Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Lilalena, May 13, 2011.
In other words made up bullshit.
So where is your "verification" that you got from google?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
You are under the impression that nature is the same as firing a gun?
Not what I said.
I asked (and I'll repeat the question) "What speed isn't "forced"?"
Why do think that a speed achieved under acceleration from gravity* is somehow different from that achieved due to propulsion by a cartridge?
* And you have yet to explain what meant by this:
The question, posed to Signal, is contained in posts 163 and 170. Signal should answer the question and then we will say "force speed" is an error.
Signal should answer the question since his response was "absolutely" to:
Well since the test is confined to this planet then dropping something is not forced, since it is a given that the propped object will react the same way and no force is exerted behind it. Firing from a gun (due to the explosion behind it) is forced. Its speed is force speed.
Still wrong. ONE MORE TIME: "force speed" is an invention of yours, hence Signal cannot be required to "explain" it.
And Signal's "absolutely" referred to the requirement that those involved in a discussion should at least have some knowledge of the topic and background. This is where you fail.
Something dropped undergoes acceleration due to gravity - this "forces" the speed to increase. How is that different from something being fired from a gun?
You're inventing totally specious terms/ distinctions. Especially as what is under consideration is the final impact speed, not how it's achieved. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well now you have the knowledge too. You have the force, you should be thankful.
Edited to add the "o" to too. Seeing how judgmental and predilection towards preconceived notions is rampant in some here i wouldn't want to be judged by leaving out one little "o".
The knowledge to what? Explain the difference? According to your own example there is no difference.
If only you had brains.
Edit (added after you corrected your error on to/ too):
What do you mean "too"? You have singularly failed to show any knowledge here, so the word "too" doesn't apply.
So then what is the problem with it?
As already stated: why use an invented term when there's a perefctly good, and generally accepted one already in use?
Plus, of course, speed and acceleration are not synonymous so your original use was in error.
And why are you still persisting in claiming there's some inherent difference in means (i.e gravitational/ propulsive) of acceleration?
It is important. The reason it is important is because like an egg disintegrating (under force) in the air then we can conclude that air is as unyielding as concrete...only we would be wrong. It was not the air that shattered the egg but the force behind the egg. Once you go and add these extenuating circumstances you rig the test.
No. It isn't. In the slightest.
You seem here to be conflating breaking up under acceleration (which could also occur in a vacuum) with breaking up under aerodynamic stresses due to speed.
It would help if you read the thread.
I have been...just what you say doesn't make any sense to me.
Welcome to the club.
But then again, John99 has a habit of not making sense.
Do you understand the egg example i laid out?
The answer to op is: No, water is not as unyielding as concrete.
Your egg example is nonsense. Not only a waste of our time but an unnecessary diversion from topic.
Separate names with a comma.