New law of gravity
 

Found newton's apple formula... they worked with chronometer.

New law of gravity
 

Found that metallic objects, usually more dense than other materials, fall
faster than wood objects because gravity is like a magnetic field which
attracts more intensively metallic objects than wood objects. I've made the
experience at home. But this goes against what I learned in school. Teachers
told me that the velocity of falling objects isn't related with the object's
mass. Could I say that there is electromagnetic field in my home's floor or
is this normal condition?

"Jim Windson" escreveu na mensagem ...

Found newton's apple formula... they worked with chronometer.

New law of gravity
 

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 19:14:40 -0000, "Jim Windson"
wrote:

Found that metallic objects, usually more dense than other materials, fall
faster than wood objects because gravity is like a magnetic field which
attracts more intensively metallic objects than wood objects. I've made the
experience at home. But this goes against what I learned in school. Teachers
told me that the velocity of falling objects isn't related with the object's
mass. Could I say that there is electromagnetic field in my home's floor or
is this normal condition?

"Jim Windson" escreveu na mensagem ...

Found newton's apple formula... they worked with chronometer.

Your observations have nothing to do with the mass or density of the
objects. It is simply a matter of air resistance. Two objects with the
same volume, shape and surface area will fall at different rates of
acceleration if they are not of equal mass. Something like a Styrofoam
cube 1 cm square and a lead cube of the same size will experience the
same air drag but will definitely have a different gravitational force
causing their different free fall acceleration rates. Gordon

New law of gravity
 

"Gordon" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 19:14:40 -0000, "Jim Windson"
wrote:

Found that metallic objects, usually more dense than other materials, fall
faster than wood objects because gravity is like a magnetic field which
attracts more intensively metallic objects than wood objects. I've made
the
experience at home. But this goes against what I learned in school.
Teachers
told me that the velocity of falling objects isn't related with the
object's
mass. Could I say that there is electromagnetic field in my home's floor
or
is this normal condition?

"Jim Windson" escreveu na mensagem ...

Found newton's apple formula... they worked with chronometer.

Your observations have nothing to do with the mass or density of the
objects. It is simply a matter of air resistance. Two objects with the
same volume, shape and surface area will fall at different rates of
acceleration if they are not of equal mass. Something like a Styrofoam
cube 1 cm square and a lead cube of the same size will experience the
same air drag but will definitely have a different gravitational force
causing their different free fall acceleration rates. Gordon


http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physic...ww/node49.html

Simple as that..............

New law of gravity
 

Which formula are you based on? Can you indicate?

"Gordon" escreveu na mensagem
...

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 19:14:40 -0000, "Jim Windson"
wrote:

Found that metallic objects, usually more dense than other materials, fall
faster than wood objects because gravity is like a magnetic field which
attracts more intensively metallic objects than wood objects. I've made the
experience at home. But this goes against what I learned in school.
Teachers
told me that the velocity of falling objects isn't related with the
object's
mass. Could I say that there is electromagnetic field in my home's floor or
is this normal condition?

"Jim Windson" escreveu na mensagem ...

Found newton's apple formula... they worked with chronometer.

Your observations have nothing to do with the mass or density of the
objects. It is simply a matter of air resistance. Two objects with the
same volume, shape and surface area will fall at different rates of
acceleration if they are not of equal mass. Something like a Styrofoam
cube 1 cm square and a lead cube of the same size will experience the
same air drag but will definitely have a different gravitational force
causing their different free fall acceleration rates. Gordon

New law of gravity
 

Jim Windson wrote:
Which formula are you based on? Can you indicate?

The Brachistochrone Curve

http://www.osaka-ue.ac.jp/zemi/nishi...kr/cycloid.pdf

That oughta keep you busy for a minute or two.

Paul

New law of gravity
 

Can't remember very well, but learned this formula about free fall:
(for starting falling speed = 0 m/s)
y=-1/2gt^2
this is independent from object's mass.
Is this correct?

"Paul" escreveu na mensagem ...

Jim Windson wrote:
Which formula are you based on? Can you indicate?

The Brachistochrone Curve

http://www.osaka-ue.ac.jp/zemi/nishi...kr/cycloid.pdf

That oughta keep you busy for a minute or two.

Paul

New law of gravity
 

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 04:38:10 -0000, Jim Windson wrote:

Can't remember very well, but learned this formula about free fall:
(for starting falling speed = 0 m/s)
y=-1/2gt^2
this is independent from object's mass.
Is this correct?

I can't remember if that's the correct formula but it is independent of
mass and air resistance. In other words it's only valid in a vacuum.

--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed http://www.500kmh.com/

New law of gravity
 

Maybe air friction not very valid for short distance.


On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 04:38:10 -0000, Jim Windson wrote:

Can't remember very well, but learned this formula about free fall:
(for starting falling speed = 0 m/s)
y=-1/2gt^2
this is independent from object's mass.
Is this correct?

"Rodney Pont" escreveu na mensagem
fohit.me.uk...

I can't remember if that's the correct formula but it is independent of
mass and air resistance. In other words it's only valid in a vacuum.

--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed http://www.500kmh.com/

New law of gravity
 

Jim Windson wrote:

Maybe air friction not very valid for short distance.


On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 04:38:10 -0000, Jim Windson wrote:

Can't remember very well, but learned this formula about free fall:
(for starting falling speed = 0 m/s)
y=-1/2gt^2
this is independent from object's mass.
Is this correct?

"Rodney Pont" escreveu na mensagem
fohit.me.uk...

I can't remember if that's the correct formula but it is independent of
mass and air resistance. In other words it's only valid in a vacuum.


No drag considered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equati...a_falling_body

NASA adds drag.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/falling.html

"When Drag is equal to Weight, acceleration is zero.
Velocity becomes constant (terminal velocity)"

"Drag = Cd * .5 * rho * V^2 * A"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

"For objects of water-like density (raindrops, hail, live
objects—mammals, birds, insects, etc.) falling in air near
the surface of the Earth at sea level, terminal velocity is
roughly equal to

vt = 90 * d^0.5

with d in meters and vt in m/s. For example, for a human body
d ~ 0.6 m, vt ~ 70 m/s, for a small animal like a cat
d ~ 0.2 m) vt ~ 40 m/s, for a small bird
d ~ 0.05 m vt ~ 20 m/s, for an insect
d ~ 0.01 m vt ~ 9 m/s, and so on.

Terminal velocity for very small objects (pollen, etc.)
at low Reynolds numbers is determined by Stokes law.
"

Paul

New law of gravity
 

Sorry it's too early to read that drag article on wikipedia you suggest,
sounds like a hunter formula, except for human body. It goes beyond the
discovery about the indoors having certain physics properties.

Jim Windson wrote:

Maybe air friction not very valid for short distance.


On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 04:38:10 -0000, Jim Windson wrote:

Can't remember very well, but learned this formula about free fall:
(for starting falling speed = 0 m/s)
y=-1/2gt^2
this is independent from object's mass.
Is this correct?

"Rodney Pont" escreveu na mensagem
fohit.me.uk...

I can't remember if that's the correct formula but it is independent of
mass and air resistance. In other words it's only valid in a vacuum.

"Paul" escreveu na mensagem ...

No drag considered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

"For objects of water-like density (raindrops, hail, live
objects—mammals, birds, insects, etc.) falling in air near
the surface of the Earth at sea level, terminal velocity is
roughly equal to

vt = 90 * d^0.5

with d in meters and vt in m/s. For example, for a human body
d ~ 0.6 m, vt ~ 70 m/s, for a small animal like a cat
d ~ 0.2 m) vt ~ 40 m/s, for a small bird
d ~ 0.05 m vt ~ 20 m/s, for an insect
d ~ 0.01 m vt ~ 9 m/s, and so on.

Terminal velocity for very small objects (pollen, etc.)
at low Reynolds numbers is determined by Stokes law.
"

Paul