|
|
> I'm glad to see you are learning, but please don't misrepresent
> the discussion.
bryan, i am going to be a succint as possible. go bury your head. i am not
misrepresenting anything at all.
even Mr Taylor has said "OK. This I can accept as a rather vague, but quite
correct, explaination:" so your claims that i do not know what i am
referring to are very much null and void. now stop being a troll and move
on, everyone else has. as for my citation of where i mentioned vacuums you
need only look at the post i replied to.
or if you can not be bothered nailing your own coffin shut then allow me to
do it for you. "only problem with that is that there is no resistance on the
moon, go figure. but thank you for proving my point that an object will fall
faster based on gravity AND resistance. which i have previously stated."
please note, space is almost a complete vacuum so resistance is essentially
being taken out of the equation.
here is yet again a citation of something written by me that mentiones
vacuums. "(i'll use the 180 lb man again to show that even though an object
has the same mass, the area open to resistance is not constant, this means
that two objects of the same mass but with different areas open to
resistance will fall at different rates outside a vacuum because the object
with the larger area exposed to resistance is countered more quickly),"
please note that i say different rates _outside a vacuum_
and here is yet another mention of vacuums by me "objects in a vacuum such
as the moon, even though it has gravity there is
still no resistance unless you are throwing an object into the solar wind,"
note that no resistance means there is nothing to counter the pull of
gravity. now kindly let it drop.
|
|