Where did your god come from?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well given that understanding physics is what allowed us to build our modern
world, including but by no means limited to the computers we are writing these
posts on... I don't think you can plausibly claim they are wasting their time.

Science works.

Claiming otherwise in the modern age is just plain stupid.

If it didn't work we wouldn't be l ...[text shortened]... d die.


*Although it's sadly not often the scientists themselves who make much money.

that's all great. but why do you think any-one is yet to find an answer to this nothing 🙂

Originally posted by tim88
that's all great. but why do you think any-one is yet to find an answer to this nothing 🙂

We don't know everything.

Finding stuff out takes time and effort.

And you can only find some things out after you have discovered other things first.

However, in the past we knew almost nothing.

In the present we know an awful lot.

In the future we will know even more.


The reason we don't yet know stuff has traditionally been, and usually still is, because
we haven't figured that out yet.

There is an awful lot of universe to understand.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well given that understanding physics is what allowed us to build our modern
world, including but by no means limited to the computers we are writing these
posts on... I don't think you can plausibly claim they are wasting their time.

Science works.

Claiming otherwise in the modern age is just plain stupid.

If it didn't work we wouldn't be l ...[text shortened]... d die.


*Although it's sadly not often the scientists themselves who make much money.

Studying God's creations is one way we learn and gain knowledge and understanding. We can't gain knowledge and understanding by studying nothing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Studying God's creations is one way we learn and gain knowledge and understanding. We can't gain knowledge and understanding by studying nothing.

us humans made up nothing all in our minds, that there must have been nothing first to make something, but we have never seen nothing. it's human instinct to know you can't make something from nothing "What the nose knows" "Nobody knows. looks like it 🙂

Originally posted by tim88
it's human instinct to know you can't make something from nothing

it's instinctive to think the world is flat
it's instinctive to think objects are solid
it's instinctive to think the sun goes round the earth
it's instinctive to think speed can be felt
it's instinctive to make up supernatural stories about the unexplained

edit for Caissad4

Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]it's instinctive to think heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects

Almost 20 years ago a scientific study determined that heavier objects do fall faster than lighter objects. The difference is only observable with very sensitive equipment since it is so small.

Originally posted by caissad4
Almost 20 years ago a scientific study determined that heavier objects do fall faster than lighter objects. The difference is only observable with very sensitive equipment since it is so small.

Whose side you on?!?!?

😉

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Whose side you on?!?!?
😉

Sorry. It just happens that I had a rather heated argument with my sophomore physics teacher (Mr LaLiberte) way back in 1970. Since that day I waited for science to vindicate me and prove the old prof wrong. 😀

Originally posted by wolfgang59
well ... ?

Mine always was, is, and will be.
He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Kelly

Originally posted by caissad4
Almost 20 years ago a scientific study determined that heavier objects do fall faster than lighter objects. The difference is only observable with very sensitive equipment since it is so small.

I hope that air resistance was negated.

This is the only reason a brick falls faster than a feather.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I hope that air resistance was negated.

This is the only reason a brick falls faster than a feather.

This may be so, but I will put more faith in a feather, falling on my head, doing less damage than a brick or bowling ball any day.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is the only reason a brick falls faster than a feather.

Actually, no, it is not the only reason. We typically assume that the gravitational pull of the object is negligible with respect to the earth, but in reality, the larger the object the more gravitational pull it has of its own, and the higher the acceleration. I am not sure if this could be measured for objects on earth, but I suspect it makes quite a difference on a space ship and its critically important for objects as large as the moon. The orbit of the moon is dependant on its mass.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This may be so, but I will put more faith in a feather, falling on my head, doing less damage than a brick or bowling ball any day.

I don't think there is much to damage in your head anyway rj, so nothing to worry about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually, no, it is not the only reason. We typically assume that the gravitational pull of the object is negligible with respect to the earth, but in reality, the larger the object the more gravitational pull it has of its own, and the higher the acceleration. I am not sure if this could be measured for objects on earth, but I suspect it makes quite a di ...[text shortened]... ally important for objects as large as the moon. The orbit of the moon is dependant on its mass.

Ummm... Gravitational force [Newtonian] is given as F=G((M1 * M2)/(r^2))

So for the feather and the cannon ball falling to Earth...

The Force acting on each object is proportional to their mass.

However acceleration is proportional to Force and inversely proportional to mass.

The mass cancels out.

The heavier object gets a stronger force pulling it, but has a higher mass, and so
accelerates at exactly the same speed as the lighter mass (absent air resistance).



If this is a genuine thing, and not experimental error and/or air resistance...

Then this is going to be a GR issue.


We have always had to account for the fact that heavier objects experience
more force, to account for equal acceleration.


What normally gets left out is the Earth accelerating up to meet them.

Granted THAT will be bigger for the larger mass object... but I seriously doubt they
can measure that...

Originally posted by googlefudge
However acceleration is proportional to Force and inversely proportional to mass.

The mass cancels out.

I must be missing something here then. Surely the earth accelerates towards the object too? If that is independent of the mass of the earth why doesn't the earth jump upwards every time you drop something?

Is the orbit of a satellite (including man made ones and moons) independent of its mass?