If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New law of gravity
Found newton's apple formula... they worked with chronometer.
|
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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.............. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|