Your meanings DON'T match what we observe. They may satisfy you in some
philosophical sense, but they don't match what we observe. In other
words,
they don't make good physics.

Galileo measured free fall, and concluded that bodies fall at a rate of
g/2 = 16'/sec^.

Herman Trivilino wrote:

"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote ...

Yes Herman, it's velocity does change by 32 ft/s each second;

Yes. It does. We can verify this by taking measurements.

but the_distance_ it falls is about 16 ft/second greater each second that
it
falls.

There is no way to verify this. We can measure the distance it
falls during each second. The results of the measurements do
not match your claim of "16 ft/s greater". In fact, it's not
possible to measure a distance of 16 ft/s. We can measure a
speed of 16 ft/s. We can measure a distance of 16 ft. But we
can't measure a distance of 16 ft/s.

We can measure the distance it falls during each second. If
it's falling straight downward, the distance increases each
second, but by an amount that changes each second. One way an
object can move to produce an increase in distance each second
of 16 ft is if it moves at a steady speed of 16 ft/s in a straight
line.

When we observe freely falling objects, they never move like this.

Your meanings DON'T match what we observe. They may satisfy
you in some philosophical sense, but they don't match what we
observe. In other words, they don't make good physics.

Galileo measured free fall, and concluded that bodies fall at a rate of
g/2 = 16'/sec^.

Don

The velocity of course, simply increases 32'/sec^2 each second.

Richard Henry wrote:

"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1126361456.597860.70370@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Herman Trivilino wrote:

"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote ...

I agree with those meanings Herman; but at the same time, I also
think
of _rates_ of acceleration, and rates of free fall: They express
the
value of longivity of acceleration and free fall. Like the rate of

free

fall found by Galileo; where g/2 = (about) 16' per second, per
second.

Whether you agree or disagree with the meanings is not the point.
The

point

is that your meanings don't produce results that match what's
observed.

For example, when we take measurements of an object in free fall we
find
that it's velocity changes by 32 ft/s each second. NOT by 16 ft/s
each
second!

Yes Herman, it's velocity does change by 32 ft/s each second; but the
_distance_ it falls is about 16 ft/second greater each second that it
falls.

Consider an object released to fall freely in a gravitational field of
32ft/s/s.

What distance has it fallen, and what is its velocity, after 1 second?
16
feet, 32 feet/s

The distance fallen is: s=(g/2)t^2 = (16'/sec^2)t^2 = (16'/sec^2)1
sec^2 = 16'.

What distance has it fallen, and what is its velocity, after 2 seconds?
64
feet, 64 feet/s

The distance fallen is: s=(g/2)t^2 = (16'/sec^2)t^2 = (16'/sec^2)2
sec^2 = 64'.

What distance has it fallen, and what is its velocity, after 3 seconds?
144
feet, 96 feet/s

The distance fallen is: s=(g/2)t^2 = (16'/sec^2)t^2 = (16'/sec^2)3
sec^2 = 144'.

What distance has it fallen, and what is its velocity, after 4 seconds?
256
feet, 128 feet/s

The distance fallen is: s=(g/2)t^2 = (16'/sec^2)t^2 = (16'/sec^2)4
sec^2 = 256'.

Where does "16' per second, per second" fit into that?

16' per second, per second, is (32'/sec^2)/2 = 16'/sec^2; which is
=g/2.

The velocity of course, simply increases 32'/sec^2 each second.

Don

Let's look at it for _four_ seconds PD.
In second 1, starting from rest, an object will fall 16 ft. Which is
16' x 1 sec^2.

In second 2, it will fall 64 ft, which is 16' x 2 sec^2 ft further
than it fell in the previous second.

In second 3, it will fall 144', which is 16x3 sec^2 further than it
fell in the previous second.

In second 4, it will fall 256', which is 16x 4 sec^2 further than it
fell in the previous second.

This is inaccordance with my claim; that the _distance_ it falls is
about 16 ft/second greater (per) each second that it continues to fall.

PD wrote:

Don1 wrote:

Herman Trivilino wrote:

"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote ...

I agree with those meanings Herman; but at the same time, I also think
of _rates_ of acceleration, and rates of free fall: They express the
value of longivity of acceleration and free fall. Like the rate of free
fall found by Galileo; where g/2 = (about) 16' per second, per second.

Whether you agree or disagree with the meanings is not the point. The point
is that your meanings don't produce results that match what's observed.

For example, when we take measurements of an object in free fall we find
that it's velocity changes by 32 ft/s each second. NOT by 16 ft/s each
second!

Yes Herman, it's velocity does change by 32 ft/s each second; but the
_distance_ it falls is about 16 ft/second greater each second that it
falls.

Well, let's look at that for a second.
In second 1, starting from rest, an object will fall 16 ft.
In second 2, it will fall another 48 ft, which is 32 ft further than it
fell in the previous second.
In second 3, it will fall another 80 ft, which is 32 ft further than it
fell in the previous second.
In second 4, it will fall another 112 ft, which is 32 ft further than
it fell in the previous second.

PD

Let's look at it for _four_ seconds PD.
In second 1, starting from rest, an object will fall 16 ft. Which is
16' x 1 sec^2.
In second 2, it will fall 64 ft, which is 16' x 2 sec^2 ft further
than it fell in the previous second.
In second 3, it will fall 144', which is 16x3 sec^2 further than it
fell in the previous second.
In second 4, it will fall 256', which is 16x 4 sec^2 further than it
fell in the previous second.

This is inaccordance with my claim; that the _distance_ it falls is
about 16 ft/second greater (per) each second that it continues to fall.

Don