The connection between Anti-Science and Anti-Education views.

The list of ridiculous claims made so far.

1) An object in motion requires a "propulsion" to remain in motion.

2) Every force is a frictional force.

3) A 5Kg mass has "nearly" the same gravitational force as a 10kg mass.

4) A 10Kg mass and a 5Kg mass dropped from the same height at the same time will land at different times.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Oh, so you are pointing out that gravity at a distance of 6,371,000 meters from the center of the Earth is not exactly the same as gravity at 6,371,020 meters. You are being ridiculous.

It's not exactly the same. I said it was a slight difference, but it is not non-existent, at least not according to the equation, i.e. according to the math.

Quote:

I know how do to the math for this too... it becomes an integral. Newton invented calculus for exactly this purpose.

The point is that you didn't even think of it as an issue because you were thinking uncritically about the equation without reflecting on the fact that the altitude of a falling object changes as it falls.

Quote:

But for dropping a ball off of a tower... this difference is insignificant. You are being ridiculous.

You are suggesting a mathematics that is a little more complicated. If you knew how to do math you would know that the mass of the object still doesn't matter.

The ratio between the numerator and denominator changes at a faster rate for the heavier object because the denominator stays the same for both as it shrinks.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

The ratio between the numerator and denominator changes at a faster rate for the heavier object because the denominator stays the same for both as it shrinks.

In this ridiculous claim... what is the numerator and what is the denominator?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
The ratio between the numerator and denominator changes at a faster rate for the heavier object because the denominator stays the same for both as it shrinks.

In this ridiculous claim... what is the numerator and what is the denominator?

The numerator is the combined masses of the object and the Earth
The denominator is the distance.

As the heavier object falls, the ratio of the masses to the distance increases at a faster rate than for the lighter object.

You were right that you could use calculus, but before you can use calculus, you have to think critically to realize that the rate is changing as the altitude changes.

You may be able to do calculus, but you did not think about how it would prove that the objects fall at different rates according to the equation; i.e. because you were only thinking about the equation from the perspective of a single calculation at a single altitude.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You are wrong in two ways.

1) Newton's law of gravity says you multiply the mass of the object with the mass of the planet. Your idea that you add them together is simply wrong... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

2) As a good Physics teacher, I would never ask you to just accept Isaac's Newton's word for it. Do the critical thinking yourself.

- You claim that a 10kg object is almost the same weight as a 5kg object.
- Isaac Newton claims that a 10kg object is double the weight of a 5kg object.

Go to your house, find two objects made of the same material, one twice as big as the other. Hold one in one arm and the other in the other and see if they are "almost" the same weight.

This is ridiculously simple.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are wrong in two ways.

1) Newton's law of gravity says you multiply the mass of the object with the mass of the planet. Your idea that you add them together is simply wrong... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

There is another equation online where they are added, but no matter; the important thing is that the ratio between the numerator and denominator increases faster as distance decreases for the heavier object in either equation.

Quote:

- You claim that a 10kg object is almost the same weight as a 5kg object.
- Isaac Newton claims that a 10kg object is double the weight of a 5kg object.

They are almost the same mass in comparison to the Earth, the main factor in the gravitation.

Quote:

Go to your house, find two objects made of the same material, one twice as big as the other. Hold one in one arm and the other in the other and see if they are "almost" the same weight.

You're talking about subjective perceptions of weight, which is irrelevant here. You would know that if you could think critically.

Quote:

This is ridiculously simple.

Have you acknowledged yet that the heavier object in fact falls at a slightly faster rate according to the equation, when the rate at different altitudes is compared?

Do you admit that the acceleration rate increases faster for the heavier object as it descends than for the lighter object, at least according to the equation?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

You're talking about subjective perceptions of weight, which is irrelevant here. You would know that if you could think critically.

A 10kg object has twice the weight of a 5Kg object. That is an objective fact that is understood by second graders.

Your idea of "critical thinking" seems to be a complete denial of reality.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
You're talking about subjective perceptions of weight, which is irrelevant here. You would know that if you could think critically.

A 10kg object has twice the weight of a 5Kg object. That is an objective fact that is understood by second graders.

Your idea of "critical thinking" seems to be a complete denial of reality.

You're never going to admit that the acceleration increases faster for the heavier weight as altitude decreases, are you?

You're just going to keep bringing up other issues, like critical thinking, etc.

You can't just admit that it takes critical thinking to realize that you get a different acceleration rate when you do the calculations for a lower altitude.

Why can't you admit that? Stubborn pride? Denial?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You are wrong about that too.

The people who know real physics have to have their mathematics match reality. They aren't just pulling ideas out of their ass... they are using mathematics to land robots on Mars and send satellites into orbit. You can't just make stuff up. It has to work in reality.

The acceleration due to gravity on an object at any altitude is determined by the equation A = GM/(r^2). You can confirm that this is true by googling it ( e.g. https://www.toppr.com/guides/physics-formulas/acceleration-due-to-gravity-formula/ ).

Or if you want to try thinking critically, you can work through the mathematics yourself.

Code:

This is a consequence of the two equations.



F = ma



F = GMm/(r^2) [M is the mass of the planet, m is the mass of the object]



You can set the two forces equal to get 



ma = GMm(r^2) then you simplify by dividing both sides by "m"



a = GM/(r^2)

So acceleration due to gravity at any alitude is GM/(r^2) and has zero to do with the mass of the object.

Of course this is really important in reality. When we send objects into geosynchronous orbit, the mass of the object is irrelevant. Whether the object is 5kg or 10kg or 10,000 kg, a geosynchronous orbit will be at the same height.

1 Reply

Here is some more critical thinking

In LivingLava's world, the mass of an object changes the acceleration of gravity it experiences. This would impact the orbit. That would mean that a 10,000Kg object would have a different orbital speed than a 420,000kg object.

In the real world, they use Newton's laws to send a Dragon capsule (with about a 10,000 kg mass when loaded) to the International Space Station (with about a 420,000kg mass).

In the real world, in order to dock, the capsule needs to match orbits with the Space station so that they have the same speed. If the mass of the objects in orbit were part of the equation... this would be quite impossible without crashing at high speed.

In real Physics, the mathematics have to match how things work in the real world... or bad things happen.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are wrong about that too.

The people who know real physics have to have their mathematics match reality. They aren't just pulling ideas out of their ass... they are using mathematics to land robots on Mars and send satellites into orbit. You can't just make stuff up. It has to work in reality.

The acceleration due to gravity on an object at any altitude is determined by the equation A = GM/(r^2). You can confirm that this is true by googling it ( e.g. https://www.toppr.com/guides/physics-formulas/acceleration-due-to-gravity-formula/ ).

Or if you want to try thinking critically, you can work through the mathematics yourself.

Code:This is a consequence of the two equations. F = ma F = GMm/(r^2) [M is the mass of the planet, m is the mass of the object] You can set the two forces equal to get ma = GMm(r^2) then you simplify by dividing both sides by "m" a = GM/(r^2)

So acceleration due to gravity at any alitude is GM/(r^2) and has zero to do with the mass of the object.

Of course this is really important in reality. When we send objects into geosynchronous orbit, the mass of the object is irrelevant. Whether the object is 5kg or 10kg or 10,000 kg, a geosynchronous orbit will be at the same height.

It is amazing that you are denying a true mathematical analysis.

When you divide a larger numerator by a shrinking denominator, the ratio is going to increase faster for that larger denominator than for the smaller one.

So a 10kg object's ratio to the shrinking distance to the Earth as it's falling is going to produce a faster decline in ratio than a 5kg object whose distance has decreased the same amount.

The difference is miniscule, and probably unobservable empirically; but it is accurate according to the equation you recognize as valid.

Now instead of discussing the relevance of this fact, you just want to go on insulting me and talking about what science is so you can keep pretending to be king of the universe, but your authoritarianism is based on a foundation of anti-science and anti-education because you are avoiding the fundamentally interesting issue, which involves thinking critically about why the equation produces the results in does and why Galileo's experiment nevertheless resulted in only a single sound as the two cannonballs hit the ground simultaneously (or at least they appeared simultaneous according to the accuracy of human perception).

You aren't interested in critical scientific discussion so it's pointless having these discussions with you. You just want to preach authority about what you consider science to be, but you don't want to actually analyze science and scientific issues, at least not with honesty.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I am not insulting you. I am ridiculing your posts. There is a difference between insult and ridicule and your posts are ridiculous.

I am not sure from your last post that you know what the word "denominator" means. I don't know if you are truly incapable of understanding the math (this what is taught in first year Algebra), or if you are just being stubborn for the sake of the argument. I suspect the latter is the case or perhaps I might be a little more patient.

Either way it is ridiculous.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

hey there bestie Max, Did you miss me?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I am not insulting you. I am ridiculing your posts. There is a difference between insult and ridicule and your posts are ridiculous.

I am not sure from your last post that you know what the word "denominator" means. I don't know if you are truly incapable of understanding the math (this what is taught in first year Algebra), or if you are just being stubborn for the sake of the argument. I suspect the latter is the case or perhaps I might be a little more patient.

Either way it is ridiculous.

You're avoiding the issue with all these diversions.

It all goes back to the fact that I said the rate of falling is slightly greater for the heavier object and you used the equations to show that it was the same for both objects regardless of mass, yet now you won't admit that as the altitude changes, the acceleration has to increase because the heavier mass in the numerator has a ratio with the shrinking d^2 in the denominator that increases faster than the same ratio with the lighter mass and the same shrinking denominator.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Are you ever going to get this? This isn't that hard

1 ) The equation for the acceleration of an object toward a planet at any distance is

Code:



A = GM/(r^2)

where ='M' is the mass of the planet. You can google this and see it is true, or you can go look at the math from the previous comments. It is mathematically correct and it confirmed by experiment.

This means that the mass of the object doesn't affect its acceleration toward a planet one bit.

2) Don't confuse this with the equation for the force of gravity experienced by an object. This is

Code: F = GMm/(r^2)

Here 'M' is the mass of the planet, and 'm' is the mass of the object. Again you can google this. We have confirmed this by experiment. This means that an object with twice the mass will experience twice the force from gravity.

You can experience this simply by holding a heavy object in one hand and a light one in the other.

For people who are interested in mathematics and Physics.

You will remember that Newton's second law is F = ma. Substituting the two equations above you get

Code:



     F  =  m   *    a

GMm/(r^2) = m * GM/(r^2)

In words; the force of gravity on an object equals its mass times the acceleration due to gravity. The mathematics of Sir Isaac Newton all work out.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Are you ever going to get this? This isn't that hard

1 ) The equation for the acceleration of an object toward a planet at any distance is

Code:A = GM/(r^2)

where ='M' is the mass of the planet. You can google this and see it is true, or you can go look at the math from the previous comments. It is mathematically correct and it confirmed by experiment.

This means that the mass of the object doesn't affect its acceleration toward a planet one bit.

2) Don't confuse this with the equation for the force of gravity experienced by an object. This is

Code: F = GMm/(r^2)

Here 'M' is the mass of the planet, and 'm' is the mass of the object. Again you can google this. We have confirmed this by experiment. This means that an object with twice the mass will experience twice the force from gravity.

You can experience this simply by holding a heavy object in one hand and a light one in the other.

For people who are interested in mathematics and Physics.

You will remember that Newton's second law is F = ma. Substituting the two equations above you get

Code:F = m * a GMm/(r^2) = m * GM/(r^2)

In words; the force of gravity on an object equals its mass times the acceleration due to gravity. The mathematics of Sir Isaac Newton all work out.

Objects with more combined mass accelerate faster at the same distance than objects with less combined mass.

If that weren't true, then there would be no explanation for different rates of gravitational acceleration on different planets.

The mass of the heavier cannonball makes incredibly little difference in the combined mass with the Earth that determines the acceleration rate, but it is not zero.

If the object was the moon or some other huge object, the difference would be obvious.

Likewise, if Mars had the mass and diameter of Earth, it would have the same surface gravity as well.

The acceleration rate is not, however, determined purely by the mass and radius of the planet, but also by the mass of the falling object, hence the two mass terms in the equation.

I don't know why we are not getting the equation to show how this is true quantitatively, but it's either because we aren't applying the equation correctly or because the equation is somehow wrong, e.g. that it's been propagated in a wrong form for some reason. There's no other reason it shouldn't demonstrate acceleration changing for situations with different combined masses at the same distances.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Objects with more combined mass accelerate faster at the same distance than objects with less combined mass.

If that weren't true, then there would be no explanation for different rates of gravitational acceleration on different planets.

Isaac Newtons equation for acceleration due to gravity is

Code:



a = GM/(r^2)

Where 'M' is the mass of the planet.

That does explain the different rates of gravitational acceleration on different planets.

This is not that difficult. Will there be a point where you get this?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Isaac Newtons equation for acceleration due to gravity is

Code:a = GM/(r^2)

Where 'M' is the mass of the planet.

That does explain the different rates of gravitational acceleration on different planets.

This is not that difficult. Will there be a point where you get this?

Why won't you admit that the combined mass of both bodies matters, not just the planet.

What you are doing is ignoring that gravity works in fundamentally the same way for heavenly bodies as well as falling objects.

If the moon was double its current mass, it would accelerate faster at the same distance around the Earth, would it not? Isn't the rate of acceleration determined by the combined mass of both bodies as well as the distance of the bodies from each other?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

If the moon was double its current mass, it would accelerate faster at the same distance around the Earth, would it not?

No. That is not correct. The equation is A = GM/(r^2) (in this case the M is the mass of the Earth). Doubling the mass of the moon would not change its acceleration. The math is correct.

At this points, words are going to confuse you (which is one reason that in Physics we use math). You are going to start talking about "total mass".

However the math still works. This is the brilliance of Newton's Third law. The Force put on the Moon by the earth is equal to the Force put on the Earth by the Moon. The math is quite simple and elegant.

Code:



F = GMm/(r^2)

F = ma



Therefore ma = GMm/(r^2)



Therefore a = GM/(r^2)



This works for any 'M' or 'm' even if 'm' is greater than 'M'.

The math explains what actually happens in nature. The fact that this conflicts with your intuition is a problem with your intuition. There is no contradiction in the mathematics or in the science.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
If the moon was double its current mass, it would accelerate faster at the same distance around the Earth, would it not?

No. That is not correct. The equation is A = GM/(r^2) (in this case the M is the mass of the Earth). Doubling the mass of the moon would not change its acceleration. The math is correct.

At this points, words are going to confuse you (which is one reason that in Physics we use math). You are going to start talking about "total mass".

You're not just using words to lie, though. You're also denying the purpose of having both masses in the equation.

If the mass of the second body didn't matter, why would it be included in the equation?

Quote:

However the math still works. This is the brilliance of Newton's Third law. The Force put on the Moon by the earth is equal to the Force put on the Earth by the Moon. The math is quite simple and elegant.

Code:F = GMm/(r^2) F = ma Therefore ma = GMm/(r^2) Therefore a = GM/(r^2) This works for any 'M' or 'm' even if 'm' is greater than 'M'.

The math explains what actually happens in nature. The fact that this conflicts with your intuition is a problem with your intuition. There is no contradiction in the mathematics or in the science.

First of all, both masses have to accelerate toward each other as a result of gravitation between them. In practice, one is more stationary, but technically they both respond to the gravitation between them.

Second, if the combined mass of a system is greater, then gravitation is greater. It can be distributed in different ways depending on the mass of the two objects, but if the combined mass is lower, then overall gravitation must be lower and vice versa.

Third, gravitation increases as the distance between the mass decreases, so as an object falls closer to the Earth, gravitation is increasing and it's increasing more for heavier objects than for lighter objects, i.e. because the combined mass is greater, even if only slightly, for the heavier object and the planet.

Stop playing word/math games in order to lie about what's true. You are a wannabe magician who calls his magic 'science' in order to have yet another layer of lies to play with.

I don't know why I keep responding to your posts, because you will always go on and on lying rather than admit that the mass of both objects affects the acceleration rate, otherwise there would be no reason for different planets to have different gravitational forces.

0 Replies

The connection between Anti-Science and Anti-Education views.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know