Newton used rates of change in _acceleration_: g = (vt-vi)/t = 32'/sec²

Galileo's method was more direct in that g/2 = (16'/sec²)t².
The distance fallen [s] can be determined at any instant point!

Newton's metnod was less direct in that g = (vt-vi)/t.
The distance fallen [s] at any instant point required the calculus:

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:52:33 +0000, Donald G. Shead wrote:

Newton used rates of change in _acceleration_: g = (vt-vi)/t = 32'/sec²

Galileo's method was more direct in that g/2 = (16'/sec²)t².
The distance fallen [s] can be determined at any instant point!

Newton's metnod was less direct in that g = (vt-vi)/t.
The distance fallen [s] at any instant point required the calculus:

Welcome to the 17th Century. Woooeeee!

"Titan Point" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:52:33 +0000, Donald G. Shead wrote:

Newton used rates of change in _acceleration_: g = (vt-vi)/t = 32'/sec²

Galileo's method was more direct in that g/2 = (16'/sec²)t².
The distance fallen [s] can be determined at any instant point!

Newton's metnod was less direct in that g = (vt-vi)/t.
The distance fallen [s] at any instant point required the calculus:

Welcome to the 17th Century. Woooeeee!

Oh poo-poo to you: Galileo's method is just as good in this 21st century.

"Donald G. Shead" wrote:


Oh poo-poo to you: Galileo's method is just as good in this 21st century.

But Newton's Second Law is not restricted to a special case as was Galileo's
Shead.... Time to move from 400 years ago to 300 years ago, don'cha think?

"Donald G. Shead" wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
Newton's Second Law says it all - integrate as necessary
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...SecondLaw.html

How many more times have I got to tell you Sammy: Since mass [m = w/g =
f/a]: f = (f/a)a, and w = (w/g)g! To rub it in more; [a = (2s/t²)], and [g =
(vt-vi)/t]! Some people never learn.

Rubbish--Learn Newton's Second Law and some calculus Shead. Free your
mind cloistered in cobwebs.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:15:47 +0000, Donald G. Shead wrote:


"Titan Point" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:52:33 +0000, Donald G. Shead wrote:

Newton used rates of change in _acceleration_: g = (vt-vi)/t = 32'/sec²

Galileo's method was more direct in that g/2 = (16'/sec²)t².
The distance fallen [s] can be determined at any instant point!

Newton's metnod was less direct in that g = (vt-vi)/t.
The distance fallen [s] at any instant point required the calculus:

Welcome to the 17th Century. Woooeeee!

Oh poo-poo to you: Galileo's method is just as good in this 21st century.

Fascinating. Galileo's method is an approximation. Newton's is a better
approximation. Both assumed that g does not change much in height, Both
ignored air resistance.

Let me know when you've learned some calculus. Newton would have approved.

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message m...
Newton used rates of change in _acceleration_: g = (vt-vi)/t = 32'/sec²

Galileo's method was more direct in that g/2 = (16'/sec²)t².
The distance fallen [s] can be determined at any instant point!

Newton's metnod was less direct in that g = (vt-vi)/t.
The distance fallen [s] at any instant point required the calculus:


You know you really don't need a hammer to build a barn. You can use
a rock to pound in the nails. The hammer is only a tool to make the
job easier.

While the problems of distance, velocity, and acceleration of falling
objects are perfect examples for demonstrating calculus, you really
don't need calculus to solve them or to work out the formulas. They
are really only extensions of the kind of average speed problems you
might see in high school physics, which can be worked out with a
little ingenuity and good old basic arithmetic.

Calculus is only a tool to make the job easier!

Double-A

"Titan Point" wrote in message
news Cut

Fascinating. Galileo's method is an approximation. Newton's is a better
approximation. Both assumed that g does not change much in height, Both
ignored air resistance.

They intentionally ignored air resistance: They sought the principle, not
the itty gritty: With the instruments we have today, we can accurately
determine both; the acceleration, and the distance; in air or any other
medium; to the nth degree, if we had a reason to; but [s = 16'/sec²], and [a
= 32'/sec²] are accurate enough for most ordinary purposes.

Let me know when you've learned some calculus. Newton would have approved.

As if I ca I've learned all the calculus I need to: If it makes you feel
better to learn it, go on and do it: You knew all the calculus you needed to
know yesterday. Save your energy for learning something worthwhile.

"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message
m...
Newton used rates of change in _acceleration_: g = (vt-vi)/t = 32'/sec²

Galileo's method was more direct in that g/2 = (16'/sec²)t².
The distance fallen [s] can be determined at any instant point!

Newton's metnod was less direct in that g = (vt-vi)/t.
The distance fallen [s] at any instant point required the calculus:

Calculus is only a tool to make the job easier!

Double-A

Galileo's method doesn't need that tool!

"Donald G. Shead" wrote:


They intentionally ignored air resistance: They sought the principle, not
the itty gritty:

Don't be stooopid Shead--nobody knew how to model "air resistance" in
those times... They might not have even thought it was a player.