*

Offline TitanicShark

  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
    • View Profile
Object Density
« on: September 25, 2018, 12:23:54 AM »
If gravity doesn't exist, and the Earth is accelerating upwards at a finite speed, why do denser objects fall faster than one that aren't as dense? If the Flat Earth Model is to be believed, they should fall at the same speed, which they don't.
π•Ώπ–Žπ–™π–†π–“π–Žπ–ˆπ•Ύπ–π–†π–—π–

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9959
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (β—•β€Ώβ—•βœΏ)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Object Density
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2018, 12:47:24 AM »
If gravity doesn't exist, and the Earth is accelerating upwards at a finite speed, why do denser objects fall faster than one that aren't as dense?
For the same reason they would in the RET gravitational model - air resistance.

If the Flat Earth Model is to be believed, they should fall at the same speed
This idea directly contravenes the Equivalence Principle.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline TitanicShark

  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
    • View Profile
Re: Object Density
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2018, 12:52:24 AM »
I don't believe air resistance would change all too much, and even if this is true, denser objects are still heavier.
π•Ώπ–Žπ–™π–†π–“π–Žπ–ˆπ•Ύπ–π–†π–—π–

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9959
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (β—•β€Ώβ—•βœΏ)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Object Density
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2018, 12:55:30 AM »
I don't believe air resistance would change all too much
"Change all that much" compared to what?

and even if this is true, denser objects are still heavier.
That's entirely irrelevant to your question.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline TitanicShark

  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
    • View Profile
Re: Object Density
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2018, 01:02:52 AM »
I don't believe air resistance would change all too much
"Change all that much" compared to what?
From one object that doesn't have as much mass and one that has more.

and even if this is true, denser objects are still heavier.
That's entirely irrelevant to your question.
Denser Objects still weigh the same no matter if they are falling or not. Air resistance does not affect the weight of an object, and denser objects still fall faster in vacuums.
π•Ώπ–Žπ–™π–†π–“π–Žπ–ˆπ•Ύπ–π–†π–—π–

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9959
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (β—•β€Ώβ—•βœΏ)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Object Density
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2018, 01:09:43 AM »
Denser Objects still weigh the same no matter if they are falling or not.
They will have the same mass, but that has very little to do with how fast they fall on Earth.

Air resistance does not affect the weight of an object
Indeed, the force of weight will always be the same for all objects of the same mass. However, two objects with the same mass (and thus same weight) can still hit the ground at different times when dropped from the same height. This is due to air resistance.

and denser objects still fall faster in vacuums.
This is untrue as a general statement.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Sushi

  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Object Density
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2018, 10:41:33 AM »

TitanicShark you're wrong

MattyWS

Re: Object Density
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2018, 04:33:06 PM »
Sorry so what you're saying is if we did this experiment;

I had a perfect ball of lead encased in say, a golf ball like capsule, then an exact same golf ball like capsule with no lead inside, you drop them from the same height at the same time. they should land at the same time because the air resistance would be the same? It wouldn't happen that way... the capsule with the lead inside it would drop faster and hit the ground before the empty capsule.

So the the proven theory of gravity is already more plausible than your 'theory' of air resistance and constant acceleration in this case. So how do you prove otherwise?
« Last Edit: September 27, 2018, 04:46:21 PM by MattyWS »

Re: Object Density
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2018, 05:16:33 PM »
Sorry so what you're saying is if we did this experiment;

I had a perfect ball of lead encased in say, a golf ball like capsule, then an exact same golf ball like capsule with no lead inside, you drop them from the same height at the same time. they should land at the same time because the air resistance would be the same? It wouldn't happen that way... the capsule with the lead inside it would drop faster and hit the ground before the empty capsule.

So the the proven theory of gravity is already more plausible than your 'theory' of air resistance and constant acceleration in this case. So how do you prove otherwise?
If no air resistance is present, the rate of descent depends only on how far the object has fallen, no matter how heavy the object is. This means that two objects will reach the ground at the same time if they are dropped simultaneously from the same height. This statement follows from the law of conservation of energy and has been demonstrated experimentally by dropping a feather and a lead ball in an airless tube.

When air resistance plays a role, the shape of the object becomes important. In air, a feather and a ball do not fall at the same rate. In the case of a pen and a bowling ball air resistance is small compared to the force a gravity that pulls them to the ground. Therefore, if you drop a pen and a bowling ball you could probably not tell which of the two reached the ground first unless you dropped them from a very very high tower.

Both of these will ALSO be true within the frame of a constantly accelerating Earth due to Relativity. Your answer of 'the lead filled will hit first' while technically correct, will need relatively specific circumstances to be detectable AND will be true under the common UA model as well.

What Pete has said, is it's possible to take two objects with the same mass/weight, and in an environment with air have them fall at different rates. Consider two pieces of paper. Same mass. One left flat, the other crumpled into a ball. Do you propose if I drop them both from a height they will both hit the ground at the same time? I should hope not, for you will be very wrong if done in an environment with atmosphere and no 'guides' for the flat sheet of paper. Parachutes work on the same principle.

*

Offline Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 135
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
Re: Object Density
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2018, 09:27:46 PM »
Sorry so what you're saying is if we did this experiment;

I had a perfect ball of lead encased in say, a golf ball like capsule, then an exact same golf ball like capsule with no lead inside, you drop them from the same height at the same time. they should land at the same time because the air resistance would be the same? It wouldn't happen that way... the capsule with the lead inside it would drop faster and hit the ground before the empty capsule.

So the the proven theory of gravity is already more plausible than your 'theory' of air resistance and constant acceleration in this case. So how do you prove otherwise?


Dude, this was all settled and documented 5-6 centuries ago. It's an experiment anyone can do anywhere.

I'll post a link to youtube since it is accepted youtube as scientific evidence...





Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

*

Offline nickrulercreator

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • It's round. That much is true.
    • View Profile
Re: Object Density
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2018, 08:01:10 PM »
For the same reason they would in the RET gravitational model - air resistance.

What if you dropped a women's basketball and 16lb bowling ball?

A women's basketball has a diameter of 9.23 inches, and a bowling ball has a diameter of 8.5 inches.

A women's basketball is about 20oz, or 1.25 lbs. That's a difference of 14.75 lbs between the basketball and bowling ball. Surely with near-similar diameters, the air resistance is also nearly similar. And with such different masses, the bowling ball should hit the ground much quicker than the basketball if it's based on density. Right?

What about a ping pong ball and golf ball? Nearly similar diameters, but one is far heavier. Of course, because the ping pong ball is so light, you'd need to experiment that in a room where nearly no wind is present (turn off AC for a while?). But if done right, which would hit the ground first?

Brian Cox's video does just this, with a ball and feathers in a vacuum chamber. Both hit the ground at the same time.
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

MattyWS

Re: Object Density
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2018, 01:37:01 PM »
I think terminal velocity is being ignored here. If you drop the objects from a small height sure enough they may land same time but drop it from an aeroplane and see what happens. the object of lower mass would reach it's terminal velocity sooner and stop accelerating while the higher massed object will continue speeding up and become faster than the lighter object. In this case the heavier object will hit the ground first. Assuming perfect conditions

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/75942/terminal-velocity-of-two-equally-shaped-sized-objects-with-different-masses

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 868
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Object Density
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2018, 03:27:09 PM »
For the same reason, they would in the RET gravitational model - air resistance.

I almost said "exactly!" until I thought about it.  In the gravity model, you have mass vs drag setting terminal velocity.  In UA is seems only drag would matter. 

Picture 2 small parachutes with steel cubes suspended under them.   One cube is 1" per side, the other is 2" per for 8x the mass.   In the gravity model, the second cube would descend faster due-to mass overcoming drag.  I can see no valid reason in UA that the 2" cube would descend faster and if anything it should be marginally slower due to more drag.

I used parachutes because I hold a master license with the United States Parachute Association and have almost a thousand jumps and can speak with a little authority.    I have seen this many times.  A 6' tall jumper that weighs 180 lbs will fall significantly slower that a 6' jumper that weighs 220 lbs.  About the same drag but more mass.  Same goes for them under a canopy.  The heavier guy will descend faster than the skinny guy.


Thoughts?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
Re: Object Density
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2018, 05:07:08 PM »
For the same reason, they would in the RET gravitational model - air resistance.

I almost said "exactly!" until I thought about it.  In the gravity model, you have mass vs drag setting terminal velocity.  In UA is seems only drag would matter. 

Picture 2 small parachutes with steel cubes suspended under them.   One cube is 1" per side, the other is 2" per for 8x the mass.   In the gravity model, the second cube would descend faster due-to mass overcoming drag.  I can see no valid reason in UA that the 2" cube would descend faster and if anything it should be marginally slower due to more drag.

I used parachutes because I hold a master license with the United States Parachute Association and have almost a thousand jumps and can speak with a little authority.    I have seen this many times.  A 6' tall jumper that weighs 180 lbs will fall significantly slower that a 6' jumper that weighs 220 lbs.  About the same drag but more mass.  Same goes for them under a canopy.  The heavier guy will descend faster than the skinny guy.


Thoughts?


https://www.docsity.com/en/news/interesting-facts/physics-skydiving-heavier-falls-faster/

Heavier people with the same surface area have a higher terminal velocity. It's not that they fall any faster.

Just like if you drop a feather and a bowling ball outside of a vacuum the feather has a much higher terminal velocity because of it's mass and surface area.

A 6 foot man who weighs 100 pounds will fall (accelerate toward the ground) at 9.8 m/s until he reaches his terminal velocity.
A 6 foot man who weighs 500 pounds will fall (accelerate toward the ground) at 9.8 m/s until he reaches his terminal velocity.
A feather will fall (accelerate toward the ground) at 9.8 m/s until it reaches it's terminal velocity.

The difference is the mass/density and it's effect on terminal velocity.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 08:36:05 PM by iamcpc »

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 868
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Object Density
« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2018, 05:21:14 PM »
For the same reason, they would in the RET gravitational model - air resistance.

I almost said "exactly!" until I thought about it.  In the gravity model, you have mass vs drag setting terminal velocity.  In UA is seems only drag would matter. 

Picture 2 small parachutes with steel cubes suspended under them.   One cube is 1" per side, the other is 2" per for 8x the mass.   In the gravity model, the second cube would descend faster due-to mass overcoming drag.  I can see no valid reason in UA that the 2" cube would descend faster and if anything it should be marginally slower due to more drag.

I used parachutes because I hold a master license with the United States Parachute Association and have almost a thousand jumps and can speak with a little authority.    I have seen this many times.  A 6' tall jumper that weighs 180 lbs will fall significantly slower that a 6' jumper that weighs 220 lbs.  About the same drag but more mass.  Same goes for them under a canopy.  The heavier guy will descend faster than the skinny guy.


Thoughts?


https://www.docsity.com/en/news/interesting-facts/physics-skydiving-heavier-falls-faster/

Heavier people with the same surface area have a higher terminal velocity. It's not that they fall any faster.

Just like if you drop a feather and a bowling ball outside of a vacuum the feather has a much higher terminal velocity because of it's mass and surface area.

They do not accelerate faster.  But they fall faster when drag has canceled out acceleration.  Pertty simple.  The point is that if the ground is racing up to meet a falling object mass is not relevant but drag is.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Object Density
« Reply #15 on: January 04, 2019, 06:15:15 PM »
Not revive an old thread for nothing, but under the wiki page of universal acceleration, terminal velocity is described as having nothing to do with balanced forces (aka drag and gravity).  Flat Earth model suggests that terminal velocity is when the upward acceleration of the "falling object" matches the upward acceleration of the earth.

Does anyone care to explain what is meant by upward acceleration? Since this is under the Universal Acceleration wiki page, I would assume that at some altitude the FE theory suggests that UA begins to act upon the "falling" object? I have also read several different theories on what provides the "force" behind UA. Some suggest dark matter (which is inherently funny, given that a lot of FE believers scoff at the existence of other particles demonstrated to exist), Pete Svarrior suggest that the UA is a flowing current of aether. I have even read that UA is selective on what it acts upon.  So is there a unified theory on UA and how it acts upon multiple objects? Is the "current" strong enough to create an effect where it can wrap around the edges of the earth to some degree to create terminal velocity??

I am having difficulty wrapping my head around this. Just for some background, I am a degreed mechanical engineer from Rose-Hulman, so I do have basic understanding of how things work (although English and grammar are not my strong points).
BobLawBlah.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
Re: Object Density
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2019, 05:28:50 PM »
If gravity doesn't exist, and the Earth is accelerating upwards at a finite speed, why do denser objects fall faster than one that aren't as dense? If the Flat Earth Model is to be believed, they should fall at the same speed, which they don't.

This depends on how you define fall. I define falling as accelerating toward the earth until you reach the terminal velocity. At the point of terminal velocity the air is pushing up as fast as you are accelerating toward earth and your velocity to earth does not increase further.

In a vacuum a feather will fall the same distance in the same amount of time as a lead ball. This is because there is no air causing these objects to reach the terminal velocity.

In air a feather will fall slower than a lead ball because the feather will reach its terminal velocity much sooner.

These things are earth shape agnostic. They happen the same on a flat earth and a round earth.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 07:53:49 PM by iamcpc »