It's a scientific fact

Don1 wrote:
average

And surely you realize that this rate of change of position only
applies for the first second, that is, the amount of distance covered
in the first second is 16.08 ft. The amount of distance covered in the
second second is 48.2 ft. If this comes as a surprise to you, consider
that if it covered the same distance in the next second, it wouldn't be
accelerating.

Finally, you should note that so-called terminal velocity comes when
this acceleration of free fall (g) is NOT a good description of real
free fall, because of the growing influence of air resistance.

PD

PD wrote:
Snip<

the
consider
be
The distance a body falls at Earth's surface is about:
[s=(16.08'/sec^2)t^]

We're talking free fall "in vacuum"; where there's no terminal
velocity: Unless of course, there's a newtronian star involved(;^))

Don

Don1 wrote:
snip<
Make that s=(16.08'/sec^2)t^2 !!! It will fall 16.08' in 1sec^2=
16.08'; 16.08' in 2sec^2= 64.32; 16.08' in 3sec^2= 144.72'; 16.08' in
4sec^2= 257.28'; 16.08' in 5sec^2= 402'....

Don

How much time is a squared second?

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

tadchem wrote:

It's 1 sec^2. I recently asked somebody what a square second was; I
doubt I'll ever get an answer(:~))

tadchem wrote:

It's 1 sec^2. I recently asked somebody what a square second was; I
doubt I'll ever get an answer(:~))

(Ok this is my first post so be kind!)
If you multiply the unit second by a second it no longer remains a unit of
time, therefore it has no logical duration. So basically a second^2 has no
duration because it is actually not a unit of time.

Cheers,
Kevin
"Don1" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1111953270.013983.327310@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...

"Kevin Coyle" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:qwI1e.1206$[Only registered users see links. ].net...

You are correct, sir.

It is also correct that Don1 (aka Don Shead, aka sHead, aka S***head) is an
idiot.

Uncle Al and a few other accomplished flamers around here find him
inspirational.

I find him tedious and inane, but I occasionally like to jab him with a
loaded question, just to get him to expose another unguarded flank.

Kevin Coyle wrote:
unit of
has no
OK, I'll be kind, and try to explain this the way I see it: A second^2
is the way 1 sec^2 is usually designated: Actually it might be clearer
if it was designated 1^2 second = 1 second; 2^2 seconds = 4 seconds;
3^2 seconds = 9 seconds.... However the usual "customary designation"
is sec^2 - with the _one_ implied; wouldn't ^2 sec raise eybrows? To
continue with the customary designation: 2sec^2 = 4 seconds; 3sec^2 = 9
seconds.... Anyways, I've done it both ways.

Recently I posted a "formula" for plotting the distance (s) that a body
free falls at Earth's surface; in vacuum:

s=(16.08'/sec^2)t^2 !!! It will fall 16.08' in 1sec^2= 16.08'; 16.08'
in 2sec^2= 64.32; 16.08' in 3sec^2= 144.72'; 16.08' in 4sec^2= 257.28';
16.08' in 5sec^2= 402'....

Even though Galileo was first with the equation: s = 16'/sec^2, it
never quite caught on, nor was it carried out to any great extent.
You'll notice that Newton's acceleration due to gravity is: [g =
2s/t^2], and therefore [g/2 = s/t^2]. I've been making a _lot_ out of
this and stirred up quite a controversy; to the chagrin of a few
jealous professionals.

The problem is that there are some here who _are_ so smart that they
have a bad case of superiority complex, and can't abide anyone else
taking their limelight:

To quote Ed Green in a recent post to this group: "...where respondent
asks a question about subject matter sufficiently inexact that any
plausible answer may be attacked ad infinitum on an indefinitely large
number of grounds. One places the bait, waits for a response, and
pounces...." This is a metnod used by some with "steeltrap minds" to
stonewall and exhaust the subject matter. and boost their own egos.

Now I can't imagine Tom Davidson - as smart as he is - asking me
seriously what a sec^2 is. He's got to be putting me on: Stonewalling
and trying to discourage, and exhaust me.

That's why he wrote:

"It is also correct that Don1 (aka Don Shead, aka sHead, aka S***head)
is an
idiot.

"Uncle Al and a few other accomplished flamers around here find him
inspirational.

"I find him tedious and inane, but I occasionally like to jab him with
a
loaded question, just to get him to expose another unguarded flank."

Don

tadchem wrote:
A "squared second", or "sec^2" is the abbreviation of multiplying a
period of time (t) by itself, and saves on having to use parentheses;
like (t^2 = t times t); or (1 sec^2 = 1 second times 1 second = 1
second^2); or (2 sec^2 = 2 seconds times 2 seconds = 4 seconds^2); or
(3 sec^2 = 3 seconds times 3 seconds = 9 seconds^2)....

Also, while speaking of parentheses, like (m) being the ratio; that is
equal to both of the ratios, f/t and w/g: So that when working with the
formula [(m) = f/t = w/g], it is (absolutely) necessary to transpose
the parentheses along with the symbol; as (m); since the parentheses
constantly remind us that m is a ratio, and _not_ a variable in itself.

Don