Dew slopestyle?

Oystein should have won. wanted jesper to win. conditions fucked up the first 75% of the riders up came up then randomly came in thoughout the second round(sucked ass) but was overall bad throughout the whole time. course was pretty good

Nobody could get any speed in the first run, near enough everyone hut the knuckle on the last kicker

i was dissapointed in the conditions this year, and felt as if evan mceacharan, if he was bigger, would have been on the podium.

xRAPHAELxi was dissapointed in the conditions this year, and felt as if evan mceacharan, if he was bigger, would have been on the podium.

Weight does not make you go faster. Do the physics. If you want me to show you that's cool.

adamwolynWeight does not make you go faster. Do the physics. If you want me to show you that's cool.

It actually does.

adamwolynWeight does not make you go faster. Do the physics. If you want me to show you that's cool.

In physics class you are right. Real world has air resistance though, which makes light things go slower

extravertIn physics class you are right. Real world has air resistance though, which makes light things go slower

Physics class does involve drag though where Fd the drag force is equal to .5pv^2ca. Mass is not included in the equation and is not related to the force.

For the other ppl, in the instance of sliding up and down slopes, the net force as a result of gravity, friction, and the normal force is equal to m(gcos(x)-usin(x))where x is the angle of elevation. Even though the greater the mass the greater resulting net force, the net force is equal to the mass multiplied by the acceleration and so the mass is canceled out so the only thing that matters is your slope, and frictional constant.

You fucking ppl piss me off so much when you argue that mass makes a difference and are reluctant to listen when you haven't actually taken the 9th grade intro physics course to learn this simple fucking concept. -k me all you want but this happens w everyone and it's one of the most fucking annoying things ever for me. I have to deal with this ignorance with longboarders, skiers, skaters, etc and I can't stand the reluctance to accept the math. It's like the first time you learned that an apple and an orange fall at around the same speeds. You thought that the heavier one would fall quicker even though you had no evidence and it seemed like common sense but it wasn't true.

Sparknotes: stfu and take a basic physics class. Then we can talk.

I don't know what physics your talking about.

p=mv
Momentum= mass x velocity.

Someone with a greater mass will have more momentum in the air and on the snow. Which would help with not casing, aka the biggest reason runs were not being stompted.

Usually, to increase momentum, a skier would increase their velocity. Today doing that was difficult. The other variable, mass, played a bigger role I believe.

There's also more to it. Some skiers were able to land in more packed areas of the course vs untouched areas. There were variables with wind as well. And overall shitty conditions but skiing isn't indoor soccer where everything is always perfect. Part of the sport is dealing with these kinds of situations and obviously some were better at it than others.

Stoked for Gus, Oystein, and Nick regardless. They all threw down and their runs were deserving of a spot on the podium in my opinion.

*SBCmingg*I don't know what physics your talking about.

p=mv
Momentum= mass x velocity.

Someone with a greater mass will have more momentum in the air and on the snow. Which would help with not casing, aka the biggest reason runs were not being stompted.

Usually, to increase momentum, a skier would increase their velocity. Today doing that was difficult. The other variable, mass, played a bigger role I believe.

There's also more to it. Some skiers were able to land in more packed areas of the course vs untouched areas. There were variables with wind as well. And overall shitty conditions but skiing isn't indoor soccer where everything is always perfect. Part of the sport is dealing with these kinds of situations and obviously some were better at it than others.

Stoked for Gus, Oystein, and Nick regardless. They all threw down and their runs were deserving of a spot on the podium in my opinion.

Momentum is not velocity. Do you understand the difference here?

They needed more velocity. Mass plays no role in this. The end.

You should be using energy to try and explain this...

potential energy = mgh
kinetic energy = .5mv^2

mgh=.5mv^2; mass cancels out; v= sqrt(2gh)

So if we ignore all non-conservative forces, mass doesn't effect velocity. But of course on a ski slope there are plenty of non-conservative forces, so mass def does make a difference.

adamwolynPhysics class does involve drag though where Fd the drag force is equal to .5pv^2ca. Mass is not included in the equation and is not related to the force.

For the other ppl, in the instance of sliding up and down slopes, the net force as a result of gravity, friction, and the normal force is equal to m(gcos(x)-usin(x))where x is the angle of elevation. Even though the greater the mass the greater resulting net force, the net force is equal to the mass multiplied by the acceleration and so the mass is canceled out so the only thing that matters is your slope, and frictional constant.

You fucking ppl piss me off so much when you argue that mass makes a difference and are reluctant to listen when you haven't actually taken the 9th grade intro physics course to learn this simple fucking concept. -k me all you want but this happens w everyone and it's one of the most fucking annoying things ever for me. I have to deal with this ignorance with longboarders, skiers, skaters, etc and I can't stand the reluctance to accept the math. It's like the first time you learned that an apple and an orange fall at around the same speeds. You thought that the heavier one would fall quicker even though you had no evidence and it seemed like common sense but it wasn't true.

Sparknotes: stfu and take a basic physics class. Then we can talk.

Sparknotes: STFU and spend some time on a ski slope. Maybe then you'll realize that real-world experience can be just as informative as games with numbers. Being heavier makes you go faster.

adamwolynPhysics class does involve drag though where Fd the drag force is equal to .5pv^2ca. Mass is not included in the equation and is not related to the force.

For the other ppl, in the instance of sliding up and down slopes, the net force as a result of gravity, friction, and the normal force is equal to m(gcos(x)-usin(x))where x is the angle of elevation. Even though the greater the mass the greater resulting net force, the net force is equal to the mass multiplied by the acceleration and so the mass is canceled out so the only thing that matters is your slope, and frictional constant.

You fucking ppl piss me off so much when you argue that mass makes a difference and are reluctant to listen when you haven't actually taken the 9th grade intro physics course to learn this simple fucking concept. -k me all you want but this happens w everyone and it's one of the most fucking annoying things ever for me. I have to deal with this ignorance with longboarders, skiers, skaters, etc and I can't stand the reluctance to accept the math. It's like the first time you learned that an apple and an orange fall at around the same speeds. You thought that the heavier one would fall quicker even though you had no evidence and it seemed like common sense but it wasn't true.

Sparknotes: stfu and take a basic physics class. Then we can talk.

You are right that the drag force doesn't have mass in the equation. But, mass does affect acceleration of a falling body when you're dealing with non-conservative forces.

For example, in a vacuum:

mg = ma; mass cancels, gravity = acceleration.


Outside a vacuum:

drag force - mg = ma.

Mass doesn't cancel.

a = (drag force - mg)/m.

An object with a larger mass vs. smaller mass, will have a greater force of gravity acting upon it which allows it counteract the force of drag, and thus results in a higher acceleration.

adamwolynPhysics class does involve drag though where Fd the drag force is equal to .5pv^2ca. Mass is not included in the equation and is not related to the force.

For the other ppl, in the instance of sliding up and down slopes, the net force as a result of gravity, friction, and the normal force is equal to m(gcos(x)-usin(x))where x is the angle of elevation. Even though the greater the mass the greater resulting net force, the net force is equal to the mass multiplied by the acceleration and so the mass is canceled out so the only thing that matters is your slope, and frictional constant.

You fucking ppl piss me off so much when you argue that mass makes a difference and are reluctant to listen when you haven't actually taken the 9th grade intro physics course to learn this simple fucking concept. -k me all you want but this happens w everyone and it's one of the most fucking annoying things ever for me. I have to deal with this ignorance with longboarders, skiers, skaters, etc and I can't stand the reluctance to accept the math. It's like the first time you learned that an apple and an orange fall at around the same speeds. You thought that the heavier one would fall quicker even though you had no evidence and it seemed like common sense but it wasn't true.

Sparknotes: stfu and take a basic physics class. Then we can talk.

Be honest you have haven't taken physic beyond a high school level. Mass is a factor in sliding sports.

To much focus on hash tags and stupid shit not enough skiing. Boring format. Love watching the guys do their thing still but it could use a makeover

Download-My-AppsBe honest you have haven't taken physic beyond a high school level. Mass is a factor in sliding sports.

Mass is a factor in air resistance, and as you said, the more mass you have, theoretically the less air resistance will effect you. The only thing is, people with more mass tend to have a larger surface area for air resistance to act on, at least partly countering that.

Friction between the snow and the skis also has to be taken into account. The more mass you have the larger the force between the snow and the skis is, which adds more friction to slow you down, depending entirely on the friction coefficient between the skis and snow.

There are a lot of factors, its hard to tell in reality, although people with more mass tend to go a little faster.

Then how come that fat fuck always made it down the carpet slide before I did?

*SBCmingg*I don't know what physics your talking about.

p=mv
Momentum= mass x velocity.

Someone with a greater mass will have more momentum in the air and on the snow. Which would help with not casing, aka the biggest reason runs were not being stompted.

Usually, to increase momentum, a skier would increase their velocity. Today doing that was difficult. The other variable, mass, played a bigger role I believe.

There's also more to it. Some skiers were able to land in more packed areas of the course vs untouched areas. There were variables with wind as well. And overall shitty conditions but skiing isn't indoor soccer where everything is always perfect. Part of the sport is dealing with these kinds of situations and obviously some were better at it than others.

Stoked for Gus, Oystein, and Nick regardless. They all threw down and their runs were deserving of a spot on the podium in my opinion.

you only talk about momentum in collisions where knowing that momentum being conserved can help you calculate velocities of objects after collisions.

Bomber_BoBYou should be using energy to try and explain this...

potential energy = mgh
kinetic energy = .5mv^2

mgh=.5mv^2; mass cancels out; v= sqrt(2gh)

So if we ignore all non-conservative forces, mass doesn't effect velocity. But of course on a ski slope there are plenty of non-conservative forces, so mass def does make a difference.

here you are refering to initial energy +work =final energy. the work is done by friction. frictional force is equal to the frictional constant multiplied by the normal force. for those of you who dont know the frictional constant is a constant related to the amount of friction between 2 surfaces. the normal force is the amount of force a surface pushes on another. if you increase this force, there will be more friction(e.g. more friction when sliding a pencil while pushing down really hard as compared to just barely pushing at all). If you make a freebody diagram you will find that Fn is equal to mgcos(@) and so Frictional force is umgcos(@) where @ is the angle of elevation. To find work you multiply this by the distance the force was done over which is .5at^2 (Vo is zero because it makes the change in kinetic energy simpler->>>.5mv^2 compared to .5m(Vf^2-Vo^2) so we actually have mgh-.5umgcos(@)at^2=.5mv^2. the masses still cancel and your left with the mass being completely unrelated. But way to actually argue with actual physics instead of common knowledge.

ESBSparknotes: STFU and spend some time on a ski slope. Maybe then you'll realize that real-world experience can be just as informative as games with numbers. Being heavier makes you go faster.

Dont know what your referring to by "games and numbers" but real world experience is what developed these equations a very long time ago under precise controlled experiments but just skiing around wont tell you much. there are too many variables if you try this with a friend(inconsistent wind speeds, different frictional constants between skis, one is better at tucking in, how much and often your skis arent perfectly straight, etc.) that will make your results completely useless and meaningless. there isnt one physicist out there that wont agree in an instant that weight will not affect your speed.

Bomber_BoBYou are right that the drag force doesn't have mass in the equation. But, mass does affect acceleration of a falling body when you're dealing with non-conservative forces.

For example, in a vacuum:

mg = ma; mass cancels, gravity = acceleration.


Outside a vacuum:

drag force - mg = ma.

Mass doesn't cancel.

a = (drag force - mg)/m.

An object with a larger mass vs. smaller mass, will have a greater force of gravity acting upon it which allows it counteract the force of drag, and thus results in a higher acceleration.

first off in your first equation g isnt gravity. it is called the gravitational constant for earth which is 9.8m/s/s. In a vacuum, everything falls at that constant acceleration (look up feather and bowling ball dropped in vacuum) no matter what.

drag force is equal to .5pv^2Ca. p is the density of the fluid, a is the reference area, and c is the drag coefficient. since we arent calculating anything and we are only finding proportional relations we can take all these out along with .5 since they dont change how mass affects acceleration and in their place add a constant c of units kg/m. so we have mg-cv^2=ma ->>g-cv^2/m=a now while it looks like a simple problem, the drag force is constantly changing due to changes in velocity. the velocity at any one point in time is a*t. so we have g-ca^2 t^2/m=a by moving terms with acceleration on one side, factoring, changing a*t^2 to x (distance), and simplifying you still get changing acceleration with (mg)/(m+cx)=a.
In order to factor drag into the equation you need to be aquainted with higher level calculus because it is constantly changing. It is very complex and doesnt account for much slowing down so it is rarely considered in situations.

Download-My-AppsBe honest you have haven't taken physic beyond a high school level. Mass is a factor in sliding sports.

I am in ap physics which is high enough to understnad these concepts.

DludMass is a factor in air resistance, and as you said, the more mass you have, theoretically the less air resistance will effect you. The only thing is, people with more mass tend to have a larger surface area for air resistance to act on, at least partly countering that.

Friction between the snow and the skis also has to be taken into account. The more mass you have the larger the force between the snow and the skis is, which adds more friction to slow you down, depending entirely on the friction coefficient between the skis and snow.

There are a lot of factors, its hard to tell in reality, although people with more mass tend to go a little faster.

I never said that but the more mass you have the less the mass affects how much the acceleration is influenced by mass. its a complicated and hard to inderstand idea. In reality factors such as viscosity, skin friction, and wind have an incredibly greater effect on your speed so the slight change in area is irrelavent that is due to a bigger heavier person riding. In all of my arguments/equations i include friction as a factor. the main thing to understand here is that a greater mass will experience a greater force but the acceleration is still the same due to the fact that a greater mass doesnt acclerate as fast.

Dude are you stupid? I don't need some kid who is in high school taking AP physics to explain this basic shit. 99% of the shit you said is exactly what is represented in the formulas I typed. You are just explaining in words how to plug variables in. You also decided to call me out on stupid technicality, kudos.

You said this earlier "Weight does not make you go faster. Do the physics. If you want me to show you that's cool."

This is wrong. The larger your mass the larger your force of gravity will be. So when you compare a more massive object with a less massive object, the more massive object will be able to counteract the force of drag with a larger resulting force which results in a larger acceleration when compared to the less massive object. This is why an elephant will hit the ground first vs. a feather when there are non-conservative forces.

Translating this to skiing and the origin of this stupid argument, a more massive person will have a larger acceleration than a less massive person because they counteract air drag with a larger resulting force. And yes I know friction plays a role as well and the more massive person actually has a larger force of kinetic friction, but I am ignoring that because force of air drag >> force of friction on snow.

"The main thing to understand here is that a greater mass will experience a greater force but the acceleration is still the same due to the fact that a greater mass doesn't accelerate as fast."

Again this is wrong.

a = (drag force - mg)/m.

Plug in two different values for mass keeping everything else constant, tell me what accelerations you get.

jesus, this thread turned to bullshit

renaming website Nerdschoolers