jfuh

Actually, relatively speaking yes. Which is why photons have no standing mass but have a moving mass hence momentum.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

Panache

This assertion:

Does not deal with drag coefficients or surface area. In fact, they weren't mentioned at all in the entire post.

The argument was that heavy objects are moving at faster speeds because objects with mass have energy by virtue of their mass, and that by exchanging potential energy for kinetic energy we can find out the maximum speed that a baseball can go and that his proves that a regulation baseball can power 150,000 American homes.

Seriously, which part of the forumla for terminal velocity involves a change in potential or kinetic energy?

I see mass, gravity, area, and drag coefficients, but no ΔPE or ΔU.

Panache

Interesting. So since the F = ma, twice as much force would need to be applied to a 10k chicken moving through a vacuum at 30 m/s than to the same chicken moving through a vacuum at 15 m/s in order to make each accelerate by 1 m/s sq?

jfuh

Oh for the love of god quit being difficult about it shesh, it was a sarcastic joke.

If there is no transfer of energy from potential to kinetic perhaps you can show where the energy comes from in a free fall?

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

jfuh

At those low speeds no - you approach the speed of light and the mass begins to approach infinity to which you can continue to pump in more energy it won't get any faster for your chicken - assuming it's still intact.　Ｍ＝Ｅ／Ｃ︿２
Relativistic mass

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

Panache

I like being difficult.

Of course there is a transfer of energy from potential to kinetic, but does that somehow explain terminal velocity?

It makes no sense to me that folk would start in on how uneducated people are are then give an explanation for terminal velocity that has nothing to do with drag coefficients.

jfuh

Obviously

To the home schooling? Yes I agree absolutely. But inarguably Vt is factored by mass.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

Panache

And here I thought I was being so subtle.

I don't disagree with that at all.

The post to which I was replying did not present mass as a contributor to the force against which a drag coefficient must act against in equal measure to bring an object to equalibrium.

It just stated that "The speed of an object is proportional to it's mass" and then went on to talk about the exchange of potential energy to kinetic energy, as a way of "educating" people about terminal velocity.

jfuh

Ok, we agree with everything and that the homeschooling comment was just..... well I'll leave the astriks to do the talking ****ing **u**d

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me