely of iron atoms. Gravity is going to affect each of those atoms the same, pulling each one at the same pace. A bigger or smaller ball has just greater or fewer atoms, but they are all being pulled at the same pace too. The fact that there are more atoms doesn't immediately affect the speed at which the object falls. The only reason (as stated earlier) that an object would fall faster with a higher mass is if it produced less parasitic drag.

Quote

Now... As I was thinking about this, another thought came up: "the law of universal gravitation" applied to the core of the Earth: the gravitational force between any two objects is their masses multiplied by themselves, multiplied by the gravitational constant, and divided by the square of their distance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_universal_gravitation)

So it is therefore logical that the particle in the gravitational center of the earth has no gravitational forces pulling on it. The particles near it have almost none and so on, until the force starts to decrease due to distance from the center and less change in the cancellation of opposite gravitational forces.

It is then alarming to me that people have assumed that the core of the earth is a superhot heavy solid. Would it not be more logical to predict that it would be a super COLD light GAS instead? That would make all that magma above it actually make a lot more sense...


Except that because there IS gravity, the atoms on the outside edge of the earth are pushing on the atoms inside with quite a bit of force, which in turn push on more atoms, and etc. until you get to the core, which by this time has quite a bit of pressure which compress the iron into a solid... simple

Again, I'll read the other posts later.
Logged

quote="Deleter"]judging gameplay, you can adaquately compare quake 4 with pong[/quote]
Zack
*/-\*
*****
Posts: 3974



WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 14, 2006, 11:08:32 AM »

Torahteen: Yes, each iron atom pulls (and is pulled on) equally, but because they are all bound, in order to pull one atom, all the others need to be pulled as well. Similarly, many iron atoms exhibit a force on another cannon ball, and those forces add up to create signifigant gravitation.
The force of gravity between two masses depends on BOTH those masses. If Earth's gravity treated each atom in a cannon ball as seperate, it would take a very long time for the cannon ball to fall.
People are taught that in a vacuum, everything will accelerate at the same rate. It's not true - the mass different between an apple and a feather isn't big enough to measure a gravity difference, but between an atom and a cannon ball? Definitely.

[EDIT] Here is something I don't get. Suppose a 100KG object and a 25KG object are pulling on each other. The gravitational force exhibited increases with the two masses, but by F=ma (and by extension, a=F/m), the greater the mass of the object, the more force is NEEDED to accelerate the object. So why do bigger masses accelerate faster?
Logged

f only life let you press CTRL-Z.
--------------------------------------
Freebasic is like QB, except it doesn't suck.
Torahteen
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 744



« Reply #92 on: June 14, 2006, 12:47:05 PM »

But the atoms are all being pulled at the same pace. Even if one atom is bound to another, it's acceleration equals that of the other atom, they fall at the same speed.
Logged

quote="Deleter"]judging gameplay, you can adaquately compare quake 4 with pong[/quote]
Zack
*/-\*
*****
Posts: 3974



WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 14, 2006, 02:15:28 PM »

An object's gravity isn't "used up" once it's pulling another object. With two atoms equidistant from the other mass pulling on it, they are both being pulled on equally, and each one is pulling the other along with it.

But then my edit comes into play. Gravity is proportional to the masses, but acceleration inversely proportional to mass.
I'm confused.
Logged

f only life let you press CTRL-Z.
--------------------------------------
Freebasic is like QB, except it doesn't suck.
Torahteen
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 744



« Reply #94 on: June 14, 2006, 02:19:57 PM »

Quote from: "Zack"
An object's gravity isn't "used up" once it's pulling another object. With two atoms equidistant from the other mass pulling on it, they are both being pulled on equally, and each one is pulling the other along with it.


Did you agree with me? Or am I missing something?

Quote
[EDIT] Here is something I don't get. Suppose a 100KG object and a 25KG object are pulling on each other. The gravitational force exhibited increases with the two masses, but by F=ma (and by extension, a=F/m), the greater the mass of the object, the more force is NEEDED to accelerate the object. So why do bigger masses accelerate faster?


First of all, objects with bigger masses don't accelerate faster. F=ma means that if two objects are traveling at the same speed, the one with more mass creates stronger force. a=F/m is saying that it takes more force to put an object into motion, which is also true. What's harder to get rolling, a huge iron ball or a golf ball?

Perhaps we can chat here: http://www.torahteen.co.nr/QBNChat.html
Logged

quote="Deleter"]judging gameplay, you can adaquately compare quake 4 with pong[/quote]
Torahteen
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 744



« Reply #95 on: June 14, 2006, 02:26:57 PM »

Hmm... I'm beginning to think now(not that I wasn't before Wink). You could be right. Two objects of different mass but same size are going to fall at different speeds won't they? Can we chat on MSN or that chatroom please? I need to elaborate.
Logged

quote="Deleter"]judging gameplay, you can adaquately compare quake 4 with pong[/quote]
Agamemnus
x/ \z
*****
Posts: 3491



« Reply #96 on: June 14, 2006, 03:09:24 PM »

Because F=ma means that any force of a mass hitting another mass equals the first force's mass times acceleration.

F(g)=G*m*m/d^2 tells us what the gravitational force between two masses is.

So........
Logged

Peace cannot be obtained without war. Why? If there is already peace, it is unnecessary for war. If there is no peace, there is already war."

Visit www.neobasic.net to see rubbish in all its finest.
Zack
*/-\*
*****
Posts: 3974



WWW
« Reply #97 on: June 14, 2006, 03:31:50 PM »

Aga:
Right.
F(g)=(G*m1*m2)/d^2 - that quantifies the force of gravity between two objects with mass m1 and m2 seperated by distance d.
F=ma - that quantifies the force needed to accelerate an object at rate a with mass m.
Suppose the first equation with one of the masses plugged in as 5kg and whatever distance results in a force of 1 newton. We want to figure the acceleration, so we use F=ma, or rather a=F/m. a=1 newton/5kg. What if the mass was 10 kg? The force of gravity would increase, but the acceleration would DECREASE, because as m increases in a=F/m, the acceleration DECREASES.
See what I'm getting at?
Logged

f only life let you press CTRL-Z.
--------------------------------------
Freebasic is like QB, except it doesn't suck.
Agamemnus
x/ \z
*****
Posts: 3491



« Reply #98 on: June 14, 2006, 06:41:39 PM »

Three words:

Asynchronous equation solving.

If the mass was 10kg... you'd get a different force value in the first calculation..

m1 = 5
F=G*m1*m2/d^2
C = G*m2/d^2
F = C*m1

F = m1*a
a = m1 / F
a = m1 / (C * m1)

a = 1 / C
Logged

Peace cannot be obtained without war. Why? If there is already peace, it is unnecessary for war. If there is no peace, there is already war."

Visit www.neobasic.net to see rubbish in all its finest.
Zack
*/-\*
*****
Posts: 3974



WWW
« Reply #99 on: June 14, 2006, 07:42:33 PM »

I know you would. The force result would be greater. But the acceleration would be smaller because in a=F/m, as m increased to 10kg, a will decrease.
Logged

f only life let you press CTRL-Z.
--------------------------------------
Freebasic is like QB, except it doesn't suck.
Torahteen
Ancient Guru
****
Posts: 744



« Reply #100 on: June 14, 2006, 08:12:08 PM »

You know he's right aga...


Don't shoot me.  :lol:
Logged

quote="Deleter"]judging gameplay, you can adaquately compare quake 4 with pong[/quote]
Agamemnus
x/ \z
*****
Posts: 3491



« Reply #101 on: June 15, 2006, 02:27:55 AM »

No it wouldn't decrease because F changes in the same proportion as m.

a = 1 / C

C... constant.
Logged

Peace cannot be obtained without war. Why? If there is already peace, it is unnecessary for war. If there is no peace, there is already war."

Visit www.neobasic.net to see rubbish in all its finest.
SJ Zero
Been there, done that
*****
Posts: 1211



WWW
« Reply #102 on: June 15, 2006, 11:13:51 AM »

Quote from: "Agamemnus"
Alright, SJ Zero, I have no freaking clue what your integration notations stand for, but integrate this, if you can:


Aga, I proved my own theory(and confirmed it with outside sources). If, considering your supposed math qualifications, you refuse to do the same, then I can't take you seriously in your protestations. Thus far, you've presented one critically flawed piece of mathematical evidence and little else.

Therefore, unless you have either numbers, or a corralary to the theory which actually helps this "cold light gas"  theory get off the ground, act like an adult and accept that what you were thinking in the shower is incorrect. The physical world isn't going to change because you try to fire out a theory regardless of the logic behind it.

Now, I'd like to add a few things:

-We know the mass of the earth, more or less, based on the distance from the sun and the speed we're moving. This is something we've managed to do by knowing the same theory of gravitation we've been arguing over. If a large chunk of the earth were made out of light gass, then the density of the earth would be such that geologists would consistently find the mass of the earth to be much much less than expected.

-We know how sound travels through the earth. Seismographs taken around the world at the moment of an earthquake all show minute differences in how they register the 'sound' of an earthquake because the sound travels through the earth. The numbers given imply a solid outside, a molten semi-inside, and a hard core. A hollow earth would give spectacularly different results.

-Absolute Pressure remains relevant. The reason I keep talking about pressure is that there isn't going to be any 'super cold gas'(Which is an unscientific term as used here, by the way -- The terms super cooled and super heated refer to the temperature relative to phase change points. 1ata Steam at 100C is saturated steam. 1ata Steam at 110C is superheated steam. 1ata Steam at 90C is supercooled steam. Since there is no good reason to assume you meant the actual definition of the word, since you describe no phenomena to suggest a non-newtonian fluid, I'm assuming that you simply mean a relatively cold gas) that remains a gas unless the absolute pressure is almost vacuum. Simply put, there's no reason to believe that the center of our earth is a vacuum relative to outer space. It runs counter to the currently accepted theories about the creation of the planet. The forces would literally have to drag the matter in the middle of the earth outward with enough force to raise the surface to create this effect, and the only way that might happen is through alien intervention. No matter what you think gravity is capable of, the Law of Conservation of Energy more or less guarantees that Gravitational energy isn't going to raise and support the entire surface of the earth because of a bit of mass in the middle. Even if that were the case, the earth surely wouldn't accept this massive vacuum it could collapse upon.

Anyway, I'm done here. If you don't feel that this discussion is worth taking seriously, then I don't feel like having it with you. By all means, keep your unrealistic portrait of reality. Now everyone on this site knows what to make of your theories.
Logged
Zack
*/-\*
*****
Posts: 3974



WWW
« Reply #103 on: June 15, 2006, 11:40:53 AM »

Quote from: "Agamemnus"
No it wouldn't decrease because F changes in the same proportion as m.

a = 1 / C

C... constant.
I don't understand what you are getting at (or missing).
As the mass of two objects increase, so does the gravitational attraction between them.
In a seperate law, F=ma, and by extension a=F/m, acceleration of an object=force applied/the mass of the object, as the mass increases, the rate of acceleration DECREASES. So as mass goes up, gravitational force does too, but we NEED more force to move a more massive object, therefore things of different masses fall at the same speed.
Logged

f only life let you press CTRL-Z.
--------------------------------------
Freebasic is like QB, except it doesn't suck.
Agamemnus
x/ \z
*****
Posts: 3491



« Reply #104 on: June 16, 2006, 12:45:54 AM »

SJ Zero, you're making the same ridiculous assertions about what I said as before. And, if you didn't realize, that was a definite integral that actually made sense, at least to me, which I wasn't sure how to solve. Just because your integration notation is incomprehensible doesn't mean you need to trash talk me... and also you had no sources to back up your result.

Zack, the rate of acceleration remains constant, and so does acceleration.

a is acceleration in "a = 1/C".

Let's say m1 = 5:

a = 1/C
da/dt = 0 (da/dt is the rate of acceleration over time)

Let's say m1 = 10:

a = 1/C (the same...)
da/dt = 0


As you're not yet quite as hopeless as SJ Zero, Zack, I'll dissect your statement:

>In a seperate law, F=ma, and by extension a=F/m, acceleration of an object=force applied/the mass of the object, as the mass increases, the rate of acceleration DECREASES.
Yes, that is true, assuming the force is held CONSTANT.

>So as mass goes up, gravitational force does too
Also true, assuming the acceleration DECREASES.

>but we NEED more force to move a more massive object
Yes, that is correct, assuming acceleration stays constant.

>therefore things of different masses fall at the same speed.
I assume you mean gravitational acceleration here. That would be true, if you somehow reduced something else proportionately-- for instance, if you reduced the mass of the other object, or increased the distance.
Logged

Peace cannot be obtained without war. Why? If there is already peace, it is unnecessary for war. If there is no peace, there is already war."

Visit www.neobasic.net to see rubbish in all its finest.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!