From my school physics; terminal velocity of an unaerodynamic object is around 120 mph. Meaning that a grand piano a tank and a human will fall at the same rate, the only difference will be in the force of the object hitting the ground due to its mass (kinetic energy). Right I’m off to the pub to test that out.
the maoster:
From my school physics; terminal velocity of an unaerodynamic object is around 120 mph. Meaning that a grand piano a tank and a human will fall at the same rate, the only difference will be in the force of the object hitting the ground due to its mass (kinetic energy). Right I’m off to the pub to test that out.
Terminal velocity of a human in the “stable spread” is about 120mph. Stood on yer head arms tucked in it’s nearer 200mph.
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Terminal velocity happens when the “pull of gravity” is balnced by the air resistance.
Two similar shaped objects at a certain speed will have the same air resistance. If they are of different masses they will have different forces of gravity pulling them down. They will have different terminal velocities.
(A concrete parachute will descend faster than a ripstop nylon one).
Galileo (allegedly) threw two metal spheres off the tower. Aristotle predicted a 10 kilo ball would fall 10 times quicker than a 1 kilos ball. Galileo showed that they fell to earth at (near enough) the same time.
The experiment on the Moon shows that with no air resistance gravity imparts the same acceleration to all objects. With no air resistance and a high enough tower they would continue to accelerate… no terminal velocity because of no air!
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Franglais:
the maoster:
From my school physics; terminal velocity of an unaerodynamic object is around 120 mph. Meaning that a grand piano a tank and a human will fall at the same rate, the only difference will be in the force of the object hitting the ground due to its mass (kinetic energy). Right I’m off to the pub to test that out.Terminal velocity of a human in the “stable spread” is about 120mph. Stood on yer head arms tucked in it’s nearer 200mph.
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Dependant on altitude (Felix Baumgartner reached over 800mph in his freefall. ) 
Hence my “unaerodynamic” disclaimer.
muckles:
Franglais:
the maoster:
From my school physics; terminal velocity of an unaerodynamic object is around 120 mph. Meaning that a grand piano a tank and a human will fall at the same rate, the only difference will be in the force of the object hitting the ground due to its mass (kinetic energy). Right I’m off to the pub to test that out.Terminal velocity of a human in the “stable spread” is about 120mph. Stood on yer head arms tucked in it’s nearer 200mph.
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Dependant on altitude (Felix Baumgartner reached over 800mph in his freefall. )
Practically no air resistance when he stepped off !
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Franglais:
muckles:
Franglais:
the maoster:
From my school physics; terminal velocity of an unaerodynamic object is around 120 mph. Meaning that a grand piano a tank and a human will fall at the same rate, the only difference will be in the force of the object hitting the ground due to its mass (kinetic energy). Right I’m off to the pub to test that out.Terminal velocity of a human in the “stable spread” is about 120mph. Stood on yer head arms tucked in it’s nearer 200mph.
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
Dependant on altitude (Felix Baumgartner reached over 800mph in his freefall. )
Practically no air resistance when he stepped off !
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
I was being a bit pedantic. 
I did a bit of reading up on this, he jumped off at over 120,000ft, the atmospheric pressure at this height is less than 1psi. He went supersonic at about 110,000ft reached his max speed of 843mph at 91,000 feet, went back to sub-sonic speed at about 75,000ft and opened the parachute at 5000ft. 
The think I remember is being amazed at the speed he disappeared as he stepped off the balloon. 
muckles:
The think I remember is being amazed at the speed he disappeared as he stepped off the balloon.
There was a thread on here not too long ago where the time it took for a lorry to hit the ground after falling off a 100 metre bridge was discussed. Took about two and a half seconds to reach 56mph and crash.
I’m struggling to think of a car that can do 0-60 in two and a half seconds.
Captain Caveman 76:
From memory, it was Galileo who stated that an object’s mass doesn’t affect it’s rate of descent. That’s about 100 years before Newton. The biggest problem here on earth is air resistance. Two different masses with exactly the same shape will fall at the same rate. On the moon, that experiment demonstrated that with no factors other than gravity, objects fall at the same rate, proving that mass is irrelevant.As far as terminal velocity is concerned, that is simply the equilibrium of forces acting on the falling body. In effect, the acceleration due to gravity is cancelled out by the resistance of the air on the falling body. Clever aerodynamics can increase or decrease that value.
Great so an Abrahms tank has more aerodynamic drag than an F1 car and if we push them both out of a plane the F1 car will fall at a higher speed than the tank.I’d really like to see Top Gear do that stunt to bust the myth.
Captain Caveman 76:
muckles:
The think I remember is being amazed at the speed he disappeared as he stepped off the balloon. [emoji38]There was a thread on here not too long ago where the time it took for a lorry to hit the ground after falling off a 100 metre bridge was discussed. Took about two and a half seconds to reach 56mph and crash.
I’m struggling to think of a car that can do 0-60 in two and a half seconds.
Mostly mu (coefficient of friction) (no greek on this keyboard) is normally limited to one.
The normal reaction is equal to the mass of the vehicle. (Air foils only work when it’s moving) So from standstill you’re not going to get more than 1g acceleration.
Power don’t matter if wheels are spinning. Dragsters have semi melted rubber instead of tyres so get above mu of 1
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
ok, can somebody explain why so many of the photos from the moonhave been proved fake, IE, crosshairs infront of pictures of the astronauts, landscape that is an exact match for a place in Eygpt, astronauts standing in shadow but being fully lit on the photo, shadows going numerous different ways at the same time, when the sun is behind them but still the main image is in brilliant light.Most importantly why when they spoke out about there worries did Grisholm and crew die in anaccident`.
Franglais:
Terminal velocity happens when the “pull of gravity” is balnced by the air resistance.
Two similar shaped objects at a certain speed will have the same air resistance. If they are of different masses they will have different forces of gravity pulling them down. They will have different terminal velocities.Galileo (allegedly) threw two metal spheres off the tower. Aristotle predicted a 10 kilo ball would fall 10 times quicker than a 1 kilos ball. Galileo showed that they fell to earth at (near enough) the same time.
The experiment on the Moon shows that with no air resistance gravity imparts the same acceleration to all objects. With no air resistance and a high enough tower they would continue to accelerate… no terminal velocity because of no air!
Galileo and Newton only showed that objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass on Earth because the fall wasn’t far enough for the objects to reach their terminal velocities.
While by the logic of more mass = more gravitational force = faster it’s obvious that the heavier object will fall even faster in a vacuum given sufficient distance to build up speed.
It’s also obvious that it’s going to take an impossible CD figure to cancel out the mass advantage of a falling tank v an F1 car for example at their respective terminal velocities.Which is why it takes this amount of aero drag to slow down the fall of even a light tank v a human for example.While also seeming to bust the premise that different masses fall at the same rate regardless.IE just look at the way the thing falls before the chutes take effect.
youtube.com/watch?v=50cpPAVoxJQ 0.36 - 0.42
While mass should also win out regardless in a vacuum because there is no air resistance to cancel out the extra gravitational force anyway.
In which case a hammer will logically hit the ground before a feather,given sufficient distance to accelerate and build up the required speed differential,just as on Earth.So another Moon myth busted.
dowahdiddyman:
ok, can somebody explain why so many of the photos fromthe moonhave been proved fake, IE, crosshairs infront of pictures of the astronauts, landscape that is an exact match for a place in Eygpt, **astronauts standing in shadow but being fully lit on the photo, shadows going numerous different ways at the same time**, when the sun is behind them but still the main image is in brilliant light.Most importantly why when they spoke out about there worries did Grisholm and crew die in anaccident`.
Diffuse reflections easily account for “wrong” illumination. Also, without an atmosphere, the sunlight is unfiltered and much more intense.
Wrong shadows are easily explained too. The uneven nature of the surface casts shadows in a manner that doesn’t seem consistent with a single light source. You can however replicate this effect using a sheet of paper, a single light source and some patience with your folding.
Fat Controller:
What do the deniers say about the experiment where the astronaut dropped a feather & a hammer which both fell at the same speed?
Metal feather.
Harry Monk:
Fat Controller:
What do the deniers say about the experiment where the astronaut dropped a feather & a hammer which both fell at the same speed?Metal feather.
Hammer on a string!
dowahdiddyman:
ok, can somebody explain why so many of the photos fromthe moonhave been proved fake, IE, crosshairs infront of pictures of the astronauts,.
The cross hairs appearing to disappear behind things was cleared up. The image is blown out. The light overexposed, blowing out the image giving the appearance the cross hair is edited.
The lunar surface is comprised of uneven and very reflective particles. The lighting you see on the astronaut in the shadow of the spacecraft is the highly effective back lighting from the surface. Back lighting and light bounce is effectively used in film making and photography.
If you were an observer on the moon watching the astronaut climb the steps (or getting down) he wouldn’t be immersed in pitch black, you’d be able to see him. In the same fashion the camera exposure was able to pick him up due to the bright light reflected back onto his also -reflective space suit.
Shadows don’t follow the same lines on an angular surface as they do on a flat surface.
Freight Dog:
dowahdiddyman:
ok, can somebody explain why so many of the photos fromthe moonhave been proved fake, IE, crosshairs infront of pictures of the astronauts,.The cross hairs appearing to disappear behind things was cleared up. The image is blown out. The light overexposed, blowing out the image giving the appearance the cross hair is edited.
The lunar surface is comprised of uneven and very reflective particles. The lighting you see on the astronaut in the shadow of the spacecraft is the highly effective back lighting from the surface. Back lighting and light bounce is effectively used in film making and photography.
If you were an observer on the moon watching the astronaut climb the steps (or getting down) he wouldn’t be immersed in pitch black, you’d be able to see him. In the same fashion the camera exposure was able to pick him up due to the bright light reflected back onto his also -reflective space suit.
Shadows don’t follow the same lines on an angular surface as they do on a flat surface.
You might find this interesting.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=syVP6zDZN7I
