| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pak Yu Man
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Location: The Ida galaxy
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| moosehead wrote: |
you really ARE stupid aren't you?
jees - haven't you ever heard of gravity???
i think perhaps you should go back to whomever you paid to give you a passing grade and ask for your money back!
fyi, science isn't just in books duh you actually have to be able to apply it to real situations and understand them
you obviously don't know how to do that
can only imagine why and where you studied...
like i said, maybe you should ask for your money back. |
Maybe you should take your own advise retard. You're the one that's wrong. You have a science degree? Really? So do I.
I'm right and you're wrong. gravity? You're talking about gravity? What does gravity have to do with a car race? Oh, you're talking about air resistance. Wrong again tardboy. Like I already stated...gravity does not effect air resistance. Nor does weigt (mass) influence the speed of fall.
If you're talking about force. Fg=ma (where a=g=9.8m/s^2) then you can play around with mass.
If you're talking about kinetic energy K=1/2mv^2 then you can talk about mass.
Rates of fall are independant of mass.
Edit: I'm talking to you in high school physics cause anything else will fly over your head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
moosehead
Joined: 05 May 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| skconqueror wrote: |
| hehe.. is moosehead trying to be stupid on purpose? if not :shock: |
of course i should have known trying to explain anything remotely scientific on this forum would be as the proverbial casting of pearls before swine...
:roll: :roll: :roll: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pak Yu Man
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Location: The Ida galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ok scienceboy. Explain to me how air resistance is effected by mass in a vacuum. Design an experiment for us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skconqueror
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| moosehead wrote: |
| skconqueror wrote: |
hehe.. is moosehead trying to be stupid on purpose? if not  |
of course i should have known trying to explain anything remotely scientific on this forum would be as the proverbial casting of pearls before swine...
 |
So you really are stupid??   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pak Yu Man
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Location: The Ida galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I guess Moosebrain really has no clue. I wonder if the guy has a science degree or if he bought a degree at a degree mill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reaction
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
oo
didn't know a simple question would, in answering, become so complicated.
if i'd posted earlier: ockham's razor -- the simplest answer is the best answer. so the fast car, being faster and lighter, would beat the slower car.
but now that i think about it, having more power means having more torque which probably means the car's a 4x4 capable of towing a trailer through mud. the other car, though being faster on a paved road, finds itself at a river full of crocodiles. but then, even gravity's being argued about...
this forum's my excuse for not sleeping. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pak Yu Man
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Location: The Ida galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| reaction wrote: |
finds itself at a river full of crocodiles. but then, even gravity's being argued about...
this forum's my excuse for not sleeping. |
Now did this car drive into a river or did it drive into a gourge and fall into the river. Cause if the 2nd you'd have to take air resistance( and mass lol) into affect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cliffhanger
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Location: Anyang
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, you guys are really making a mountain out of an ant hill.
I have also studied physics and everything Pak Yu Man said is correct.
Moosehead, some of the things you have said have made me laugh. I really hope you are arguing just for the sake of arguing, otherwise I hope you failed science class.
With what is given in the question, the faster car will win the race. Case closed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pak Yu Man wrote: |
| moosehead wrote: |
you really ARE stupid aren't you?
jees - haven't you ever heard of gravity???
i think perhaps you should go back to whomever you paid to give you a passing grade and ask for your money back!
fyi, science isn't just in books duh you actually have to be able to apply it to real situations and understand them
you obviously don't know how to do that
can only imagine why and where you studied...
like i said, maybe you should ask for your money back. |
Maybe you should take your own advise retard. You're the one that's wrong. You have a science degree? Really? So do I.
I'm right and you're wrong. gravity? You're talking about gravity? What does gravity have to do with a car race? Oh, you're talking about air resistance. Wrong again tardboy. Like I already stated...gravity does not effect air resistance. Nor does weigt (mass) influence the speed of fall.
If you're talking about force. Fg=ma (where a=g=9.8m/s^2) then you can play around with mass.
If you're talking about kinetic energy K=1/2mv^2 then you can talk about mass.
Rates of fall are independant of mass.
Edit: I'm talking to you in high school physics cause anything else will fly over your head. |
Well, strictly speaking, when we generally deal with speed of fall in the real world we do so in a non vacuum. In high school physics we're taught to ignore air resistance only to simplify the math and focus on the basic concepts.
In reality the speed of an object depends on the amount of time that it's been accelerating and the strength of the acceration. This acceration is equal to the ratio of the force acting on it to it's mass. A=F/m. In gravity, which has nothing to do with the OP, the gravitational force is also dependent on it's mass as gravity acts equally on every atom in your body, so the mass cancels out and we have an (almost) constant acceration of 9.8ms^-2.
The net acceration on an object depends on its drag force though and we get an acceration of (Gravity-Drag)/m. The drag force equation doesn't have a factor of mass in it though. Adding them together you get something like A=(mg-drag)/m=g-Drag/m. A larger value of m here tends to decrease the relative value of the drag, thus increasing the speed of fall.
Anyway the speed of fall in the real world (ie atmosphere) is given by a rather complicated equation which does have a factor of mass in it. This equation asymptotically approaches terminal velocity which is the square root of (mg/pA) where p is the density of fluid times the Drag coefficient of the object(related to shape and surface friction.) That's why you need a bigger parachute for a heavier object as all else being equal heavier objects fall faster in any non zero density fluid.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pest2
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JustJohn wrote: |
| pest2 wrote: |
| the heavy one wins if the course is down hill |
Small one still wins. Learn physics.  |
haha, well, maybe you're right if the course is short and the vehicles dont reach their maximum speed ie terminal velocity by the finish. But the heavier one probably has more weight per surface space and thus there would be less drag from wind resistance per mass... like the difference between a falling leaf and a falling marble... I'd say in any race over 1 mile long, the heavy one wins.... unless it has a sail... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pest2
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pak Yu Man wrote: |
Obviously you don't know science. Everything falls at the same acceleration. 9.8 m/s2.
|
yes, thats right... the force of gravity is stronger on the heavier object, but also since it has more mass, more force is required for it to accelerate...
But in the earthly situation, usually objects that have more mass also have less surface space per weight.... So those objects have less wind resistance/drag working against them per gravitational force working for them... and therefore, a 5x5 cube of water will fall faster than a 2x2 cube of water when each cube has the same density.
Last edited by pest2 on Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pest2
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JustJohn wrote: |
| pest2 wrote: |
a new science question:
There are two horses, a big one and a small one. There are two zebras, a big one and a small one. Which is biggest, the big horse or the big zebra? |
This question is actually better than the OP, even though it's supposed to be unanswerable.
However, I happen to know that the largest zebras are only the size of medium-sized horses. Thus, the answer is the horse. |
You still had to make an assumption: that the horses and zebras were being called, "big" and "small" relative to the average-sized member in its species. But that information was not given as part of the problem. Therefore, you fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pak Yu Man
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Location: The Ida galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| Pak Yu Man wrote: |
| moosehead wrote: |
you really ARE stupid aren't you?
jees - haven't you ever heard of gravity???
i think perhaps you should go back to whomever you paid to give you a passing grade and ask for your money back!
fyi, science isn't just in books duh you actually have to be able to apply it to real situations and understand them
you obviously don't know how to do that
can only imagine why and where you studied...
like i said, maybe you should ask for your money back. |
Maybe you should take your own advise retard. You're the one that's wrong. You have a science degree? Really? So do I.
I'm right and you're wrong. gravity? You're talking about gravity? What does gravity have to do with a car race? Oh, you're talking about air resistance. Wrong again tardboy. Like I already stated...gravity does not effect air resistance. Nor does weigt (mass) influence the speed of fall.
If you're talking about force. Fg=ma (where a=g=9.8m/s^2) then you can play around with mass.
If you're talking about kinetic energy K=1/2mv^2 then you can talk about mass.
Rates of fall are independant of mass.
Edit: I'm talking to you in high school physics cause anything else will fly over your head. |
Well, strictly speaking, when we generally deal with speed of fall in the real world we do so in a non vacuum. In high school physics we're taught to ignore air resistance only to simplify the math and focus on the basic concepts.
In reality the speed of an object depends on the amount of time that it's been accelerating and the strength of the acceration. This acceration is equal to the ratio of the force acting on it to it's mass. A=F/m. In gravity, which has nothing to do with the OP, the gravitational force is also dependent on it's mass as gravity acts equally on every atom in your body, so the mass cancels out and we have an (almost) constant acceration of 9.8ms^-2.
The net acceration on an object depends on its drag force though and we get an acceration of (Gravity-Drag)/m. The drag force equation doesn't have a factor of mass in it though. Adding them together you get something like A=(mg-drag)/m=g-Drag/m. A larger value of m here tends to decrease the relative value of the drag, thus increasing the speed of fall.
Anyway the speed of fall in the real world (ie atmosphere) is given by a rather complicated equation which does have a factor of mass in it. This equation asymptotically approaches terminal velocity which is the square root of (mg/pA) where p is the density of fluid times the Drag coefficient of the object(related to shape and surface friction.) That's why you need a bigger parachute for a heavier object as all else being equal heavier objects fall faster in any non zero density fluid.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29 |
[/quote]
Why did you quote me? I know this stuff. I studied physics up until third year in uni. This is basic newtonian Physics/basic energy type stuff. High school kids should be studying this stuff. If you forget this stuff, fine.
You had to look on wikipedia? Lame. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pak Yu Man wrote: |
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| Pak Yu Man wrote: |
| moosehead wrote: |
you really ARE stupid aren't you?
jees - haven't you ever heard of gravity???
i think perhaps you should go back to whomever you paid to give you a passing grade and ask for your money back!
fyi, science isn't just in books duh you actually have to be able to apply it to real situations and understand them
you obviously don't know how to do that
can only imagine why and where you studied...
like i said, maybe you should ask for your money back. |
Maybe you should take your own advise retard. You're the one that's wrong. You have a science degree? Really? So do I.
I'm right and you're wrong. gravity? You're talking about gravity? What does gravity have to do with a car race? Oh, you're talking about air resistance. Wrong again tardboy. Like I already stated...gravity does not effect air resistance. Nor does weigt (mass) influence the speed of fall.
If you're talking about force. Fg=ma (where a=g=9.8m/s^2) then you can play around with mass.
If you're talking about kinetic energy K=1/2mv^2 then you can talk about mass.
Rates of fall are independant of mass.
Edit: I'm talking to you in high school physics cause anything else will fly over your head. |
Well, strictly speaking, when we generally deal with speed of fall in the real world we do so in a non vacuum. In high school physics we're taught to ignore air resistance only to simplify the math and focus on the basic concepts.
In reality the speed of an object depends on the amount of time that it's been accelerating and the strength of the acceration. This acceration is equal to the ratio of the force acting on it to it's mass. A=F/m. In gravity, which has nothing to do with the OP, the gravitational force is also dependent on it's mass as gravity acts equally on every atom in your body, so the mass cancels out and we have an (almost) constant acceration of 9.8ms^-2.
The net acceration on an object depends on its drag force though and we get an acceration of (Gravity-Drag)/m. The drag force equation doesn't have a factor of mass in it though. Adding them together you get something like A=(mg-drag)/m=g-Drag/m. A larger value of m here tends to decrease the relative value of the drag, thus increasing the speed of fall.
Anyway the speed of fall in the real world (ie atmosphere) is given by a rather complicated equation which does have a factor of mass in it. This equation asymptotically approaches terminal velocity which is the square root of (mg/pA) where p is the density of fluid times the Drag coefficient of the object(related to shape and surface friction.) That's why you need a bigger parachute for a heavier object as all else being equal heavier objects fall faster in any non zero density fluid.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29 |
|
Why did you quote me? I know this stuff. I studied physics up until third year in uni. This is basic newtonian Physics/basic energy type stuff. High school kids should be studying this stuff. If you forget this stuff, fine.
You had to look on wikipedia? Lame.[/quote]
I think the only thing moosehead is guilty of is being kind of a dick and also explaining himself poorly.
If two objects have the exact same dimensions(size and shape), the denser object will fall faster in real world conditions. Now, if the two items have similar but slightly different densities, we would probably never notice the difference.
However, take a balloon filled with water, and take another (identical in size and shape) balloon filled with air. Which will fall faster? Obviously the water balloon.
I *think* this is what moosehead meant, but of course, I could be mistaken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ive watched enough F1 to know that the answer is quite easy: WHO is driving each car? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
