>heavy objects fall faster than light ones Wow what an

File: screen-shot-2014-08-18-at-10-19-42-am.png (10KB, 537x405px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 537x405px

>>1850920
>Dude what are convergent series LMAO

>>1850920

Common core fails faster.

You should know that.

>>1850920
Heavy objects fall just as fast as light ones. Acceleration due to gravity is constant for everything on earth. The only reason something would fall slower than another is air resistance.

>>1850920
>heavy objects fall faster than light ones
They don't.

This.>>1851135

Sure is a history board.

>>1851135
>>heavy objects fall faster than light ones
>>1851147

You must be bait or stupid, or both

>>1851160
Define 'heavy', you utter cretin. The word you're looking for is 'mass'.

Again, nice history board.

>>1851160
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=164

>>1850920
Considering air resistance, he's right.

A block of foam of the same shape and volume will fall slower than a block of steel.

>>1851190
That has nothing to do with the dichotomy between "Heavy and Light" which is the argument. Yes, things may fall slower due to their SHAPE, but shape was never a part of the original argument. The statement was: "Heavy objects fall faster than light ones." This is factually incorrect. A pen will fall at the same speed as a brick. Just because you can find certain examples, like a sponge, that don't adhere to this rule due to their disparity in shape, doesn't change the fact that the original statement is wrong.

File: Gunpoint.jpg (202KB, 980x560px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 980x560px

>>1850941
The paradox was never about finding distance, it is about finding the last element of infinite series, but convergent sum is useless for that, as you need to use ordinal numbers to point to that element. Most of stem fags, somehow completely miss that point and pretend that they solve paradox by formalizing corresponding physical problem, which is retarded because, I am sure that even Zeno himself could if you give him numbers, calculate the solution. The real problem here is to explain why there exist the last element of infinite sequence. Which you can't hope to explain with a convergent series, anyway.

>>1851135

According to you a feather fall at the same speed than a ball of iron ?

File: gravityequation.png (31KB, 305x310px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 305x310px

>>1851160
>>1851147
>>1851135
Stop being retarded. Heavy object falls faster as it pulls Earth to itself with its own gravity. Look math behind it, Aristotle was right.

>>1851213
AIR RESISTANCE

>>1851231
Not an argument.

File: CodeCogsEqn.gif (1KB, 117x86px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 117x86px

>>1851217
>h*manities

>>1851240
It's the only argument. The only reason a feather falls slower than a ball of iron is air resistance. Their difference is weight is inconsiquential. Go outside and drop a pebble and a sheba the same time from the same height. They will land near simultaneously.

>>1851240
>>1851265
Meant 'shoe' not 'shiba' though it still works either way.

>>1851217
>hurr durr, force=velocity
kys

>>1851244
You are retarded. Run the same calculation for the fucking Earth, not the falling objects. You will see, that Earth pulled by gravity of steel ball faster than by gravity of feather. Therefore a heavy object falls faster because Earth itself falls faster unto it. You failed to understand that gravity works for the both objects, not for the only one. If you are stupid just imagine black hole falling. It would pull planet into itself faster than anything you could imagine.

>>1851217
You got it the wrong way bucko.

A object of higher mass will have more force than a smaller object but velocity stays the same.

>>1851345
Velocity of object stills the same, but velocity of a planet are faster because force depends on weight of an object. Heavy object falls faster because it is pulling planet to itself stronger.

>>1851305
It pulls planet to itself stronger to fall faster.

>>1851364
What in the actual fuck are you talking about? Do you have any idea what you're spouting?

>>1851371
But the object's own velocity is unchanged, which is what the original argument is about. The earth may be falling faster, but that isn't relevant to the original statement.

>>1851305
holy fuck you're retarded

>>1851373
Gravity works both ways. Two heavy objects would close the distance faster than one light object with heavy one. Faster closed distance equals to faster falling. Heavy object pulls planet unto itself for fast falling with its own gravity, basically.

File: image.png (513KB, 800x600px)

513KB, 800x600px

>>1851147
>heavy objects fall faster than light ones
>They don't.
I don't think OP is saying "heavy objects fall faster than light ones," I think he is referring to aristotle who said, "heavy objects fall faster than light ones."

my guess, its a joke, as in:
>if aristotle is so smart, then why did he say something this dumb

the joke being aristotle doesnt have a reputation for being brilliant because his conclusions were correct, hes known for being a revolutionary because his reasoning was "hey look at this!" instead of just talking out of his ass like some worshipper of marduk or some such mysticism.

& Humanities was a mistake.

>>1850920
This is a perfectly reasonable and intuitive thing to believe. It took humanity a long time to figure out what the effects of air resistance are and what objects behave like in a vacuum, which none of the ancients had ever seen and which they thought couldn't exist.

It's like when someone says there's no gravity in space. That's wrong but I know what they mean and don't blame them for thinking that.

>>1851213
Yes, they'll fall at the same speed in a vacuum.
In air they won't because AIR RESISTANCE

>>1851167
I read wrong OP's post lol

sorry