A ton of physics (used to be with gems)

[Moist Happenings]

omg omg Kitsun. wut iz heavier. a ton of orb gems or a ton of feathers?

lolz0r i m going 2 trik u i bet u dont know

[Betheny]

They weigh the same, dumbass. There's just more feathers.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Maimara
They weigh the same, dumbass. There's just more feathers. If you weigh them out on Earth (or Elanthia) the feathers actually have more mass, thus they can be said to "weigh more".

20 points to whoever knows why.

edit: I have one orb gem. Go me.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[Betheny]

A ton of feathers weighs the same as a ton of gems.

[Anebriated]

feathers trap in more air mass

[FireNewt]

Originally posted by Maimara
A ton of feathers weighs the same as a ton of gems.

Yes, but if dropped off the top of a building with a 10 mph head wind comeing from the west and a cold front moveing in on a cloudy day, would they fall at the same rate?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Maimara
A ton of feathers weighs the same as a ton of gems.
Originally posted by Elrodin
feathers trap in more air mass
Both wrong, I'm afraid.

Air is a fluid, and as such, any object displacing that fluid will be subjected to a buoyant force. The more air is displaced, the more force is provided. As feathers are less dense than gems, they will have more volume. When weighed out on a scale or what have you, the scale will give a faulty reading for both items, but the feather error will be more on account of having more buoyant force.

I apologize for bringing Physics to the boards (especially when it's nowhere near on topic) but my high school teacher would never forgive me if I let that slide.

[Anebriated]

Yes, but if dropped off the top of a building with a 10 mph head wind comeing from the west and a cold front moveing in on a cloudy day, would they fall at the same rate?

in theory yes(vaccuum) in reality no.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<in theory yes(vaccuum)>>

Still wrong. No wind can exist in a vacuum. Neither can a cold front.

[Anebriated]

wind does not effect gravity's pull on an object downward.

[FireNewt]

though look at it from the perspective of compresion, on ton of compressed gems would infact weigh the same as one ton of compressed feathers, absolute value regardless of buoyancy. and from that I go back to my original question, would they?

[Mint]

Bet Kitsun never expected his thread to go in this direction.

[MPSorc]

wind only comes into play in the situation:

if i drop a brick and a feather from a 3 story building which will land first?

it doesn't relate to how much they weigh,


same thing goes with the vaccuum

[Bobmuhthol]

<<wind does not effect gravity's pull on an object downward.>>

You're right, wind doesn't affect it. However, more wind means more air resistance. More air resistance causes an effect on the acceleration of the object as it's very possible for the air resistance to be greater than the object, or even close to it, slowing down the process of the free fall.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by FireNewt
though look at it from the perspective of compresion, on ton of compressed gems would infact weigh the same as one ton of compressed feathers, absolute value regardless of buoyancy. and from that I go back to my original question, would they? If you take out buoyancy, yes. It's hard to take out buoyancy on Earth (because that would require taking out all air) but I suppose with some really careful Implosions you could get the job done in Elanthia.

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Maimara
A ton of feathers weighs the same as a ton of gems.
Originally posted by Elrodin
feathers trap in more air mass
Both wrong, I'm afraid.

Air is a fluid, and as such, any object displacing that fluid will be subjected to a buoyant force. The more air is displaced, the more force is provided. As feathers are less dense than gems, they will have more volume. When weighed out on a scale or what have you, the scale will give a faulty reading for both items, but the feather error will be more on account of having more buoyant force.

I apologize for bringing Physics to the boards (especially when it's nowhere near on topic) but my high school teacher would never forgive me if I let that slide.

..nothing in that has anything to do with the " Mass" of an object. Which is a constant number.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by RangerD1
..nothing in that has anything to do with the " Mass" of an object. Which is a constant number. which is why I said, in the beginning:
If you weigh them out on Earth (or Elanthia) the feathers actually have more mass, thus they can be said to "weigh more". Please note the quotation marks, and situational requirements.

[Betheny]

A TON OF FEATHERS WEIGHS THE SAME AS A TON OF GEMS.

Why, you ask?

Because 'ton' is a weight measurement.

Try this on for size: A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of gems.

And, for the record, I didn't have to go to college to figure that one out.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Maimara]

There is a difference been weight and ton, learn it, use it, love it

[Betheny]

You mean weight and mass.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ton

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Maimara]

[Bobmuhthol]

Weight and mass don't have much of a difference if I remember anything..

Weight is just mass (in kilograms) x the force of gravity (9.8m/sec/sec), making the label change from mass to Newton's and that's it.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Maimara
A TON OF FEATHERS WEIGHS THE SAME AS A TON OF GEMS.I quintriple dare you to weigh out a ton of feathers and a ton of gems anywhere on the surface of the earth you wish. Then take them into a vacuum and weigh them again.

[Bobmuhthol]

Uh, Latrinsorm, in reality you're incorrect, no matter how much you can back it up you're arguing something not relevant. A ton is a ton whether it's in a vacuum or not. It may take more feathers in a vacuum, but a ton is a ton, if I understand this correctly, and the weight it takes to make a ton will not change: the amount of feathers will.

Yea, same difference.

Yes, Bob is correct that is how you calculate mass\weight. Its relevent when considering travel outside of the earths gravitational pull.

[Latrinsorm]

Bob, there really is a difference between mass and weight. Mass is an inherent quality of matter, weight is not. Weight is a measurement of the force on said matter from a given gravitational field. Therefore, anything that interferes with measurement of that force (this is how buoyancy becomes relevant) will allow me to say things like "a ton of feathers weighs more". Trust me on this.

edited one word, otherwise I'd sound dumb(er?)

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Maimara
A TON OF FEATHERS WEIGHS THE SAME AS A TON OF GEMS.I quintriple dare you to weigh out a ton of feathers and a ton of gems anywhere on the surface of the earth you wish. Then take them into a vacuum and weigh them again.

This discussion isn't about 'what if', it's about A TON WEIGHS A TON. No matter what it's made up of.

If you vacuum air out or what the hell ever you're talking about, you change the situation. I'm not talking about your situation. I"m talking about the situation that's benig dicussed. Don't try and make yourself look smarter by adding or subtracting elements in the equasion to make other people wrong. It's not cute.

No, i won't trust you on this. Regardless of air resistence, 9.8 m\s is exerted on all mass on this planet. It might not be feesible to weigh a ton of feathers, thus making any attempts at measuring said ton of feathers fruitless (why the fuck would you measure a ton of feathers is beyond me), but that has no effect on their weight and mass.

[Bobmuhthol]

I actually haven't covered buoyancy, so you may very well be correct, as I don't understand its properties.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Maimara
Don't try and make yourself look smarter by adding or subtracting elements in the equasion to make other people wrong. It's not cute. I assure you, I had no malicious intent. I had an excellent Physics teacher in high school who taught me many things. It would be selfish to keep them to myself.

[AkMan]

Err now that this thread has been split, this post is totally off topic.

I think 2 items that are 2000 lbs each weigh the same. That's as far as I'm getting into this discussion LOL.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by AkMan]

[Mint]

And probably happy that this thread keeps getting bumped.

[GSLeloo]

Ok what is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?

[imported_Kranar]

Maimara of all people is correct.

I think some people are confusing weight with net force acting downwards on an object.

Weight is strictly a measurement of gravitational force. If I have 1 ton of gravitational force acting on a group of feathers, and 1 ton of gravitational force acting on a group of orbs or rocks, both groups have the same amount of gravitational force acting on them, and thus weigh the same.

Buoyancy is irrelevent. Buoyancy just acts opposite to gravity so that the net force acting on an object decreases. Buoyancy doesn't decrease the amount of gravity acting on an object though, that 1 ton of gravity is still acting on the feathers or rocks or whatever, all the buoyancy's doing is decreasing the NET force acting on it.

Maimara wins on this issue.

[Edited on 2-27-2004 by Kranar]

[Latrinsorm]

Bah, you're no fun, Kranar. How are we supposed to measure that gravitational force without using some equipment that uses the downward force on an object?

[imported_Kranar]

<< How are we supposed to measure that gravitational force without using some equipment that uses the downward force on an object? >>

We already measured it using some incredibly precise equipment and that equipment stated that both objects weighed a ton.

[GSLeloo]

No one answered about gold vs feathers!

[Mint]

Uh gold? No, no, feathers. Yeah. Wait...um gold it is. Damn, lost the coin I was flipping...

[GSLeloo]

Well usually it's a pound is a pound... but apparently gold is actually weighed differently so a pound of gold is more than a pound of feathers.

[Kitsun]

Originally posted by Vesi
I didn't bother checking for rechargability. Not sure I can find a bard crazy enough to sing to em all.


How do you know they are orbs if you don't have a bard sing to them? I know when my bardess sings to gems, the same verse that tells her the gem is an orb is the same verse that will tell her if it is mage rechargeable. Two different responses depending on the gem from the same question she asks the gem. Just curious how you could tell those were orbs without having them sung to.

Nice little bag of gems either way.

Vesi [/quote]

My cleric has the spell 325, I casted at each one of em. Holy receptacle only takes to orbs.

Of all the topics I've started, I never would've bet on this one to kickstart a tangent.

I don't get any recognition? I see how it is Kranar :P

[Skirmisher]

Rangers not getting any Kranar love.:no:

[Moist Happenings]

Holy crap I started a thread without any effort at all. I rock.


Also I declare you all wrong by Heisenberg's uncertainty principal.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Neff
Also I declare you all wrong by Heisenberg's uncertainty principal. What school does he work at?

Also: TRIPLE HA UPON YOU

Heisenberg's uncertainty is no child's pal.

[Mint]

There should be some sort of daily comedy award cause CT earned it today for splitting this thread. It was hilarious.