Russia Says Proposed Mission To The Moon Will ‘Verify’ Whether The USA. Actually Landed There

[Raymond]

Dude.

The "motion" in that equation is acceleration DUE to gravity. How can motion be due to something that it's causing?

Also, the discovery of the gravitational constant didn't have shit to do with other planets? Again I ask, where are you getting this from?

That stuff it's not right at all.

My man said maybe researching that equation can help me understand. This is hilarious.

I can't keep explaing the same shit over and over and you keep moving the goal posts cause you don't understand. So Newton's gravitational constant has nothing to do with the motion of planets? Wow. I'm not even going to Google that for you. Just accept the fact that you don't understand it and keep it moving. And you also can't even understand the fact that you are arguing in favor of what I said about the definition of gravity. It requires movement or it doesn't exist.

 

[sammyjax]

According to this fool the faster you go, the more gravity you have. Now, as you move closer to the speed of light your mass will increase and that keeps you from reaching that speed.

http://www.softschools.com/formulas/physics/relativistic_mass_formula/546/

Relativistic Mass Formula

Relativistic mass refers to mass of a body which change with the speed of the body as this speeds approaches close to speed of light, it increases with velocity and tends to infinity when the velocity approaches the speed of light.

Relativistic mass = rest mass / squared root [one minus (velocity / speed of light) squared]

The equation is:

mr = m0 / sqrt (1 – v2 / c2 )

Where:

mr: relativistic mass

m0: rest mass (invariant mass)

v: velocity

c: speed of light

Relativistic Mass Formula Questions:

1) An electron has a rest mass of 9.11 x 10 -31 kg. In a detector, the same electron has a mass of 12.55 x 10-31 kg. How fast is electron moving relative the detector?

Answer:

We cleared the velocity of the equation of the relativistic mass

v = c √(1 – (m0 / mr)2

Now we replace the data

v = (3.00 x 108 m/s) √(1 – 9.11 x 10-31 kg / 12.55 x 10-31 kg)

v = 2.06 x 108 m/s

2) The rest mass of an electron is 9.1 x 10-31 kg and it moves with a speed of 4.5 x 105 m/s. Calculate the relativistic mass.

Answer:

We juts replace the data in the relativistic mass equation

mr = 9.1 x 10 -31 kg / sqrt (1 – (4.5 x 107 m/s / 3.0 x 108 m/s)2)

mr = 9.8 x 10-31 kg

Nothing in this equation assumes movement. To say the movement is working behind the scene based on assumption is also disregarding that movement of a large bodied object is relative, which mean you can’t assume that it’s working in the background without placing the movement within the equation — simply because movment is relative. Also movement is based on a distance over time, which a time unit is also not present in the gravitational force equation. You’re adding assumptions in areas that is not necessary. What “movement” is creating this force?

The same principle of this equation can be applied to two people standing on a trampoline and placing marbles in between them. The marbles are going to be attracted to the people with the heavier mass. Nothing about that suggest movement causing a gravitational force. This is largely mass causing a gravitational force.

 

[4 Dimensional]

Dude.

The "motion" in that equation is acceleration DUE to gravity. How can motion be due to something that it's causing?

 

[sammyjax]

I can't keep explaing the same shit over and over and you keep moving the goal posts cause you don't understand. So Newton's gravitational constant has nothing to do with the motion of planets? Wow. I'm not even going to Google that for you. Just accept the fact that you don't understand it and keep it moving. And you also can't even understand the fact that you are arguing in favor of what I said about the definition of gravity. It requires movement or it doesn't exist.

stop lying man damn yall be lying lol

I said THE DISCOVERY of the gravitational constant didn't have shit to do with the motion of planets. It's been the basis of literally every astronomical measurement since it's discovery, yes. But nigga...how do you think we began our understanding of the physics of planetary movement in earnest? AFTER the laws were defined.

@4 Dimensional and @LordSinister just cooked your whole shit anyway lol tell me how your shit goes with any of that.

 

[sammyjax]

Right.

look at the yellow joint doing all that moving
Creating all that gravity

Lmao

 

[Raymond]

Nothing in this equation assumes movement. To say the movement is working behind the scene based on assumption is also disregarding that movement of a large bodied object is relative, which mean you can’t assume that it’s working in the background without placing the movement within the equation — simply because movment is relative. Also movement is based on a distance over time, which a time unit is also not present in the gravitational force equation. You’re adding assumptions in areas that is not necessary. What “movement” is creating this force?

The same principle of this equation can be applied to two people standing on a trampoline and placing marbles in between them. The marbles are going to be attracted to the people with the heavier mass. Nothing about that suggest movement causing a gravitational force. This is largely mass causing a gravitational force.

Do you know where this equation comes from? You conveniently ignore the big G right before the two masses. You just said that time is not present in the equation. There are seconds squared and there is distance over seconds squared in the equation you just wrote above. You have no clue what the equation you wrote means, do you? I expected it from sammyjax, but didnt from you. And force itself, regardless of this equation implies movement. It is the very definition of force. And do you know what is that force that pulls the marble to the people standing in a trampoline? You're just rambling just to ramble while proving everything I've said in this thread. You're saying movement is realtive, DUH. That has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You know what movement is creating that force?Its called gravitational force. Distance over time, times masses and other time related/ force related units.

 

[Raymond]

stop lying man damn yall be lying lol

I said THE DISCOVERY of the gravitational constant didn't have shit to do with the motion of planets. It's been the basis of literally every astronomical measurement since it's discovery, yes. But nigga...how do you think we began our understanding of the physics of planetary movement in earnest? AFTER the laws were defined.

@4 Dimensional and @LordSinister just cooked your whole shit anyway lol tell me how your shit goes with any of that.

This doesn't even make sense. I'm talking about Isaac Newton but you somehow think that you managed to flip this into something else.

 

[sammyjax]

This doesn't even make sense. I'm talking about Isaac Newton but you somehow think that you managed to flip this into something else.

Buddy you are all over the place and wrong on every square.

"Force itself implies movement", movement of what, man?

I don't see how you niggas can type so many words and not realize how fucked up you got shit.

Lol @ you expected it from me but not from 4, there's a reason the ones posting math are in agreement you bucket head bastard lol

 

[Raymond]

Buddy you are all over the place and wrong on every square.

"Force itself implies movement", movement of what, man?

I don't see how you niggas can type so many words and not realize how fucked up you got shit.

Lol @ you expected it from me but not from 4, there's a reason the ones posting math are in agreement you bucket head bastard lol

Force = mass times acceleration.

And I wholeheartleadly agree with the equation 4 posted. It involves movement. You know, distance over time.

Now watch you flip this into something else.

 

[sammyjax]

Force = mass times acceleration.

And I wholeheartleadly agree with the equation 4 posted. It involves movement. You know, distance over time.

Now watch you flip this into something else.

Don't hedge buddy lol get this work

He and I are saying the same shit lol wtf

Of course it "involves movement". You're still missing the point bro.

When the apple fell, what motion towards what was Newton measuring?

Humor me.

 

[Big Tex]

Force = mass times acceleration.

And I wholeheartleadly agree with the equation 4 posted. It involves movement. You know, distance over time.

Now watch you flip this into something else.

So if the Earth stopped moving and spinning, you think we would all fly off of it due to no gravity?

 

[Big Tex]

Damn this shit is still going on?

 

[sammyjax]

Damn this shit is still going on?

They always come back

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

stop lying man damn yall be lying lol

I said THE DISCOVERY of the gravitational constant didn't have shit to do with the motion of planets. It's been the basis of literally every astronomical measurement since it's discovery, yes. But nigga...how do you think we began our understanding of the physics of planetary movement in earnest? AFTER the laws were defined.

@4 Dimensional and @LordSinister just cooked your whole shit anyway lol tell me how your shit goes with any of that.

you are so much cooler when you master your anger..

you still wrong about the massive black holes in the center of galaxies tho... they do not move.. unless triggered by something.

A: Black holes can indeed move through space. The really massive black holes at the centers of galaxies will stay there unless something catastrophic happens, like a direct collision between two galaxies.

The much smaller black holes formed from the explosions of stars can move fairly quickly because they receive a kick from the explosion. See, for example:

http://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/326

 

[Raymond]

Don't hedge buddy lol get this work

He and I are saying the same shit lol wtf

Of course it "involves movement". You're still missing the point bro.

When the apple fell, what motion towards what was Newton measuring?

I can't miss the point of something that isn't true. A gravitational force, that is created by Earth, is why the apple falls. Its difficult to think about gravity being created as opposed to it just being a property, but all forces are created. That is a fact. It's not something I think. It's not a property. It is what it is. But the answer to this makes me think about a property of Earth, which is its rotating velocity. This is unrelated to gravitational force, but in the same breath we can say that gravity is also a property . The answer to how exactly gravity is created specifically for each planet can maybe be obtained from studying where the gravitational constant came from.

Edit: I was trying to help you out earlier but damn. Just study where the gravitational constant came from originally and then get back to me.

 

[sammyjax]

you are so much cooler when you master your anger..

you still wrong about the massive black holes in the center of galaxies tho... they do not move.. unless triggered by something.

A: Black holes can indeed move through space. The really massive black holes at the centers of galaxies will stay there unless something catastrophic happens, like a direct collision between two galaxies.

The much smaller black holes formed from the explosions of stars can move fairly quickly because they receive a kick from the explosion. See, for example:

http://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/326

Bro

Nothing in the universe is not in constant motion.

Everything

EVERYTHING

Is moving at all times.

 

[sammyjax]

I can't miss the point of something that isn't true. A gravitational force, that is created by Earth, is why the apple falls. Its difficult to think about gravity being created as opposed to it just being a property, but all forces are created. That is a fact. It's not something I think. It's not a property. It is what it is. But the answer to this makes me think about a property of Earth, which is its rotating velocity. This is unrelated to gravitational force, but in the same breath we can say that gravity is also a property . The answer to how exactly gravity is created specifically for each planet can maybe be obtained from studying where the gravitational constant came from.

I can't miss the point of something that isn't true. A gravitational force, that is created by Earth, is why the apple falls. Its difficult to think about gravity being created as opposed to it just being a property, but all forces are created. That is a fact. It's not something I think. It's not a property. It is what it is. But the answer to this makes me think about a property of Earth, which is its rotating velocity. This is unrelated to gravitational force, but in the same breath we can say that gravity is also a property . The answer to how exactly gravity is created specifically for each planet can maybe be obtained from studying where the gravitational constant came from.

What motion towards what was Newton measuring fam

 

[Raymond]

What motion towards what was Newton measuring fam

I answered it. Gravitational force was the reason for the apple falling

 

[sammyjax]

I answered it. Gravitational force was the reason for the apple falling

See man, never a straight answer. I didn't ask you what the reason for the apple falling was. You should have felt crazy typing this as a response to such a direct question.

Yes that was the reason the apple fell, that is not in dispute.

Everyone here is saying to you that motion is not what created that gravitational force.

Please share the equation for that or where you are getting the idea from.

Im not sure it's possible to be any more plain than I am being.

You keep reposting the existing equation, which was posted in refutation of your assertion. Please share something that supports your statement.

 

[LordSinister]

Black holes are flat

 

[4 Dimensional]

Do you know where this equation comes from? You conveniently ignore the big G right before the two masses. You just said that time is not present in the equation. There are seconds squared and there is distance over seconds squared in the equation you just wrote above. You have no clue what the equation you wrote means, do you? I expected it from sammyjax, but didnt from you. And force itself, regardless of this equation implies movement. It is the very definition of force. And do you know what is that force that pulls the marble to the people standing in a trampoline? You're just rambling just to ramble while proving everything I've said in this thread. You're saying movement is realtive, DUH. That has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You know what movement is creating that force?Its called gravitational force. Distance over time, times masses and other time related/ force related units.

Only neglecting because G is negligible. My argument here is that mass is the cause of gravitational force. Newton’s initial measurements of gravitational force did not include G. He wasn’t even looking for it. G was included afterwards by someone else and the value of G ended up being absurdly small.

For sake discussion let’s entertain G though. The distance per time squared is an acceleration, which is the net “result” of all forces acting on an object. If acceleration is equal to a force per unit mass: F/m = a — then a force is being applied to acceleration due to mass.

6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

You’re telling me somehow this constant has more significance over two large bodied objects with large masses causing a gravitational force? I’m just failing to see the significance of this particular movement of G being that meaningful in this case.

We can easily test it.
Mass1 = 2kg
Mass2 = 2kg
Radius = 1
G is constant at 6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
Result of F = 2.66904 x 10^-11 which is incredibly small between the two masses


Now change one of the masses to 24kg
Mass1 = 2kg
Mass2 = 24000kg
Radius = 1
G is constant at 6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
Result of F = 3.20284 x 10^-6 which is significantly higher than the first calculation.

The gravitational constant is exactly what it is: constant and small. Unchanging in both problems. Negligible in comparison to the masses of objects.

So all I am saying is that mass bares a greater significance on the gravitational force between two objects. Not movement. It’s too small to be considered.

 

[Raymond]

See man, never a straight answer. I didn't ask you what the reason for the apple falling was. You should have felt crazy typing this as a response to such a direct question.

Yes that was the reason the apple fell, that is not in dispute.

Everyone here is saying to you that motion is not what created that gravitational force.

Please share the equation for that or where you are getting the idea from.

Im not sure it's possible to be any more plain than I am being.

You keep reposting the existing equation, which was posted in refutation of your assertion. Please share something that supports your statement.

And I'm saying to you that if motion was not involved then it wasn't a force. A moving Earth created the gravitational pull. There cannot be force without motion. You can't change physics definitions to how you want them to be because you don't know why something exists. But gravity is defined as a force. A force is created by motion. I can't tell you why exactly gravity is 9.8 on Earth and no one else can either. There are probaby millions of other variables from space involved as to why that number is 9.8. But without the Earth moving, there would be no gravity created. How hard is that to get? I don't really have to share the fact that a force cant be generated without movement because its common knowledge.

 

[4 Dimensional]

I can't tell you why exactly gravity is 9.8 on Earth and no one else can either. There are probaby millions of other variables from space involved as to why that number is 9.8.

F = mg
F = G(m1 * m2)/r^2

G(m1 * m2)/r^2 = mg

Now solve for little g by dividing m on both sides.

(G*m1)/r^2 = g

(Gravitational constant * mass of the earth) divided by the radius of the earth squared gives you the gravitational acceleration constant “g.”

[(6.67 x 10^-11)(5.98 x 10^24)] / (6.38 x 10^6)^2 = 9.8

Not millions of variables. Just the two equations we’ve been using in this thread.

 

[Raymond]

Only neglecting because G is negligible. My argument here is that mass is the cause of gravitational force. Newton’s initial measurements of gravitational force did not include G. He wasn’t even looking for it. G was included afterwards by someone else and the value of G ended up being absurdly small.

For sake discussion let’s entertain G though. The distance per time squared is an acceleration, which is the net “result” of all forces acting on an object. If acceleration is equal to a force per unit mass: F/m = a — then a force is being applied to acceleration due to mass.

6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

You’re telling me somehow this constant has more significance over two large bodied objects with large masses causing a gravitational force? I’m just failing to see the significance of this particular movement of G being that meaningful in this case.

We can easily test it.
Mass1 = 2kg
Mass2 = 2kg
Radius = 1
G is constant at 6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
Result of F = 2.66904 x 10^-11 which is incredibly small between the two masses


Now change one of the masses to 24kg
Mass1 = 2kg
Mass2 = 24000kg
Radius = 1
G is constant at 6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
Result of F = 3.20284 x 10^-6 which is significantly higher than the first calculation.

The gravitational constant is exactly what it is: constant and small. Unchanging in both problems. Negligible in comparison to the masses of objects.

So all I am saying is that mass bares a greater significance on the gravitational force between two objects. Not movement. It’s too small to be considered.

Never said that masses had no bearing on force. I said that you needed both. And you do need both. I agree with what you just wrote. If you use two very small masses, then G becomes more signifant. But again, you're rambling. You're not saying anything I disagree with here. And I didn't expect rambling from you.

 

[4 Dimensional]

Never said that masses had no bearing on force. I said that you needed both. And you do need both. I agree with what you just wrote. If you use two very small masses, then G becomes more signifant. But again, you're rambling. You're not saying anything I disagree with here. And I didn't expect rambling from you.

So what are we discussing here?

 

[Raymond]

F = mg
F = G(m1 * m2)/r^2

G(m1 * m2)/r^2 = mg

Now solve for little g by dividing m on both sides.

(G*m1)/r^2 = g

(Gravitational constant * mass of the earth) divided by the radius of the earth squared gives you the gravitational acceleration constant “g.”

[(6.67 x 10^-11)(5.98 x 10^24)] / (6.38 x 10^6)^2 = 9.8

Not millions of variables. Just the two equations we’ve been using in this thread.

My mistake, 9.8 is acceleration, not gravitational force. I was thinking of gravitational force but instead wrote the Earth's gravitational acceleration.

 

[Big Tex]

But gravity is defined as a force. A force is created by motion.

There is a force called the strong atomic force. It is the force that holds atoms together. Even atoms that are perfectly still. Where is the motion creating that force?

By your thoughts. An atom that stops moving would fly apart.

So what motion creates the strong atomic force?

 

[Raymond]

So what are we discussing here?

Gravitational pull is created by a moving Earth. Just like the Sun's gravitational pull is created by a moving sun. That was actually the original point. And the sun's and Earth movements depend on millions of other variables in space.

If there is no movemement by the sun or Earth, then there is no gravitational pull created by them.

 

[Raymond]

There is a force called the strong atomic force. It is the force that holds atoms together. Even atoms that are perfectly still. Where is the motion creating that force?

By your thoughts. An atom that stops moving would fly apart.

So what motion creates the strong atomic force?

An atom is not perfectly still. But that's a different subject altogether. We can talk abut the concept of potential energy and how it relates to quantum particles, but it's too deep a subject to go into in here. I don't know the force behind atoms, but I do know they're not perfectly still.

 

[4 Dimensional]

Gravitational pull is created by a moving Earth. Just like the Sun's gravitational pull is created by a moving sun. That was actually the original point. And the sun's and Earth movements depend on millions of other variables in space.

If there is no movemement by the sun or Earth, then there is no gravitational pull created by them.

But I just showed you that G was negligible in the calculation because the constant G was small. The masses made the difference in the equation. It’s the only variable that has motion and the motion was acceleration.

Newton’s original equation was F α (m1*m2)/r^2.

“α” means “proportional to” but they were NOT equal to each other. That’s where the gravitational constant G came into play because it was the constant difference between the two proportions. By including G into the equation both the Gravitational force (F) and G(m1*m2)/r^2 are now equal to each other.

The only way, mathematically, your argument could hold is if the Gravitational Constant is equal to 0. Because you said “If there is no movemement by the sun or Earth, then there is no gravitational pull created by them.” If G is the only variable to suggest movment because of the Newton is a part of its measurement then G = 0 thus:

F = 0*(m1*m2)/r^2 = o

Since we know (because it’s law) G is constant and can not be zero, then the gravitational force is not dependent on movement or G. Meaning F could never be zero.

And since eveything has a mass, then mass could never be zero — meaning the gravitational force could never be zero.

You’re argument suggest that The Gravitational Constant can equal zero because it implies movement. However, if the Gravitational Constant is law and unchanging then how could it be zero unless your going against its basic principle?

 

[LordSinister]

Like the man said, you would need to be moving at extreme velocities for what you are saying.

 

[LordSinister]

Math is flat

 

[Raymond]

But I just showed you that G was negligible in the calculation because the constant G was small. The masses made the difference in the equation. It’s the only variable that has motion and the motion was acceleration.

Newton’s original equation was F α (m1*m2)/r^2.

“α” means “proportional to” but they were NOT equal to each other. That’s where the gravitational constant G came into play because it was the constant difference between the two proportions. By including G into the equation both the Gravitational force (F) and G(m1*m2)/r^2 are now equal to each other.

The only way, mathematically, your argument could hold is if the Gravitational Constant is equal to 0. Because you said “If there is no movemement by the sun or Earth, then there is no gravitational pull created by them.” If G is the only variable to suggest movment because of the Newton is a part of its measurement then G = 0 thus:

F = 0*(m1*m2)/r^2 = o

Since we know (because it’s law) G is constant and can not be zero, then the gravitational force is not dependent on movement or G. Meaning F could never be zero.

And since eveything has a mass, then mass could never be zero — meaning the gravitational force could never be zero.

You’re argument suggest that The Gravitational Constant can equal zero because it implies movement. However, if the Gravitational Constant is law and unchanging then how could it be zero unless your going against its basic principle?

Proportional to doesn't mean equal to. It means proportional to. Its a great way to explain the pull between two masses without using a constant like G. But it doesn't define what the gravitational pull between those two masses is until you use the constant G. And you're right, G is a constant and never zero. But you can never define gravitational force without using G. Please calculate gravitational force for me without using G. Or calculate gravity for me without using acceleration. It would be more interesting to talk about how G was derived and not just plugging numbers into that equation so that we can come to a conclusion to see if a planet needs to move or not for there to be a gravitational force.

 

[sammyjax]

Gravitational pull is created by a moving Earth. Just like the Sun's gravitational pull is created by a moving sun. That was actually the original point. And the sun's and Earth movements depend on millions of other variables in space.

If there is no movemement by the sun or Earth, then there is no gravitational pull created by them.

Oh my fucking God this nigga can not be serious

Math is flat

lmaaaaao

 

[sammyjax]

@4 Dimensional

He didn't expect rambling from you

Dyyyyyyying