all right as a phisicist ou said smaller ball fell first, you dont have to read the links just what i copy past so you dont wast your time:

http://www.channel4.com/histor ... history/e-h/galileo1.html

Galileo also found that the weight of the ball did not matter – balls of different weights all arrived at the end of the ramp in the same time.

http://homepage.mac.com/dtrapp/ePhysics.f/labI_2.html

While Galileo might be right, he had no technology to actually measure the acceleration of a rapidly falling object. So he reasoned that an inclined plane would dilute the fall of a ball, but not change the nature of the steady acceleration.
Galileo was able to show that if the acceleration is steady, the the distance fallen will be proportional to the square of the time of fall: d = 1/2 at2, where a is the acceleration constant.


no mass to take into account in that formula


http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00210.htm


What he did do is make a ramp out of wood, and roll balls of
various weights down this ramp. The ramp allowed him extra time to measure
how long it took for the balls to reach the bottom. It took the same length
of time, no matter how heavy the balls were. This was the basis for a
well-known law of acceleration due to gravity.


and my fauvorite since it matches my experiments:

http://askville.amazon.com/Kin ... ewer.do?requestId=8795109


"Kindergarten kids tested ... istent with science"

whos gona question physics but who actually wantsto learn as kids, of course im a child in mind

you still don't understand that for balls of same weight, the acceleration while going down an incline is determined by moment of inertia of each ball, without taking air resistance into consideration.

also, i am expecting the proof of the 4th axiom's falseness.

are you saying all links provided are wrong and you are right, seems those links dont understand your point either

give me a single link saying smaller ball falls first i gave you plenty saying the opposite, im sick of momentums just prove it as i did

my father is a mathematician and he explained me plenty well the story if you want to learn search yourself if you want to discuss back up your info of the smaller ball falling 1st

this is funny, to study relativty and quantum physics and not having a clue about galileo experiment, man you need basic phisics before going cuantic

Quote from lerts :

give me a single link saying smaller ball falls first

Sorry, couldn't help myself

jesus christ and newton's apple. you're the most delusional person i've ever met, online or otherwise.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tcs93mPn91E

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7mxV6f5nuJY

also you have to prove that parallels in euclidean geometry, in fact, intersect. (do keep in mind that the definition of parallel lines is "lines that do not intersect". if you actually somehow "prove" it, it means that nothing is true or false and everything is true and false, by means of destroying the meaning of the word "definition". you are actually arguing that, somehow, 1=2 )

no matter what you say about your father your mother or your entire family tree will give you credit for anything. my father is a chemical engineer and my mother has studied political sciences, so what?

from what we have seen since now is someone who has studied 7 years about "inertial thrust" yet hasn't even gotten to grasp with basic ideas like conservation of quantities. you are arguing that if i put 2 apples in an empty basket, i somehow can get 3 apples from that basket. you can argue that this is some kind of "bias" or some kind of "bad teaching" but in the end of the day, you have a basket with 2 apples till they ****ing rot. not 3. 2.

sphere, disc, ring, of this only the sphere is a ball, in the 1st case

sphere, disc, ring, double semiring, only the 1st is a ball

so you dont even know what a ball is?

you said small ball and big ball, a ball is not a ring or a disc, didnt you watch sesame street?

so im still waiting for a link that says a small ball falls first

ball not ring, if posible solid though id like to know if current physics consider than a hollow ball falls at the same time than solid one (edit not they dont)

i suppose youmust think my links are a lie, is this correct?, id like to know the answer to this

so far its being proved you are more delusional than me yo dont even know what a ball is

as we say in spain you went to get sheep wool and you got your hair shaved

i wont laugh at you anymore cuase i didnt like it when you did to me so ill be constructive:

take a 1 kg ball with 1 m radius vs one of 1 kg with 2 m radius:

1m radius ball:

I=2/5*m*r2=0.4
2 m radius ball
I=1.6
supposing an equal final speed of 1 m/s for both:
w1=1
w2=0.5

L=I*w
L1=0.4*1=0.4
L2=1.6*0.5=0.8

E=1/2 L*w^2

E1=1/2*0.4*1^2=0.2
E2=1/2*0.8*0.5^2=0.2

as you can see only way for energy be equal as must be weighting both balls the same is they both falling at the same rate

i hope you have fixed your confusion

actually got it wrong E=1/2*I*w^2

so E1= 1/2*0.4*1^2=0.2
E2=1/2*1.6*0.5^2=0.2

supposely energy is still conserved so they both fall at same rate

Lerts is the best (unintentional?) forum troll ever.

as for the 5th postulate:

it was set by euclides, he thought it could be proved from the 4 other axioms but he was unable, ever since this was one of the problems that more thought was dedicated to

in the 19th century gauss supposed to make a reductio ad absurdum what if not only one but can pass 2 straight lines paralel trough a point and he found there was no contradiction, but he didnt dare to publish it since it was too grounbreaking his discovery that it was posible having two lines through that point

later lobachesky whose father knew gauss published it, probably he copied it from gauss

later another guy even supposed no straight line could go through an exterior point of that line, no contradiction either

this proved the fith axiom independent and ended with more of 2000 years of misconception and splitting gemetry from maths

jesus ****ing christ is this guy for real? is he doing drugs?

you are trying to prove conservation of energy is false.

your "experiments" have been done by others a zillion times in a billion different areas of science both microscopic and macroscopic. the silly analysis you have been doing is just false. i don't have to explain details. just use a ****ing yoyo and measure initial and final state.

also, you said

Quote :

paralel lines cut in euclidean geometry, it broke a 24 centry axiom, thats why geometry splitted from maths

. you wrote something, but it is not a proof of this theory. the theory still holds perfectly.

Quote :

supposing an equal final speed of 1 m/s for both:

yeah. "supposing" too much here. you don't know the final velocity of either ball.

since you're so good that you can actually challenge conservation of energy analyse this: (this is an example of how you explain things)

A (not necessarily solid) sphere of mass M and moment of inertia I goes (rotating) down a slope of angle φ in earths field of gravity g. The sphere does not slide

calculate α(t) where α is the linear acceleration of the ball using the quantities named.

George, please, stop wasting so much time.

He lives in a world incomprehensible to us. Just think of it this way: who is he harming by spouting this nonsense? No one, that's the answer. If someone really believes his pseudo/stoner science then they deserve what they get. Just leave him be, you can't convert or educate him on that matter.

i want to see just how detached from reality he is.

Just click here then, but prepare for the full blast.

am i supposed to be looking at a specific post?

i was expecting a specific post or thread... i am somehow disappointed, android

The point is that there is no post that isn't insane, though I guess if you look at the oldest posts first you'll see the ones where he's more "spiritually" focused, then some time later when he started laying off the drugs the topic wanders more into the realm of pseudo-science. He'd make an excellent psychology study subject.

the 5th axiom is not wrong is independent, revolutionary though but not wrong

i was wrong about that one

yet i still say both small and big ball according to phisics fall at same rate

i proved it with 3 serious mainstream links and mathematically

you proved you cant even tell a ball from a ring or a disc

forget 5th axiom i was wrong and prove the small ball falls 1st, i did it with 3 links and a demonstration


so you wont discuss wether the small ball falls 1st, i proved it, you just proved 1st to be an ignorant who extrapolates wrongly from race momentum that smaller momentum goes faster, when its bloody obvious that the big ball though having more momentum also have a thicker axle of spin so w is slower

small ball falls first cause i saw a momentum race and smaller momentum won and like the small ball has smaller momentum...

go and check it as you preach, or prove it or admit you are wrong but stop calling me names with your gang

Give Lert som brake, he is posting what he thinks is reality, you can't judge him for that.
Beside, he at least posting things that got a meaning, even if it's him

Lerts for presiden.

Quote from lerts :

yet i still say both small and big ball according to phisics fall at same rate

they don't fall, they roll. same mass, different moment of inertia, the one with smaller moment of inertia goes faster. the experiment with the ball, ring and disc shows this. so between different balls, same mass, different moment of inertia, the smaller sized one will go faster down the slope. it won't slide. if it did slide and not roll, then all would go the same, because at that case, only mass matters. when objects of same mass roll, moment of inertia matters.

Quote from lerts :

i proved it with 3 serious mainstream links and mathematically

you didn't prove nothing. you gave pointers.

if you want, solve the easy problem that i asked.

calculate the linear acceleration α of a sphere, with mass m, radius r and moment of inertia I, that is rolling down a ramp that is at angle φ with the horizontal.

Quote from lerts :

you proved you cant even tell a ball from a ring or a disc

that's preposterus. of course i know the difference. you didn't notice why i pasted that particular link. when you want to analyse something you change only one variable. i keep size and mass the same and change only the moment of inertia so we can see how that particular variable (and only that) changes the phenomenon.

Quote from lerts :

forget 5th axiom i was wrong and prove the small ball falls 1st, i did it with 3 links and a demonstration

i've seen it in experiments that between spheres of same size and mass, the one with different moment of inertia (that is, different distribution of each one's mass). the one with smaller moment of inertia goes faster. between spheres of same mass and moment of inertia, the larger one goes faster.

education system is pathetic here no clue:

http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9542

and you keep not knowing what a solid ball is

a hollow ball is not a solid ball

a ball with a lead core is not a solid ball

we were talking about small marble(maybe with this you understand what a solid ball is) vs a big marble

did you race a big marble vs a small marble?

edit:

you said object of smaller moment o inertia falls first, take a look at these tyres:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/tyres.jpg

obviously biggest one has bigger moment of inertia than smallest one

at the end of the ramp samll one goes a 97 kmph and big one at 141kph

as can be seen here:

http://www.break.com/index/rolling-tires-off-a-ski-jump.html

exactly the contrary to what you said

you're just an idiot.

honestly

Imo, if you call a person a idiot because he's telling his opinions - then your the idiot.
Much like religious wars, where people belive their opinions and belives are stronger than others. Tho, well hehe, we most know's how things is, we have no right to force people to belive the same as us, nor call them idiot for that.

"your the idiot", heh? i ain't the one spouting pseudoscientific garbage and that is not only my opinion, if you care to follow the thread a bit. from what i've seen though, you must not be too bright yourself either, dear TVE. you said you couldn't follow his thoughts... you very well could have tested his "solution" to the system of equations! if you're older than 16 you certainly must, unless you're a retard. really. older than 16 and can't substitute x and y in one mathematic formula? you're not in a position to determine who is the idiot here. harsh? maybe.

if he doesn't solve the problem i asked him to, he isn't worth shit. if he is such a ****ing great engineer as he says, that he can challenge the highest held tennets of human knowledge, he certainly can solve a basic mechanics problem.

but i guess he can't, since he can't even solve a very simple 2 variable system of equations (without the help of a computer anyway... )

his screenshot for the tyre race shows nothing. he still doesn't understand (nor you, it seems, otherwise you wouldn't say this competely off-course "your the idiot".) that when you want to see how a variable affects a phenomenon you change only that one and keep all the others the same . the larger tyre not only has greater moment of inertia but it also has greater mass and greater radius... if you remember the race with the ball the disc and... the other thing, they had same mass same radius... the only different thing was their moment of inertia.


and you are making the terrible, terrible mistake of mixing science with religion... 1+1=2 isn't "belief" or "opinion". if you can't understand that you're a retard. is it that hard to swallow? can't you see the difference between this and "god exists" ? can't you see the difference between knowledge and belief? or do you "believe" they are the same? that somehow the "belief" that "1+1=2" is subjective? ha

TVE just wanted to point out that calling someone an idiot kinda makes you look like an idiot yourself. Not related to all the theories and formulas in this thread. Just a general pointer, that calling somebody an idiot isn't a very smart thing to do. I thought it was pretty simple to understand what he was trying to say there.

You also called people retards, not being worth shit, etc now. Is that how a "bright" person would act in an argument/discussion?

If TVE knew the first thing about basic primary school science he'd also know that Lerts is, in this regard, an idiot.

yeah, whatever

me calling anyone anything, isn't an indication that my arguments are wrong or correct. they might be violation of the forum's rules, but only that.

you got anything else to say, except "omg your said a mean word! your wrogn!" ? i'd love to here it

tristan, it is not worth it, for you, to soil your hands in this thread...