Again assuming facts not in evidence.
And again hoisted by your own petard. Unless you contend that the number of people who follow the practices of lent means that Jesus is really the son of God and all of Judaism is wrong.
This is, of course, the problem with religious fundamentalism; you’re perfectly willing to twist reason and logic to support your own position, but that same twisted reason and logic can be used to support any other religious belief, even a diametrically opposed one.
Burdensome in the sense that lighting a fire on the Sabbath would receive divinely inspired death. (Can you imagine sitting in the dark, or not collecting wood, or not carrying objects for an entire day.)
What about not working your field for an entire year?
If I had said it’s the only factor then you’d have a point.
Go draw a free body diagram of any object in free fall. Weight is part of it.
Galileo died in vain.
In the first place, I believe I am the one who brought falling bodies into discussion, and I wrote that most persons in history have probably believed that the speed an object falls is dependent on its weight. In trying to recast my statement you are arguing against a straw man.
In the second place, weight appears to be the determining factor of how quickly an object falls. But it isn’t, not even in atmosphere. Two iron spheres – one weighting 10 pounds, the other 1000 – will fall at the same rate. By contrast, a sheet of paper will fall at different speeds depending on how it it shaped.
And to end the hijack, there is a parallel to the essential silliness of Pascal’s wager here. The notion that the quickness of an object’s falling is dependent on its weight appears reasonable only if you only look at the matter in the most superficial fashion. If you look closely, it collapses, as does Pascal’s wager.
as i’ve stated three times, one has simply to deny one of the premises. particularly, the requirement that the wagerer believe in the idea that god+belief=eternal reward, i find at least as suspect as the conclusion the wager reaches. that is, if i don’t already believe in a god that rewards belief, the wager doesn’t work. i simply say, “but i don’t think i will receive eternal reward for believing in god.”
then again, i feel like i’m shooting at a moving target here. could you provide some formal statement of “abele’s wager” so that we’re talking about the same thing?
In your example you are changing multiple variables at the same time and claiming that means something. If the only variable changed is weight (not weight and shape or weight and size) then a heavier object in an atmosphere will fall faster.
I bet Pascal wouldn’t appreciate that. 
That might be true, but you could also say it about hundreds of other religions.
nvm
You are completely ignoring my point. Is it deliberate?
Your point is that the speed of falling objects doesn’t depend on weight. Right?
I don’t see how I am ignoring that since it’s the only thing I’m discussing.
Terminal velocity=sqrt[(2mg)/(densityprojected areadrag coefficient)], yes?
Wrong.
The speed at which an object falls to Earth is NOT dependent on the weight of the object. The acceleration due to gravity is a constant; intervening factors & forces (i.e., air resistance, a magnet, a chair, the shape of an the object) can decrease that, but the weight by itself means nothing.
But that wasn’t my point anyway. My point was that, with only a cursory examination, it SEEMS that weight is the determining factor of the speed an object falls, just as Pascal’s Wager seems reasonable if you only look at it casually. But both fall apart if you examine them closely.
I am not going to discuss falling bodies further in this thread, as it is a hijack. If you wish to continue the discussion I am willing, but I suggest you start a thread in GQ or GD.
“Fucking magnets, how do they work?”
The other day I repeatedly dropped magnets. They fell to the ground in the same fashion every time, just like anything else I’ve dropped. I don’t think they violate the law of gravity.
I’m both; they are compatible positions.
Y’know, for someone who repeatedly says he doesn’t want to bring up “the Kuzari argument” you sure do bring it up a lot. Unless this is deliberate, I suggest that if you do not want to bring something up, you do so by not doing so.
Just to be clear, are you claiming that two identically sized balls, of different masses, will fall at different velocities?
I have a book with parts of original scientific papers starting with Copernicus. Galileo did this experiment, rolling balls down ramps, not dropping them from a tower, and of course found that their speeds were identical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer View Post
I would estimate that well over 70% of all persons who have ever lived believed that the speed an object falls at is dependent on its weight. That proposition is still untrue.
Completely the opposite. It is true in the vanishingly small sliver of the universe of day-to-day human perception within an atmosphere with lightweight objects of comparable scale to the air resistance. In 99.9999…% of the universe, air resistance is effectively zero and an object’s weight plays no role in falling speed.
With that, it’s time to end the gravity hijack and return to the main topic of the thread.
Heavy, man.
For those interested in continuing the hijack, it appears that Snarky opened a GQ thread