| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Donald G. Shead" |
| Date: |
18 Jul 2004 08:50:39 AM |
| Object: |
The two aspects of free fall |
Galileo discovered that all bodies at Earth's surface fall at the same
uniformly increasing rate: So that the distance displaced [s],
divided by the square of the unit of time [t^2] during which it occurs
is a Constant: s/t^2 equals about 16'/sec^2.
A few years later Newton discovered that all bodies at Earth's surface
fall with a uniformly increasing velocity; at a uniformly increasing
rate: So that the difference in velocity [vt-vi], divided by the unit
of time [t] during which it occurs is a Constant [(vt-vi)/t]; equal to
about 32'/sec^2:
Because he didn't see [?] or _specify_ that the change was uniform, so
that [(vt-vi)/2] _was_ the average, it required the invention of the
calculus to derive the average mean change in velocity: A monument ,
or heritage to his genious.
For non-uniform changes then, the calculus may be useful: However for
most practical purposes it's not worth the effort. A good plot of the
data to a large enough scale will give you enough accuracy for any and
all practical purposes.
When we say that the acceleration - or deceleration - of freefall for
a mass at Earth's surface is 32'/sec^2 we certainly ought to be able
to see that it doesn't require velocity; but only displacement: The
distance from where it _would have_ fallen - if it had done so - to
where it stays.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The two aspects of free fall |
18 Jul 2004 12:14:45 PM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
[snip]
Nothing.
Complaints to:
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mr Geography" |
|
| Title: Re: The two aspects of free fall |
18 Jul 2004 12:42:30 PM |
|
|
*****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: The two aspects of free fall |
18 Jul 2004 06:43:11 PM |
|
|
"Mr Geography" <none@yourisp.net> wrote in message news:<aEyKc.12381$QE1.3642@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
*****.
You and Al Swartz ought to get together. Between you both you must
have quite an extensive vocabulary: Half a dozen or so dirty names; at
least.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr Geography" |
|
| Title: Re: The two aspects of free fall |
18 Jul 2004 06:54:17 PM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:48402bae.0407181543.374f3a74@posting.google.com...
"Mr Geography" <none@yourisp.net> wrote in message
news:<aEyKc.12381$QE1.3642@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
*****.
You and Al Swartz ought to get together. Between you both you must
have quite an extensive vocabulary: Half a dozen or so dirty names; at
least.
Prickwad.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: The two aspects of free fall |
18 Jul 2004 10:42:28 PM |
|
|
Donald G. Shead wrote:
"Mr Geography" <none@yourisp.net> wrote in message
news:<aEyKc.12381$QE1.3642@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
*****.
You and Al Swartz ought to get together. Between you both you must
have quite an extensive vocabulary: Half a dozen or so dirty names; at
least.
Their vocabulary alone probably includes more information than all the wisdom
you keep telling us you accumulated in 70 some years.. yet for all that all you
can come up with are some stuff on weights and measures, and acceleration...
kind of pathetic for such a long life. What's even worse, it's not even right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: The two aspects of free fall |
19 Jul 2004 07:53:54 AM |
|
|
"MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:<EqHKc.5860$qa2.4092@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
Donald G. Shead wrote:
"Mr Geography" <none@yourisp.net> wrote in message
news:<aEyKc.12381$QE1.3642@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
*****.
You and Al Swartz ought to get together. Between you both you must
have quite an extensive vocabulary: Half a dozen or so dirty names; at
least.
Their vocabulary alone probably includes more information than all the wisdom
you keep telling us you accumulated in 70 some years.. yet for all that all you
can come up with are some stuff on weights and measures, and acceleration...
kind of pathetic for such a long life. What's even worse, it's not even right.
What's pathetic is you making judgements of my accomplishnents. While
I was only joshing about their vocabularies; you seriously believe
that weights and measures, acceleration, mass and inertia are just
some stuff that I don't understand and you do. Now _that's_ pathetic!
.
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: The two aspects of free fall |
19 Jul 2004 08:18:03 AM |
|
|
Donald G. Shead wrote:
What's pathetic is you making judgements of my accomplishnents. While
I was only joshing about their vocabularies; you seriously believe
that weights and measures, acceleration, mass and inertia are just
some stuff that I don't understand and you do. Now _that's_ pathetic!
You're right.. it is pathetic.. Al and Sam keep trying to educate you, but like
any old dinosaur, you just can't learn new tricks, even if the tricks are right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: The two aspects of free fall |
19 Jul 2004 02:12:31 PM |
|
|
"MorituriMax" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:<fSPKc.5898$qa2.1671@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
Donald G. Shead wrote:
What's pathetic is you making judgements of my accomplishnents. While
I was only joshing about their vocabularies; you seriously believe
that weights and measures, acceleration, mass and inertia are just
some stuff that I don't understand and you do. Now _that's_ pathetic!
You're right.. it is pathetic.. Al and Sam keep trying to educate you, but like
any old dinosaur, you just can't learn new tricks, even if the tricks are right.
Hey Mori, the new tricks they are trying to teach me are the same old
tricks that have been around for years, and still theoretical physics
is getting more abstract and more complicated.
I'm in a no-win situation: I'm right, and have some new fresh ideas;
but you'll deny it to the last man jack of you. You have to stick
together to support the gravy boat!
How does that line in the movie go: I think it's deny, deny, deny;^)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MrPepper11" |
|
| Title: Re: The two aspects of free fall |
20 Jul 2004 02:10:52 AM |
|
|
(Donald G. Shead) wrote in message news:<48402bae.0407180550.7d8c3fd@posting.google.com>...
Galileo discovered that all bodies at Earth's surface fall at the same
uniformly increasing rate: So that the distance displaced [s],
divided by the square of the unit of time [t^2] during which it occurs
is a Constant: s/t^2 equals about 16'/sec^2.
A few years later Newton discovered that all bodies at Earth's surface
fall with a uniformly increasing velocity; at a uniformly increasing
rate: So that the difference in velocity [vt-vi], divided by the unit
of time [t] during which it occurs is a Constant [(vt-vi)/t]; equal to
about 32'/sec^2:
Because he didn't see [?] or _specify_ that the change was uniform, so
that [(vt-vi)/2] _was_ the average, it required the invention of the
calculus to derive the average mean change in velocity: A monument ,
or heritage to his genious.
For non-uniform changes then, the calculus may be useful: However for
most practical purposes it's not worth the effort.
Yeah. Most practical purposes in the 16th century.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rene Tschaggelar" |
|
| Title: Re: The two aspects of free fall |
19 Jul 2004 09:41:24 AM |
|
|
Donald G. Shead wrote:
Galileo discovered that all bodies at Earth's surface fall at the same
uniformly increasing rate: So that the distance displaced [s],
divided by the square of the unit of time [t^2] during which it occurs
is a Constant: s/t^2 equals about 16'/sec^2.
A few years later Newton discovered that all bodies at Earth's surface
fall with a uniformly increasing velocity; at a uniformly increasing
rate: So that the difference in velocity [vt-vi], divided by the unit
of time [t] during which it occurs is a Constant [(vt-vi)/t]; equal to
about 32'/sec^2:
Yes, they measured the same. Meanwhile we have some mathematics,
integration, differentiation.
What was the point ?
Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: The two aspects of free fall |
19 Jul 2004 02:33:41 PM |
|
|
Rene Tschaggelar <none@none.net> wrote in message news:<40fbddf0$0$1944$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>...
Donald G. Shead wrote:
Galileo discovered that all bodies at Earth's surface fall at the same
uniformly increasing rate: So that the distance displaced [s],
divided by the square of the unit of time [t^2] during which it occurs
is a Constant: s/t^2 equals about 16'/sec^2.
A few years later Newton discovered that all bodies at Earth's surface
fall with a uniformly increasing velocity; at a uniformly increasing
rate: So that the difference in velocity [vt-vi], divided by the unit
of time [t] during which it occurs is a Constant [(vt-vi)/t]; equal to
about 32'/sec^2:
Yes, they measured the same. Meanwhile we have some mathematics,
integration, differentiation.
What was the point ?
The point _is_ Rene: That Galileo didn't need integration, or
differentiation: He got the right answer empirically.
Newton made a monument to himself with his calculus, and you all eat
it up by showing that you too can do the most complicated integration,
and differentiation. In short, you don't _want_ to see that uniform
changes in velocity and position are simple; just requiring division
by two.
Rene
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew B. Park" |
|
| Title: Re: The two aspects of free fall |
20 Jul 2004 12:05:17 AM |
|
|
(Donald G. Shead) wrote in message news:<48402bae.0407191133.169186bb@posting.google.com>...
(snip)
The point _is_ Rene: That Galileo didn't need integration, or
differentiation: He got the right answer empirically.
Newton made a monument to himself with his calculus, and you all eat
it up by showing that you too can do the most complicated integration,
and differentiation. In short, you don't _want_ to see that uniform
changes in velocity and position are simple; just requiring division
by two.
Rene
And, how exactly, do you propose, empirically, to see what happens to
a chunk of metal falling onto a neutron star? Or, if you are more
down-to-earth, how, tell me, can you, empirically, calculate payload,
fuel, and thrust required of a rocket to put a satellite on a
geosynchronous orbit? (And note, the change in what is commonly
termed, g, is too great to use constant-g approximation.)
Only those who can't carry out the simplest of trig. substitution
disparage calculus--because he finds it too complicated, and the
concept of "limit" beyond his reach.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Bandel" |
|
| Title: Re: The two aspects of free fall |
19 Jul 2004 10:39:59 PM |
|
|
(Donald G. Shead) wrote in message news:<48402bae.0407191133.169186bb@posting.google.com>...
Rene Tschaggelar <none@none.net> wrote in message news:<40fbddf0$0$1944$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>...
Donald G. Shead wrote:
Galileo discovered that all bodies at Earth's surface fall at the same
uniformly increasing rate: So that the distance displaced [s],
divided by the square of the unit of time [t^2] during which it occurs
is a Constant: s/t^2 equals about 16'/sec^2.
A few years later Newton discovered that all bodies at Earth's surface
fall with a uniformly increasing velocity; at a uniformly increasing
rate: So that the difference in velocity [vt-vi], divided by the unit
of time [t] during which it occurs is a Constant [(vt-vi)/t]; equal to
about 32'/sec^2:
Yes, they measured the same. Meanwhile we have some mathematics,
integration, differentiation.
What was the point ?
The point _is_ Rene: That Galileo didn't need integration, or
differentiation: He got the right answer empirically.
Newton made a monument to himself with his calculus, and you all eat
it up by showing that you too can do the most complicated integration,
and differentiation. In short, you don't _want_ to see that uniform
changes in velocity and position are simple; just requiring division
by two.
Rene
our way is better for us because we like being able to deal with
situations with variable gravity fields.. in this case you cannot deal
with it with simple division and multiplication.
galileo's way is better for you because your mind is not complicated
enough to deal with calculus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
