physics help

[OnlyAmbrose]

My story has stayed pretty consistent.

I said that normal force equals gravity.

It does.

Gravity = mass times acceleration due to gravity (aka mg).

Normal force = mass times acceleration due to gravity (aka mg).

THEREFORE

Normal force = gravity.

[misterman10]

OK, now you got it. I guess I was just using the term gravity wrong for you, or in a different way you used it.

[The Weird One]

awww. . . *slinks off dejectedly without seeing a fight*

[OnlyAmbrose]

OK, now you got it. I guess I was just using the term gravity wrong for you, or in a different way you used it.

Pretty much it was a semantics misunderstanding. When you said "gravity", what you meant was "acceleration due to gravity", while I meant "the force of gravity."

Remember, little "g" does not equal gravity. It equals acceleration. Gravity is usually expressed as F(subscipt)g or simply big "G".

[freezie]

MM10, you've been contradicting what Ambrose has said everytimes, but you just now agree when he repeated himself for the..5th time?

he was right all along..

Mass X gravity = mmg. mmg is pretty much useless.

[misterman10]

MM10, you've been contradicting what Ambrose has said everytimes, but you just now agree when he repeated himself for the..5th time?

he was right all along..

Mass X gravity = mmg. mmg is pretty much useless.

Um,
no, I havent been contradicting what Ambrose has said, give me one example.

[freezie]

wow, your second year
I'm taking a college level physics course right now.

MG does not equal gravity. How can a mass of say 12 times gravity = gravity? Oh wait, it cannot. You may know more about The Bible than me, but not physics.

There is your exemple.

[misterman10]

wow, your second year
I'm taking a college level physics course right now.

MG does not equal gravity. How can a mass of say 12 times gravity = gravity? Oh wait, it cannot. You may know more about The Bible than me, but not physics.

There is your exemple.

and thats correct. MG does not equal the acceleration caused by gravity. But it does equal gravity as a force. If you read Ambrose's post, we were thinking two different gravitys

[xtratabasco]

alright, another question. here goes: You hold an apple over your head. (A)Identify all the forces acting on the apple and their reaction forces. (B)When you drop the apple, identify all the forces acting on it as it falls and the corresponding reaction forces. Neglect air drag

A: Gravity. ALWAYS. Then there is the force your head is doing against the apple, to counter gravity.

I think that's it, it's not moving, so..

B: Gravity. I really feel this is imcomplete..

Someone else can answer better than me, I took physic quite a while ago...I don't know if I forgot something

This is it... there is no reactive force when you drop the apple, it's just gravity. Remember, the definition of "free fall" is that the ONLY force acting on an object is gravity.

in other words, since the 911 twin towers fell as fast as "free fall" speed, they couldnt have come down in a pan-cake fashion like this government says.

The only reason it came down so fast was because it was pulled.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=6015

[OnlyAmbrose]

wow, your second year
I'm taking a college level physics course right now.

MG does not equal gravity. How can a mass of say 12 times gravity = gravity? Oh wait, it cannot. You may know more about The Bible than me, but not physics.

There is your exemple.

and thats correct. MG does not equal the acceleration caused by gravity. But it does equal gravity as a force. If you read Ambrose's post, we were thinking two different gravitys

freezie is actually technically correct, because you weren't technically talking about gravity. The definition of gravity is:

the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth.

You just made a common physics error in that you thought gravity was "g". No biggie, happens to the best of us.

[misterman10]

well if you want to get all technical

[Iliad]

alright, another question. here goes: You hold an apple over your head. (A)Identify all the forces acting on the apple and their reaction forces. (B)When you drop the apple, identify all the forces acting on it as it falls and the corresponding reaction forces. Neglect air drag

A: Gravity. ALWAYS. Then there is the force your head is doing against the apple, to counter gravity.

I think that's it, it's not moving, so..

B: Gravity. I really feel this is imcomplete..

Someone else can answer better than me, I took physic quite a while ago...I don't know if I forgot something

This is it... there is no reactive force when you drop the apple, it's just gravity. Remember, the definition of "free fall" is that the ONLY force acting on an object is gravity.

in other words, since the 911 twin towers fell as fast as "free fall" speed, they couldnt have come down in a pan-cake fashion like this government says.

The only reason it came down so fast was because it was pulled.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=6015

STop trying to hijack threads.

[freezie]

Let me put it this way: gravity does NOT equal 9.8 m*s^-2

ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY (aka "g") equals 9.8 m*s^-2

Gravity (the force) = mg

His first post in that fight.

How could you miss what he was talking about?

[misterman10]

Let me put it this way: gravity does NOT equal 9.8 m*s^-2

ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY (aka "g") equals 9.8 m*s^-2

Gravity (the force) = mg

His first post in that fight.

How could you miss what he was talking about?

Do you want to go into my mind and tell me what it was thinking?

[xtratabasco]

alright, another question. here goes: You hold an apple over your head. (A)Identify all the forces acting on the apple and their reaction forces. (B)When you drop the apple, identify all the forces acting on it as it falls and the corresponding reaction forces. Neglect air drag

A: Gravity. ALWAYS. Then there is the force your head is doing against the apple, to counter gravity.

I think that's it, it's not moving, so..

B: Gravity. I really feel this is imcomplete..

Someone else can answer better than me, I took physic quite a while ago...I don't know if I forgot something

This is it... there is no reactive force when you drop the apple, it's just gravity. Remember, the definition of "free fall" is that the ONLY force acting on an object is gravity.

in other words, since the 911 twin towers fell as fast as "free fall" speed, they couldnt have come down in a pan-cake fashion like this government says.

The only reason it came down so fast was because it was pulled.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=6015

STop trying to hijack threads.

just trying to help out CC like you do.


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25030

[misterman10]

just trying to help out CC like you do.


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25030

[Iliad]

alright, another question. here goes: You hold an apple over your head. (A)Identify all the forces acting on the apple and their reaction forces. (B)When you drop the apple, identify all the forces acting on it as it falls and the corresponding reaction forces. Neglect air drag

A: Gravity. ALWAYS. Then there is the force your head is doing against the apple, to counter gravity.

I think that's it, it's not moving, so..

B: Gravity. I really feel this is imcomplete..

Someone else can answer better than me, I took physic quite a while ago...I don't know if I forgot something

This is it... there is no reactive force when you drop the apple, it's just gravity. Remember, the definition of "free fall" is that the ONLY force acting on an object is gravity.

in other words, since the 911 twin towers fell as fast as "free fall" speed, they couldnt have come down in a pan-cake fashion like this government says.

The only reason it came down so fast was because it was pulled.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=6015

STop trying to hijack threads.

just trying to help out CC like you do.


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25030

I'm sorry if I want this site to expand and become better! Didn't know it was a crime!

[sully800]

LOL

I love hearing OnlyAmbrose say the same thing 5 times in a row (correctly).

And after the 5th time Misterman says, "Oh, now I think you're starting to get it...."

It was just an issue of semantics, with MM defining gravity incorrectly. You both understand the physics, only the term was causing confusion.

[Jehan]

man, i will always think force when anyone says gravity, its always been necessary to differentiate acceleration due to gravity as opposed to gravity, if you think about the phrase "acceleration due to gravity" its obvious its talking about gravity as a force. though I'm yet to do general relativity and have no idea whether this would change things.

[xtratabasco]

here is a lesson in gravity



Heikki Kurttila, D.Sc. (Tech.) (Doctor of Technology) – Safety Engineer and Accident Analyst, National Safety Technology Authority (TUKES), Finland. Specialist in the investigation of pressure vessel explosion accidents and the impacts of the shock waves caused by them.

Analysis of the collapse of WTC Building 7, 11/18/05: "Conclusion: The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. ... The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."

[freezie]

Xtra, we all beleive you. Not like we actually care about it, anyway.

Now stop trolling the forums with that, and keep it to a single thread.



Edit--Actually, don't even keep it to a single thread. Keep it to yourself.

[Jehan]

how does a controlled demolition make a building fall faster than an apple?

[Neutrino]

how does a controlled demolition make a building fall faster than an apple?

I think it is quite obvious The Government attached devices that localy enhanced the effect of gravity to the WTC, just so they could confuse all the conspiracists

[Jehan]

hehe, maybe for the fun of it they had attached rockets to the structure at key points, to make them fall much much faster.

[sully800]

how does a controlled demolition make a building fall faster than an apple?

Don't try to argue logically. All he does is quote other sources blindly. He never does any research or thinking for himself on the matter. If you put your own thoughts together he will tell you not to write so much, and then continue copying and pasting things that support his belief.

But yes, you have asked the perfectly reasonable question when presented with such facts- How would the building fall faster than an object in free fall (wind resistance accounted for)?