No Way wrote:
I know I shouldn't reply... but I am apparently having a weak
moment...

On 9 Jul 2004 06:35:50 -0700, (Donald G. Shead)
wrote:
where the time chosen is usually a _unit_ of time;
such as a second, a minute or an hour, and could even be a couple of
weeks, a month, a year; even a light year.

Light year?

This is Shead. He has trouble with units.

(Gregory L. Hansen) writes:

In article ,
Donald G. Shead wrote:
"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
Donald G. Shead wrote:


Galileo discovered - with the crude methods available to him at the
time - that the rate of free fall starting from rest, was 16' per
second, and _changed_: Increasing at a _constant rate_ of 16' per
second each consecutive second that it continued: This constant rate
of change in the rate of free fall can be written in the language of
mathematics; as (16'/sec)/(1 second) = 16'/sec^2, and is a constant;
which is only one half [g/2] of Newton's acceleration of free fall [g
= (vt-vi)/t = 2s/t^2 = 32'/sec^2].

The *rate* of fall is 32 ft/second in the first second,

Wrong. _After_ the first second.

64 ft/second in the second second, and so on.

_After_ the second second.

The *distance* fallen is 16 feet in the first second,

Because the average rate is 16 feet _in_ the first second.

64 feet in the second second,

_After_ the second second.

The average rate _in_ the second second is 48ft/sec for a total of
64ft when you add the distances in the first and second second.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

No Way writes:

I know I shouldn't reply... but I am apparently having a weak
moment...

On 9 Jul 2004 06:35:50 -0700, (Donald G. Shead)
wrote:
where the time chosen is usually a _unit_ of time;
such as a second, a minute or an hour, and could even be a couple of
weeks, a month, a year; even a light year.

Light year?

The amount of time until SHead will see the light. Looks like a long
time.

Or maybe its a year without the winter months.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Donald G. Shead wrote:
Galileo discovered - with the crude methods available to him at the
time - that the rate of free fall starting from rest, was 16' per
second, and _changed_: Increasing at a _constant rate_ of 16' per
second each consecutive second that it continued: This constant rate
of change in the rate of free fall can be written in the language of
mathematics; as (16'/sec)/(1 second) = 16'/sec^2, and is a constant;
which is only one half [g/2] of Newton's acceleration of free fall [g
= (vt-vi)/t = 2s/t^2 = 32'/sec^2].

Now tell me; shock me; how can anybody refute Galileo's empirically
found Constant rate of free fall? Other than improving its accuracy
with today's methodology.

I think many of us here are rather more familiar than you with "the
language of mathematics". We know the equations to use when we wish to
calculate how long an object will take to fall a given distance, and we
know the constants to plug in so that our answers are in full agreement
with reality. Many of us have actually done the sodding experiment.

So, Shead, tell us how far an object falls (on Earth, neglecting air
resistance, initial velocity 0) in 5 seconds. You may assume a constant
value (of your choice!) for g.

In article , David Kastrup wrote:
(Gregory L. Hansen) writes:

In article ,
Donald G. Shead wrote:
"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
Donald G. Shead wrote:


Galileo discovered - with the crude methods available to him at the
time - that the rate of free fall starting from rest, was 16' per
second, and _changed_: Increasing at a _constant rate_ of 16' per
second each consecutive second that it continued: This constant rate
of change in the rate of free fall can be written in the language of
mathematics; as (16'/sec)/(1 second) = 16'/sec^2, and is a constant;
which is only one half [g/2] of Newton's acceleration of free fall [g
= (vt-vi)/t = 2s/t^2 = 32'/sec^2].

The *rate* of fall is 32 ft/second in the first second,

Wrong. _After_ the first second.

64 ft/second in the second second, and so on.

_After_ the second second.

Yes, I was a little sloppy there. The rate of fall is 32 ft/s when the
clock shows one second, 64 ft/s when the clock shows 2 seconds.


The *distance* fallen is 16 feet in the first second,

Because the average rate is 16 feet _in_ the first second.

64 feet in the second second,

_After_ the second second.

The average rate _in_ the second second is 48ft/sec for a total of
64ft when you add the distances in the first and second second.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum


--
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck

(Donald G. Shead) wrote in message . com...
"Michael Varney" wrote in message ...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message
om...
Classical, theoretical physics is based on Newton's erroneous belief
in Kepler's finding that orbits are elliptical.

Orbits are not elliptical, they are spirals that never close on
themselves; due to the fact that whatever is being orbited is itself
orbiting something else:
Cut

You are an idiot, as always SHead.

Those appear to be the only words you know. If you can't come up with
any better critique, why do you even try? You are an idiot, as always
varney; dumb too.

No. You're a dumbface stupidhead Donald ****head. See how ridiculous
people look when they stoop to your level?

"Pyriform" wrote in message ...
No Way wrote:
I know I shouldn't reply... but I am apparently having a weak
moment...

On 9 Jul 2004 06:35:50 -0700, (Donald G. Shead)
wrote:
where the time chosen is usually a _unit_ of time;
such as a second, a minute or an hour, and could even be a couple of
weeks, a month, a year; even a light year.

Light year?

This is Shead. He has trouble with units.

Well, I agree he's a crack pot, but he's got a point about something.
The unit system we use is more or less arbitrary, subject to our
perceptions. Where is the real basis for using separate units for
distance and time, anyway? If we arbitrarily (as we have done for
millenia) define unit system so that c = 1 (the unit system many
modern theoretical physicists work with..and oh, in addition, they
will have h-bar = 1, too), without any units, then we have a system
where space is on equal footing with time (and, in fact, relativity
demands that in, er, relativistic situations (id est, when the speed
of the things we are interested in is comparable to c) they be put on
equal footing). Presumably, we will be able to come to a better
understanding of the nature when we have finally understood the unity
of space-time.....

Anyway, that reminds me of the joke I heard once--"A light year is
defined as 1/3 of a regular year."

Best wishes,

Andrew

(clip)
It's within your reach too if you'll just use a little logical common
sense, and realize that Newton was not the genious he was made out to
be; he was mistaken about several things: Orbits are not elliptical;
not _Ptolemaic_ epicycles either, but are spiral whorling vortexes.
The rate of free fall is not 32'/sec^2; but 16'/sec^2; as Galileo had
already discovered.

Just wondering--do you know how to integrate x dx? (Or, in this case,
with more standard notation for variable, t dt?)

Or are you just like, oh... say... my physics professors who drop
factors of 2, 3, 1/2, pi, whatever, on the grounds that they are only
making an order-of-magnitude estimate? But, you know, they know the
_correct_ final answer, so that they can drop the _appropriate_
factors to make the final answer of the guess come out right.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Andrew B. Park wrote:
Well, I agree he's a crack pot, but he's got a point about something.
The unit system we use is more or less arbitrary, subject to our
perceptions. Where is the real basis for using separate units for
distance and time, anyway? If we arbitrarily (as we have done for
millenia) define unit system so that c = 1 (the unit system many
modern theoretical physicists work with..and oh, in addition, they
will have h-bar = 1, too), without any units, then we have a system
where space is on equal footing with time (and, in fact, relativity
demands that in, er, relativistic situations (id est, when the speed
of the things we are interested in is comparable to c) they be put on
equal footing). Presumably, we will be able to come to a better
understanding of the nature when we have finally understood the unity
of space-time.....

If Shead made any kind of valid point, you can be sure it was
inadvertent.

"Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away
into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an
independent reality"

- Hermann Minkowski (1908)

But whilst that may be true in a deep, scientific sense, such a union
does not meet our everyday, human needs. Perceptions matter.

"Pyriform" wrote in message ...
Donald G. Shead wrote:
Galileo discovered - with the crude methods available to him at the
time - that the rate of free fall starting from rest, was 16' per
second, and _changed_: Increasing at a _constant rate_ of 16' per
second each consecutive second that it continued: This constant rate
of change in the rate of free fall can be written in the language of
mathematics; as (16'/sec)/(1 second) = 16'/sec^2, and is a constant;
which is only one half [g/2] of Newton's acceleration of free fall [g
= (vt-vi)/t = 2s/t^2 = 32'/sec^2].

Now tell me; shock me; how can anybody refute Galileo's empirically
found Constant rate of free fall? Other than improving its accuracy
with today's methodology.

I think many of us here are rather more familiar than you with "the
language of mathematics".

Don't you wish.

We know the equations to use when we wish to
calculate how long an object will take to fall a given distance, and we
know the constants to plug in so that our answers are in full agreement
with reality. Many of us have actually done the sodding experiment.

Congratulations: Did you learn anything?

So, Shead, tell us how far an object falls (on Earth, neglecting air
resistance, initial velocity 0) in 5 seconds. You may assume a constant
value (of your choice!) for g.

I'll get back to you on that; but one thing is for su There is no
choice of g. It is what it is, wherever you are.