Probing Local Realism

Post Reply New Topic

Are you referring to the momentum it hits that propels it half way out the Earth (repeatedly)? I thought that was implicitly part of the gravity/acceleration though i guess i could see how you might look for it explicitly specified.

Since the Earth isn't spinning, i'd think the ball is dropping wayyy too fast to be bouncing off the walls on descent due to the slowww rotation around the sun, so..i have no other ideas of what you think is missing. I looked online at a physics class page and also could find just gravity/acceleration as the primary factors..
Sooooo ???????????????

I am interested in p=mv, what is m?

Now you have completely brought the problem outside its locality.

Last edited by Deltaville on 07 Feb 2016, 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Of course gravity and acceleration are paramount, but what natural phenomenon enables to the ball to ultimately takes its final motion?

Hint: I have mentioned it in a previous post on this thread.

I thought YOU were the one doing that!

Okay its not that.

You mentioned inertia above.



Already implicitly answered what "M" means when I said "you're gonna tell us that the ball already has momentum before you even drop it".

"M" means "Intertial mass" for the second time.

Momentum equals intertial mass time velocity.

You never specified the ball's mass. But if it's just a child's little rubber ball it cant have much mass (compared to the earth). But in the course of the event it accumulates a lot of velocity (I would think). Which it then looses. As I explained in the post above (which was pretty much all about "inertia").

But somehow even though though inertia is the star of my scenario I still somehow ignored inertia ( I got that hint, but the hint didn't make sense).

Okay. I'm stumped.

To recap: you drop the ball down the shaft. There is no air in the shaft. So there is no terminal velocity, nor is there friction that would turn the ball into a shooting star that burns up. The ball just keeps on accelerating until it reaches the center of the earth. In fact at the center of the earth (in theory) it would be going at escape velocity. But then the moment it passes the center of the earth it will be going against gravity, and start to decelerate at the same rate it was accelerating before. So it stops at the opening at the other side of the earth.

It gains momentum. And then it looses momentum.

You got it.

HUH??????????????????????????

So I was RIGHT all along?

My post immediately above was just a reiteration of the very same scenario that I stated further up the thread that you said was wrong.

And now you're saying its right!

Maybe I just didnt use the right "magic word" that you wanted to hear the other coupla times?

WTF?

Not to mention:



I Knew you'd do that.. Which is why i pushed back to get answer instead of going on another goose chase.
So i say Momentum and no,not momentum...
Then posts later, it's momentum.

Double WTF.

And naturalplastic's post -that contained gravity, acceleration and obvious momentum was totally wrong...but momentum must be specified as the more important factor than acceleration and gravity, which both play a minor part by comparison??? Where does the momentum come from? It is SECondary to the gravity and acceleration and would not exist without them.

Triple WTF and i'm done playing. So far, i've read far too many "you're wrong" this and that and the end surprise answer is exactly what the person previously said (or relevant factors are completely omitted from the original premise), but apparently they aren't special and smart enough to ever be right..they always must be wrong about something. E.g.




I'm done

I never said that you got the question correct earlier. You just completely diverted the core premise of the thread later on by a post that added completely irrelevant factors that would have ultimately no effect on the net motion of the ball. I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page on this. I was not seeking an answer when an answer was already provided.

I have never said momentum is not a factor. Merely I provided the formula of intertial mass which is based on the ratio of momentum, to explain natural plastic to explain a critical factor that he was missing on a previous post.

Name a single "factor" I said here that is "irrelevent".

Maybe I wasnt clear enough: I said "you would have the whole earth pulling on you during both halves of the journey so it would cancel out". By that I meant that gravity from the mass of the earth would be pulling you towards the center of the earth both as you approach it and as you move away from it).

I am just trying to understand your strange behavior on this thread.

Saying that: what I said is irrelevent, and that -"its inertia" is making a distinction with out a difference. So why do you keep making this distinction with out a difference? Are you just to ashamed to admit that you screwed up? Or do you really believe this nonsense that you keep repeating?

Ashamed? Ashamed of what? I had no clue whether you wanted to continue with the conversation or simply reset the question, notwithstanding the fact that an answer already has been given.

In one post you gave completely irrelevant factor that do not have even a shred of influence on the ball's motion. For instance you quoted that the earths rotation around the sun would influence the motion of the ball, when because of the locality principle, it would render it irrelevant. Whether you took that notion seriously or not, but have no clue, but that is the way I interpreted it.

Strange behaviour? You're joking right? If you wish to discuss a quantum physics or black body radiation problem I can certainly start a new thread. I just feel you are pulling a tantrum.

Dude, please try to follow the thread of what you yourself are talking about.

We are not talking about the post in which I suggested that you were playing games with us with a trick question-and in which I suggested that your trick answer to that trick question might have something to do with with the Earth's revolving around the Sun.

What we are talking about is another post I made. That post in question is the post quoted two posts above.

In that post I said - to capsulize it - was that the ball would fall- would accelerate because gravity pulls it toward the center of the earth. But then it would pass the center of the earth- and that gravity would decelerate it, and that it would stop near the surface of the earth at the opposite end of the tunnel.

What was your response to that post?

That I was wrong.

And what did you say was correct?

What you said was the correct was: that the ball would accelerates because of gravity, and until it goes past the center of the earth, and then it decelerates because of gravity and that it would stop near the surface of the planet at the opposite side of the tunnel.

I said "the ball would do ABC, for reasons XYZ". And you said "no, and XYZ is relevent", and then you said that the right answer is "the ball would do ABC, for reasons XYZ".

You said I was wrong, and then you said that the right answer is very same thing I said !

Or at least it appeared to me (and to everyone else on this thread -they all left because they didnt understand your behavior either)that's what you were doing.

That's what I mean when I said that your behavior on this thread is "strange".

The center of the earth is filled with molten iron. The ball would burn up or melt before it ever reached the center.

No idea about all this physics, but can guess about this one from Deltaville's previous post: "my name is a parody of a German band":
Alphaville (big in japan, forever young etc). I like "sounds like a melody" best