(August 28, 2014 at 12:41 pm)Drich Wrote: the average where, is the point. This 'average' is only a good average at or near sea level, in a warm enviroment.

the average rate of gravitiational acceleration in denver will always be higher than the average in NYC

I've been staring at this; flummoxed by what I would previously have considered an impossible concentration of ignorance and stupidity. I have tried to understand by assuming Drich's brain to be an inverse black hole relative to fact acquisition, but wan't satisfied. Next, the scene from Spaceballs where Dark Helmet's ship reached ludicrous spead resulting in Barf's observation "They've gone to plaid" popped in my head.

(August 28, 2014 at 2:32 pm)Natachan Wrote: "How do you know this to be true? Because the internet told you? because you read it in a book? Even if what you read was correct, you should then ask are their any other variables that can change this formula? "

Because I took an object and dropped it through a set of laser gates which measured the time it took to fall and the velocity of the object at different points. I then used the data to calculate the rate of acceleration. The answer I got was within tolerances I would expect of the accepted answer, providing for errors in significant figures and small errors in the equipment. Because of this I find the answer of 9.807m/s•s to be credible.

"What if i told you the gravitional rate on earth increases when the drag coefficient decreases? so to say "The gravitational acceleration rate on Earth is 9.8 m/s²" is at best an estimation. because the higher up you go the higher the gravitional rate will increase up to an objects terminal velocity. as the atmosphere thickens more drag is applied and the terminal velocity will decrease and the acceleration rate will also decrease the closer one gets to sea level..."

Hahaha!!!

No.

The rate of acceleration due to gravity decreases the further you get from sea level. I have a very nice potential energy curve in my physics book that shows this. The air resistance is a completely different factor, a differential that decreases with an increase in altitude. The reason you might assume as you do is because the rate at which the air resistance differential approaches zero is greater than the decrease in the change in acceleration due to gravity.

Physics nitpicker, away!!!

I love it when you guys go way out on a limb and do not speak to the specific points I plot and plan into my posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

Gravity decreases with altitude as one rises above the earth's surface because greater altitude means greater distance from the Earth's center. All other things being equal, an increase in altitude from sea level to 9,000 metres (30,000 ft) causes a weight decrease of about 0.29%. (An additional factor affecting apparent weight is the decrease in air density at altitude, which lessens an object's buoyancy.[8] This would increase a person's apparent weight at an altitude of 9,000 metres by about 0.08%)

It is a common misconception that astronauts in orbit are weightless because they have flown high enough to "escape" the Earth's gravity. In fact, at an altitude of 400 kilometres (250 mi), equivalent to a typical orbit of the Space Shuttle, gravity is still nearly 90% as strong as at the Earth's surface. Weightlessness actually occurs because orbiting objects are in free-fall.[9]

The effect of ground elevation depends on the density of the ground (see Slab correction section). A person flying at 30 000 ft above sea level over mountains will feel more gravity than someone at the same elevation but over the sea. However, a person standing on the earth's surface feels less gravity when the elevation is higher.

The following formula approximates the Earth's gravity variation with altitude:

g_h=g_0\left(\frac{r_e}{r_e+h}\right)^2
Where

gh is the gravitational acceleration at height h\, above sea level.
re is the Earth's mean radius.
g0 is the standard gravitational acceleration.
This formula treats the Earth as a perfect sphere with a radially symmetric distribution of mass; a more accurate mathematical treatment is discussed below.

The point you seemed to miss?
That the gh is a variable that was not accounted for in the inital post that said that said the average gravitational acceleration rate on Earth is 9.8 m/s².
Clearly it was not. and my point stands, that it takes a measure of faith to believe that what one understands as truth/fact is complete.

---

(August 28, 2014 at 2:49 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Almost fifty pages in, I still don't know why knocking is so important. You'd think a deity would make his proxies a little more concise.

It is spelled out in the OP.

The short version:

When one asks and seeks often time the answer to that prayer results in what most of you lable as atheism. Why? Because the picture of God many of us start out with is so corrupt God has to let that picture of Him die out in your mind completely first. Other wise if he were to support you, you would just hold that corrupt version of god closer to your heart.

Christ demonstrates this in the parable of the wise and foolish builders. (Again which is explained in greater deatail in the OP)

To continue to seek the truth in Atheism will have you leave your corrupt version of God, and eventually have you build a correct picture of Him. One that He can get behind and support.

---

What if I called you carox?

---

(August 28, 2014 at 3:38 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(August 28, 2014 at 12:41 pm)Drich Wrote: the average where, is the point.

He said "the average gravitational acceleration rate on Earth."

You responded to him that 'other variables can change the formula' (I assume that you mean that other variables can change the result). My point is that the word "average" takes this into account; by definition, it recognizes that the results fall into a range that is dependent on one or more variables.

but again that average is only valid at sea level. therefore not a true average. there is a 0.9% variance in that average therefore the true average 9.8 m/s². Plus 0.45%

Because again 9.8 m/s² is the low end of the scale and 0.9% + 9.8 m/s² is the high end. to split the difference @ 0.45% is the true average...

uh-oh.. It looks like you all had faith in the INTERPERTATION of facts you knew to be right, was misplaced!



Tell me again stimbo about how thick the irony is..

... and where did you get those facts? Books, the internet? where they wrong?? Or again was your faith in your interpertation wrong???

Looks like you all planted your mustard seed's worth of faith in the wrong field.

---

(August 28, 2014 at 4:02 pm)Cato Wrote:

(August 28, 2014 at 12:41 pm)Drich Wrote: the average where, is the point. This 'average' is only a good average at or near sea level, in a warm enviroment.

the average rate of gravitiational acceleration in denver will always be higher than the average in NYC

I've been staring at this; flummoxed by what I would previously have considered an impossible concentration of ignorance and stupidity. I have tried to understand by assuming Drich's brain to be an inverse black hole relative to fact acquisition, but wan't satisfied. Next, the scene from Spaceballs where Dark Helmet's ship reached ludicrous spead resulting in Barf's observation "They've gone to plaid" popped in my head.

maybe wait till the fat lady has sung before doing your victory dance..

Otherwise you may be made to look foolish when caught dancing with no music playing.

1. Over extending the anaology much?

2. You can test this, and get results from it.

3. Without knowing the gravitiational acceleration rate on Earth, we couldn't put satillites into orbit, or a man on the moon, or probes and rovers onto other planets, etc...

I'm a physics nitpicker. It's what I do. Well, that and build bridges and roads. I like bridges.

"Gravity decreases with altitude as one rises above the earth's surface because greater altitude means greater distance from the Earth's center. All other things being equal, an increase in altitude from sea level to 9,000 metres (30,000 ft) causes a weight decrease of about 0.29%. (An additional factor affecting apparent weight is the decrease in air density at altitude, which lessens an object's buoyancy.[8] This would increase a person's apparent weight at an altitude of 9,000 metres by about 0.08%)"

I don't see how this contradicts what I said. The differentials that rule over changes in air density over changes in altitude changes faster than the rate at which the gravitational potential energy curve decreases. I'm not going to address the free fall of astronauts because I'm going to assume everyone has taken a high school physical science course.

Edit: ooh! Found a handy dandy table in my fluid dynamics book! G @ sea level: 9.807. G @ 80,000m: 9.564. Difference of 2.5%. Density at the same places: 1.225 and 0.00001846 kg/m3. Difference of 99.998%. Dynamic viscosity: 1.821E-5 and 1.321E-5. Difference of 27.5%.

"Clearly it was not. and my point stands, that it takes a measure of faith to believe that what one understands as truth/fact is complete."

I've explained the experiment I ran to find the acceleration of gravity. That required no faith. I can measure it, I can observe it, I can retest and verify it. I can have others do the exact same thing and get the same result. That's not faith.

The whole point of having an average value of things like the acceleration due to gravity on Earth is that we can do simple calculations with that value without having to worry to much about precision. The value doesn't vary much on the scales you would use on a day to day basis. Stop avoiding the points people are making by being way too pedantic about their analogies.

It takes no faith to use this value - most people understand the word average.

He knew nothing of how gravity worked, thought he could bullshit about it just like he bullshits all along about his knocking crap. when called on it, he looked it up on Wikipedia and weaseled by pretending he knew all along, ignoring the little whopper of ignorant turd he dropped about gravity being dependent upon temperature.

What a contemptible, false, lying, stupid, impertinent, pretentious, ignorant, superstitious, cantankerous, overreaching little piece of worthless shit.

[Physics for AF.org users]

Newton's law of gravity goes something like this:

F = G (M.m)/r^2

where 'M' is the mass of one of the bodies, 'm' is the mass of the other body, 'r' is the distance between the center of the two bodies and G is the universal constant of gravity: 6.673 84E-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

If you approximate 'r' to the radius of the planet, 'R' (this assumes you're working at sea level and never go far beyond that, so that the approximation R+h ~= R stands, remember, R~=6371km, so I guess this works well for h < 10km and approximately well for h<100km).

So, we have:
F = G M.m/R^2

Let's put in there Earth's mass, Radius and the constant, and put the second objects mass as the first element:

F = m * 6.673 84E-11 * 5.97219E24/ 6371000^2 = m * 9.82

And that gives us the famous: F = m.g

At 10km distance from sea level, g = 9.79 m.kg.s-2
At 100km from sea level, g = 9.52 m.kg.s-2

I hope this puts to rest some of everyone's troubles.

But where is warmth in all this, drich told us gravity depended on warmth.



Btw, gravity does in fact depend on warmth, if warmth I'd rigorously defined as the amount of thermal energy in the earth. BUT as certainly as drich knows jack shit about physics, the relationship between warmth and gravity is not what drich thinks. And in the real world many other higher order effects would influence the force of the pull of gravity, such as the complicated non-concentric mass distribution of the earth, the deformation of the earth by gravity of moon and sun, etc, FAR,FAR, more than the amount of thermal energy in the earth.

By E=MC^2, energy is mass, and warmth is the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the substance involved. So a warmer object does have more energy, and by equivalence more mass than a cooler but otherwise identical object. So a warmer object excerpts a slightly greater gravitational pull than a cooler one. But the amount of gravity caused by thermal energy is vanishingly small next to the gravity of the rest mass. No spacecraft has yet had its orbit gone meaningfully awry by its handler ignoring the thermal component of the earth's gravitational mass.

Well temperature does affect air density, so it would affect your terminal velocity.

(August 29, 2014 at 11:27 am)Natachan Wrote: Well temperature does affect air density, so it would affect your terminal velocity.

Terminal velocity, not gravitational acceleration.