Gravity = mass times acceleration due to gravity (aka mg).
Normal force = mass times acceleration due to gravity (aka mg).
THEREFORE
Normal force = gravity.
"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
misterman10 wrote: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".
"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
misterman10 wrote: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.
misterman10 wrote: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
lord twiggy1 wrote: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.
misterman10 wrote: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.
"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
lord twiggy1 wrote: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.
lord twiggy1 wrote: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.
lord twiggy1 wrote: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.
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.
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."
Jehan wrote: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
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes, we own all your generals. Touch us and you loooose...
Jehan wrote: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)?
