Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flat Earth Society
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 38 of 119 (818976)
09-04-2017 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluegenes
09-09-2013 2:53 AM


I was surprised to find that Neil deGrasse Tyson believes in a flat Earth. Here's what he said;
quote:
A bullet fired level from a gun will hit ground at same time as a bullet dropped from the same height. Do the Physics.
Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) August 11, 2010 50 Awesome Quotes by Neil deGrasse Tyson » TwistedSifter
Do the physics and you will find this is only true on a flat Earth. In fact, we Round Earthers believe that if a bullet is fired level fast enough (>11.2 km/s) it will never hit the ground!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluegenes, posted 09-09-2013 2:53 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by dwise1, posted 09-04-2017 9:29 PM CRR has replied
 Message 43 by Stile, posted 09-05-2017 9:14 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 09-05-2017 12:38 PM CRR has not replied
 Message 47 by Rrhain, posted 09-06-2017 3:51 AM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 41 of 119 (818995)
09-04-2017 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by dwise1
09-04-2017 9:29 PM


It actually makes a bit over 1m height difference over 4084m. That should provide a measurable difference in the time it takes the bullet to reach the ground.
No rifle can fire a bullet fast enough but IF it could fire one at escape velocity plus a bit for air resistance (>11.2 km/s) then it would never hit the ground.
So when you do the physics Neil deGrasse Tyson is a Flat Earther!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by dwise1, posted 09-04-2017 9:29 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2017 7:51 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 51 by dwise1, posted 09-06-2017 2:39 PM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 46 of 119 (819087)
09-05-2017 9:50 PM


Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson is a Flat Earther!
My post at Message 38 was somewhat tongue in cheek and has sparked an interesting discussion. I must admit I was surprised myself at the difference the Earth's curvature could make over a few kilometers. I wonder where we could find a flat (i.e. spherical) plain of sufficient extent to confirm this experimentally?
In a similar vein I also say Galileo was wrong in his experiment dropping weights off the leaning tower of Pisa; the heavy one should hit the ground first.

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rrhain, posted 09-06-2017 4:11 AM CRR has replied
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 09-06-2017 3:17 PM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 53 of 119 (819134)
09-06-2017 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rrhain
09-06-2017 4:11 AM


Re: Galileo was wrong
RrHain writes:
But then again, they did this on the moon with a hammer and a feather.
What's the difference between doing this on the moon compared to the Earth?
The gravity is lower so they fall slow enough to be observed. There is close to a vacuum so air resistance doesn't affect the fall.
Earth however has atmosphere. Two objects of different masses, same material, same shape, will fall at different rates due to air resistance. In the case of cannon balls this would only be detectable with very precise measuring equipment, such as would not have been available to Galileo, but it will make a slight difference and the heavier one will fall faster.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rrhain, posted 09-06-2017 4:11 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Rrhain, posted 09-06-2017 9:15 PM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 54 of 119 (819135)
09-06-2017 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by dwise1
09-06-2017 2:39 PM


Re: Do the Math!
Thank you Dwise1 for your detailed calculations. You have confirmed what I said; do the physics and the fired bullet will hit the ground later than the dropped one. This effect becomes more pronounced with higher muzzle velocities.
There's no reason why you can't stand on a platform to do this experiment so that the initial height could be 9.81 meters if you wanted. That would make the drop time 1 second (neglecting air resistance). The bullet will take a fraction longer to hit the ground.
You could even do this on the moon and almost eliminate air resistance. The smaller radius and lower gravity will enhance the difference in fall time.
The escape velocity of the moon is 2.38km/s which is getting much closer to a rifle muzzle velocity. Potentially you could produce a rifle that could fire a bullet at escape velocity on the moon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by dwise1, posted 09-06-2017 2:39 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by caffeine, posted 09-07-2017 1:21 PM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 60 of 119 (819184)
09-07-2017 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by caffeine
09-07-2017 1:21 PM


Re: Do the Math!
caffeine writes:
Assuming no air resistance, the drop time would be closer to 1 1/2 seconds
You're right! Turns out I can make mistakes too.
s=(1/2)at^2; so the platform should be high enough to give an initial height of 4.9m. Or you can start with an initial height of 19.6m to get a 2 second drop time.
Edited by CRR, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by caffeine, posted 09-07-2017 1:21 PM caffeine has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 61 of 119 (819190)
09-07-2017 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by NoNukes
09-07-2017 4:12 PM


Re: Do the Math!
NoNukes writes:
By the way, heavy "objects hit the ground first due to air resistance" requires a lot of qualifiers.
Indeed it does, which is why I said "cannon balls'. Same density, same shape, different sizes.
Except for a bit of variation with Reynolds Number;
Drag is proportional to Dia^2
Weight is proportional to Dia^3
So the heavy one will fall faster, although as I said the difference would have been undetectable for Galileo.
Incidentally, I remember seeing/hearing that Galileo was repeating an experiment performed by someone else. Good science to replicate the experiment.
Edited by CRR, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 09-07-2017 4:12 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2017 3:08 AM CRR has replied
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 09-08-2017 9:22 AM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 66 of 119 (819228)
09-08-2017 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rrhain
09-08-2017 3:08 AM


Re: Do the Math!
quote:
Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1589—92,[1] the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei (then professor of mathematics at the University of Pisa) is said to have dropped two spheres of different masses from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to demonstrate that their time of descent was independent of their mass, according to a biography by Galileo's pupil Vincenzo Viviani, composed in 1654 and published in 1717.
[It] is accepted by most historians that it was a thought experiment which did not actually take place.[7][8] An exception is Drake, who argues that it took place, more or less as Viviani described it, as a demonstration for students.[3]:19—21, 414—416
The experiment did take place in Delft in 16th century the Netherlands, when the mathematician and physicist Simon Stevin and Jan Cornets de Groot (the father of Hugo de Groot) conducted the experiment from the top of the Nieuwe Kerk.
OK, Happy now? If it wasn't Galileo then it was Simon Stevin and Jan Cornets de Groot. And if Galileo did perform the experiment then he was replicating Stevin & de Groot.
However the fact remains that because the experiment took place in a fluid (air) the heavy one would fall faster due to the effects of drag. This would have produced an undetectable difference for observers in the 16th Century.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2017 3:08 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2017 8:15 PM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 96 of 119 (819365)
09-10-2017 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Rrhain
09-08-2017 8:15 PM


Re: Do the Math!
Galileo would have been correct for objects falling in a vacuum. However in air you get air resistance which alters the results; and the faster they fall the greater the air resistance, until the object reaches terminal velocity.
Of course with objects like cannon balls of different sizes this effect is relatively small and would not have been detectable to 16th century observers. In a fluid such as air two balls connected by a string will have a mass equal to the sum of the parts but the combined object is a different shape to the the individual objects.
Assuming the same shape and density;
At t=0 the two balls will have zero speed and hence zero air resistance and each will start with the same acceleration. As speed increases air resistance will increase and will have relatively more effect on the smaller ball which will then fall slower than the other. When the string becomes taut it will then apply additional acceleration to the smaller ball and retard the heavier one. The combined object will then fall at a speed somewhere between that of the two balls individually.
Then you get the added complication that the second ball will be in the wake of the second. The tension in the string will always have to be T>=0 otherwise they will start to separate. Conceivably you could get a combination such that the combined object will fall faster than either of the two separate objects.
However, as I have said, these effects would have not been observable for 16th century observers. Similarly the inaccuracies of Newton's laws of motion were not observable until centuries later.
So Galileo was wrong, Newton was wrong, and Neil deGrasse Tyson was wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2017 8:15 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Rrhain, posted 09-10-2017 7:34 PM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 97 of 119 (819366)
09-10-2017 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Porkncheese
09-08-2017 2:44 PM


Re: Crepuscular rays
Porkncheese writes:
What silver bullet?
Must be a reference to the Lone Ranger ;-)
Have you seen the movie where the Lone Ranger goes to Canada? It's called "On to Toronto, Tonto, Pronto!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 2:44 PM Porkncheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 09-10-2017 2:21 PM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 101 of 119 (819418)
09-10-2017 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Porkncheese
09-08-2017 10:57 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
The rays are parallel but some will pass to the left of the observer and some will pass to the right. Due to perspective these then appear to diverge from a common point.
Does that help?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 10:57 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 103 of 119 (819426)
09-10-2017 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Rrhain
09-10-2017 7:34 PM


Re: Do the Math!
If you deign to respond to this post, I specifically request that you answer this one question:
Nah, it's not worth it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Rrhain, posted 09-10-2017 7:34 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Pressie, posted 09-11-2017 6:50 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 106 by Rrhain, posted 09-11-2017 7:20 PM CRR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024