You can drop a cat from the Eiffel tower and it will survive.

[Hectic Glenn]

It should land on its side and stand up directly

 

[OvA]

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/customavatars/avatar1413_14.gif
http://content.ytmnd.com/content/f/6/f620b6afba61a965a5fc5224baf150d6.gif

I think Freud is a cat with toast on his back.

 

[Sulkdodds]

DOCTOR SULKDODDS REPORTS BACK:

HOLY SHIT I HAVE JUST DEFIED GRAVITY I WILL BE RICH WITH MY BOTH-SIDES BUTTERED (B3) ANTI-GRAVITY TECHNOLOGY

 

[Stigmata]

DOCTOR SULKDODDS REPORTS BACK:

HOLY SHIT I HAVE JUST DEFIED GRAVITY I WILL BE RICH WITH MY BOTH-SIDES BUTTERED (B3) ANTI-GRAVITY TECHNOLOGY

NO! I PATENTED IT ALREADY!

*patents Both-Sides Buttered (B3) Anti-Gravity Toast Technology*

SEE?

 

[Ennui]

When I tried the toast ripped in half and both buttered sides went faced down. Then all sorts of Xenians came through the resonance cascade caused by the matter splitting and I had to kill them with a crowbar. It was... intense.

 

[Blackghost905]

Omg! Is The Toast Ok Please Please Tell Me The Toast Is Ok!

 

[Greatgat]

When I tried the toast ripped in half and both buttered sides went faced down. Then all sorts of Xenians came through the resonance cascade caused by the matter splitting and I had to kill them with a crowbar. It was... intense.

Damn straight! Same thing happened to me! Only instead of Xenians coming through a resonance cascade, it was loneliness coursing through my mind. And instead of crowbars, it was tears.

:emocrying:

 

[Stigmata]

When I tried the toast ripped in half and both buttered sides went faced down. Then all sorts of Xenians came through the resonance cascade caused by the matter splitting and I had to kill them with a crowbar. It was... intense.

Hrm.

You know what, Sulkdodds? The patent's all yours.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

I apologize in advance for this

weight is calculated in to figure air resistance per se. 2 objects with the same coefficient of air resistance will fall at the same speed with 1 heavier object and 1 lights. Just because it is lighter does not mean it will fall slower. A paper clip will fall faster than say a parachute.

So weight does not = less or more terminal velocity. It is air resistance that determines that. Guess I should have cleared up what I meant about weight.

Nothing is per se in physics equations. Weight is weight. To modify your statement, weight does equal less or more terminal velocity **all other things taken to be equal**. It does not affect air resistance; the shape of the object does, surface area does, the qualities of the air does, and its speed especially does.

Example: (you drove me to this )
If you had two identical hollow aluminum spheres, one filled with something to be twice as heavy as the other, drag coefficient is equal and surface area is equal (As that Nasa educational link in my last post stated). That means if both objects are falling through the same air at the same speed, the Drag force will be equal.

We know that gravitational acceleration of two objects of a different weight are the same in a vacuum, and that's because
1: F(gravity) = m*9.8
2: F = ma <-- a = resulting acceleration due to gravitational force here

1: F/m = 9.8
2: F/m = a
a = 9.8 <--- always, mass isn't a factor
We all know this.

When we apply the same principle to Drag, like any force besides gravity, it has a different acceleration for different objects with respect to mass due to F = ma
1: a 2N force acting on a 2 Kg object will result in half the acceleration of
2: a 2N force acting on a 1 Kg object:
F/m = a
1: 2/2 = 1 m/s^2
2: 2/1 = 2 m/s^2

Since for our two aluminum spheres falling through the air at the same speed the Drag force is identical, the resulting acceleration ("deceleration") due to drag will be off by a factor of 2 in comparison to each other, due to mass. Put a ping-pong ball and a marble (with the same diameter) next to each other and blow on them with the same force and you'll see what I mean.

Because of this a much higher velocity (more wind beating against the object) is required to make the acceleration due to drag be at equilibrium with the acceleration due to gravity and stop it from accelerating anymore, holding it at terminal velocity.

To review:
We have two factors that affect terminal velocity: MASS and DRAG. Forgive me if I'm incorrectly use "drag" and "air resistance" interchangeably, btw.
- With mass held constant, terminal velocity changes with the shape of the object. Or the environment, but never mind that.
- With drag held constant (objects of the same shape and size) terminal velocity varies DIRECTLY with mass. Increase the mass, increase the T.V.
End of story!

I know I wrote way more than I had to and probably missed the point you were trying to make, but I want to put any ambiguity to rest.

 

[Blackghost905]

1: F/m = 9.8
2: F/m = a
a = 9.8 <--- always, mass isn't a factor
We all know this
Well that is everyone exept Blackghost905!

 

[kirovman]

g = [G x M (Earth) ]/ r^2

therefore, g, acceleration due to gravity, is wholely independent of the weight/mass of the object within the gravitational field of the Earth.

Also, I recall the terminal velocity of a human to be circa 80mph. Although I didn't really care to confirm it for myself.

And it depends if the cat is able to adopt a reasonable brace position to determine whether it lives or dies. If it lands on it's side, spine or head for whatever reason, it will die. People die at 20mph. 60 mph could easily kill a cat that came unprepared. Ah, so many factors.

And technically it is the deacceleration/Force that kills things hitting the ground, not the velocity. so it seems that a stereotypical survivalist cat has some kind of mechanism for a lesser deacceleration value, than what something else would. I wouldn't put it all down to terminal velocity (although I would say terminal velocity is a factor).

 

[Blackghost905]

OHHHHHH, ok gotcha!

 

[Yuri]

g = [G x M (Earth) ]/ r^2

therefore, g, acceleration due to gravity, is wholely independent of the weight/mass of the object within the gravitational field of the Earth.

Also, I recall the terminal velocity of a human to be circa 80mph. Although I didn't really care to confirm it for myself.

And it depends if the cat is able to adopt a reasonable brace position to determine whether it lives or dies. If it lands on it's side, spine or head for whatever reason, it will die. People die at 20mph. 60 mph could easily kill a cat that came unprepared. Ah, so many factors.

And technically it is the deacceleration/Force that kills things hitting the ground, not the velocity. so it seems that a stereotypical survivalist cat has some kind of mechanism for a lesser deacceleration value, than what something else would. I wouldn't put it all down to terminal velocity (although I would say terminal velocity is a factor).

<--- don't f*ck with the kirov, he knows about this stuff.

I would if I didn't change majors.

 

[kirovman]

<--- don't f*ck with the kirov, he knows about this stuff.

I would if I didn't change majors.

I got it off the back of a box of cornflakes.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Nothing is per se in physics equations. Weight is weight. To modify your statement, weight does equal less or more terminal velocity **all other things taken to be equal**. It does not affect air resistance; the shape of the object does, surface area does, the qualities of the air does, and its speed especially does.

Example: (you drove me to this )
If you had two identical hollow aluminum spheres, one filled with something to be twice as heavy as the other, drag coefficient is equal and surface area is equal (As that Nasa educational link in my last post stated). That means if both objects are falling through the same air at the same speed, the Drag force will be equal.

We know that gravitational acceleration of two objects of a different weight are the same in a vacuum, and that's because
1: F(gravity) = m*9.8
2: F = ma <-- a = resulting acceleration due to gravitational force here

1: F/m = 9.8
2: F/m = a
a = 9.8 <--- always, mass isn't a factor
We all know this.

When we apply the same principle to Drag, like any force besides gravity, it has a different acceleration for different objects with respect to mass due to F = ma
1: a 2N force acting on a 2 Kg object will result in half the acceleration of
2: a 2N force acting on a 1 Kg object:
F/m = a
1: 2/2 = 1 m/s^2
2: 2/1 = 2 m/s^2

Since for our two aluminum spheres falling through the air at the same speed the Drag force is identical, the resulting acceleration ("deceleration") due to drag will be off by a factor of 2 in comparison to each other, due to mass. Put a ping-pong ball and a marble (with the same diameter) next to each other and blow on them with the same force and you'll see what I mean.

Because of this a much higher velocity (more wind beating against the object) is required to make the acceleration due to drag be at equilibrium with the acceleration due to gravity and stop it from accelerating anymore, holding it at terminal velocity.

To review:
We have two factors that affect terminal velocity: MASS and DRAG. Forgive me if I'm incorrectly use "drag" and "air resistance" interchangeably, btw.
- With mass held constant, terminal velocity changes with the shape of the object. Or the environment, but never mind that.
- With drag held constant (objects of the same shape and size) terminal velocity varies DIRECTLY with mass. Increase the mass, increase the T.V.
End of story!

I know I wrote way more than I had to and probably missed the point you were trying to make, but I want to put any ambiguity to rest.

I think you are mis understanding what I am trying to say...or I am not saying it very well.

Say we have 2 spheres. Both identical in every way except one is twice the size and weight as the other. When dropped they will both have the same T.V. because they are the same shape and have the same air resistance. So what I am saying is just because something is heavier does not mean it will have a higher T.V. Same thing with something lighter. Weight != T.V. Weight comes into play as it will increase or decrese drag.

 

[DrDevin]

Kitty NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[panda_rage]

I can't do anything but agree that a cat will survive from falling from very high heights at their maximum terminal speed. (unless theyre stupid, asleep, very unlucky or have an irregular centre of gravity (wich is impossible.. me thinks)).

 

[dream431ca]

It's not BS, I derived it myself to test it out using quantum physics. It's really easy if you know any physics.

HA! You didn't consider how much force the cat's legs can take from 60 MPH. AND, you failed to give a weight of an average cat to see how much force it could create when landing. So your physics (not quantum physics cause your not dealing with individual atoms), is flawed. It's irrelevent.

 

[TheSomeone]

AND, you failed to give a weight of an average cat to see how much force it could create when landing.

No I didn't.

Maybe that's cuz you are an ass-jester (ass-jester...?), and I don't understand how it would be fair to delete this thread.

I love my job. And I laugh at your attempt to insult me through your "apology."

I seriously, sincerely, have no idea what your problem is.
I act like an ass it offends you, I apologize it offends you. What can I do not to offend you?

 

[Muffin Man]

quantum physics is teh confoosing wit da quantum comps and da whatnot and the "hey its 1... AND ZERO BITCH" and the confusing and the OUCH OF MY BRAIN !!!

 

[panda_rage]

If you tie a slice of buttered bread to a cat's back, butter side up, which way will the cat land then, hmm?

</murphy>

it will simply rotate in circles. forever.

 

[bam23]

So many protons, electrons, and morons.

(just a joke.)

 

[Yuri]

I seriously, sincerely, have no idea what your problem is.
I act like an ass it offends you, I apologize it offends you. What can I do not to offend you?

You didn't offend me with your fake apology, I simply did not accept it. Is this a new concept to you? You're an asshole that treats people like dirt, you give some crap apology, and everything is better? It doesn't work like that. Especially because you've done this more than once. Saying "omigawd im sucha jerk im sry!" doesn't fix anything, and I'm going to continue to consider you a jerk.

 

[dream431ca]

So many protons, electrons, and morons.

(just a joke.)

Now THAT's a good one

 

[Dan]

g = [G x M (Earth) ]/ r^2

therefore, g, acceleration due to gravity, is wholely independent of the weight/mass of the object within the gravitational field of the Earth.

This is true only in the absence of a fluid medium (air). Acceleration then becomes proportional to velocity and gravitational acceleration constant. Note that at terminal velocity acceleration equals 0, not g. It shouldn't be miscontrued to say that terminal velocity is independent of the mass of an object. Draw a freebody diagram and look at the forces.

I think you are mis understanding what I am trying to say...or I am not saying it very well.

Say we have 2 spheres. Both identical in every way except one is twice the size and weight as the other. When dropped they will both have the same T.V. because they are the same shape and have the same air resistance. So what I am saying is just because something is heavier does not mean it will have a higher T.V. Same thing with something lighter. Weight != T.V. Weight comes into play as it will increase or decrese drag.

Wrong, they won't have the same T.V. They will have the same air resistance (if going at the same speed), but the heavier one will have a greater gravitational force. It's F = m*g not F = g. Terminal velocity occurs when air resistance cancels out gravitational force. So let me spell this out. The air resistance depends solely on the medium (air), the geometry of the falling object, and the velocity of that object. It is a force acting in the opposite direction to the velocity. This force has to equal the downards force to achieve terminal velocity. The downwards force depends on mass!

Here's some reading for people who think they know physics but don't.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/JianHuang.shtml

The magnitude of terminal velocity depends on the weight of the falling body

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity
notice that mass is proportional to the square of terminal velocity

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3e.html
There's even some colourful pictures to drive the point into your thick skulls.

In situations in which there is air resistance, more massive objects fall faster than less massive objects.

 

[Yuri]

Here's some reading for people who think they know physics but don't.

There's even some colourful pictures to drive the point into your thick skulls.

Do you have to be a jerk about it? Of course you do.

This is true only in the absence of a fluid medium (air). Acceleration then becomes proportional to velocity and gravitational acceleration constant. Note that at terminal velocity acceleration equals 0, not g. It shouldn't be miscontrued to say that terminal velocity is independent of the mass of an object. Draw a freebody diagram and look at the forces.

If you read his post:

therefore, g, acceleration due to gravity, is wholely independent of the weight/mass of the object within the gravitational field of the Earth.

he is 100% right. He didn't say anything at all about the net acceleration of the object. He said that g (acceleration due to gravity) is wholely independant of the mass of the object, which it is. He said NOTHING about how the terminal velocity is independant of the mass, he just said it was "g" that was independant of mass. Which is correct.

 

[<RJMC>]

I know how to solve this

lets call the mhytbusters!

 

[TheSomeone]

^ Good idea ^_^ RJ.

 

[Qonfused]

This is the second thread, that I recall or remember, that you've stated a "fact" that, to the normal person, doesn't sound reasonable that results into a 10+ page flame-fest. Just pointing that out because... well, maybe you like to start fights/like to fight on internet forums?

 

[TheSomeone]

Lol, not my fault people disagree with widely-accepted knowledge.

The reason I do that is because I think it's really cool that although it sounds unprobable, it's true. Then people take it the wrong way.

 

[Qonfused]

Tell me something: what did you want to achieve from this thread. Because it's hard for me to believe you didn't want to start a fight from the way you have conducted yourself throughout the thread.

 

[TheSomeone]

Tell me something: what did you want to achieve from this thread. Because it's hard for me to believe you didn't want to start a fight from the way you have conducted yourself throughout the thread.

Wow... thats pretty awesome. Didn't know this. Another random fact for me to keep locked away in my head ^_^

/me gets reincarnated as a cat and jumps off lots of buildings...

That's what I was trying to acheive.

Then people got all up in my koolaid, and I got all up theirs rather harshly.

I'm an arrogant jerk, and through this thread I found it's best I not apologize for it, but I didn't mean to "flame" anyone.

 

[Yuri]

The reason I do that is because I think it's really cool that although it sounds unprobable, it's true. Then people take it the wrong way.

People still have yet to prove this, and I'm sure its completely situation-based. It all depends on the size and weight and strenght and fluffiness of the cat, the wind, the way that it falls, its luck, and what it lands on. I wouldn't consider it widely-accepted knowledge, is all.. :rolling:

 

[TheSomeone]

But it's certainly more widely accepted than the opposite. I mean, the fact that there are so many sources that claim this adds a certain amount of credibility to it. And it makes sense when you think about it, I just thought it was really cool when I found out about it. I swear that's all I meant. Then people got hostile and then I got hostile.

 

[Yuri]

But it's certainly more widely accepted than the opposite. I mean, the fact that there are so many sources that claim this adds a certain amount of credibility to it. And it makes sense when you think about it, I just thought it was really cool when I found out about it. I swear that's all I meant. Then people got hostile and then I got hostile.

Your initial post was hostile toward your "slow" friends...

TRY IT

 

[TheSomeone]

Yeah, but they are my friends and I love them, and they call me a dumbass all the time.

 

[Prince of China]

Is there a way we can ask the MythBusters?

 

[Ikerous]

Is there a way we can ask the MythBusters?

Pigeons!

 

[Glirk Dient]

Here's some reading for people who think they know physics but don't.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/JianHuang.shtml


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity
notice that mass is proportional to the square of terminal velocity

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3e.html
There's even some colourful pictures to drive the point into your thick skulls.

Wow...funny how to try to contradict what we are saying yet your links further prove what we have said and don't even prove what you are saying.

Here are some quotes from your links

all objects will fall with the same rate of acceleration, regardless of their mass

As it speeds up the drag increases, until eventually it equals the weight

So...an object will speed up until drag equals the mass? So wait...an object with twice the weight and twice the drag will have the same TV? Interesting...

If you don't understand my posts don't respond. I haven't been saying mass has nothing to do with TV. I have been saying TV doesn't solely rely on mass. Mass and suraface area = air resistance = TV. Many people thought that mass = TV which is not true, they weren't factoring surface area. Next time try to think before you post something dumb.

 

[Feath]

So...an object will speed up until drag equals the mass?

No. The object will speed up until the drag equals the weight.