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

[BitchI'llKillYa]

It happens every time. I ended going full derivation and explanation.

Cash actually had me trying to explain on how absurd it was to use density to measure weight because he says there is no gravity.

And I fell right into it.

That density argument is the dumbest shit to roll from a flare earthers lips

 

[LordSinister]

If gravity is a force then why don't we have gravity guns?

We have stun guns
We have layers
We can shoot hi energy particles
Why can't we shoot gravity?

 

[BitchI'llKillYa]

I'm amazed. NASA said they lost the technology to go to the moon, but the same NASA can get to Mars? Folks, it's a hoax.

I lost the keys to my suv.
I still have the keys to my commuter

My SUV must have been a hoax!

 

[BitchI'llKillYa]

If gravity is a force then why don't we have gravity guns?

We have stun guns
We have layers
We can shoot hi energy particles
Why can't we shoot gravity?

Cant creat gravity, you can only amass gravity.

 

[LordSinister]

Cant creat gravity, you can only amass gravity.

Not according to the Flat Earth hoteps. Motion = gravity that's why when you speed you get dust on the trunk of your car.

Can't wait for my gravity gun tho. Cops chasing me, shoot the squad car and boom translate their speed into gravity and watch them pigs sink to the center of the earth.

 

[Raymond]

Does movement creat gravity or does gravity create movement

Show your work please

Sorry, I didn't see this until now. Movement creates gravity and gravity creates movement. For gravity creates movement, gravity causes the planets in our solar system to orbit around the sun.

For movement creates gravity, gravity on Earth is the result of 2 forces. The Earth's centrifugal force, which is the result of the Earth's rotation: a movement. And Newton's law of universal gravitation, which is also the result of a movement. I'll use wikipedia's definition.

"Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

OK so where does this force come from? It was observed from tests and later on concluded that you could determine the force between 2 objects by using their mass, the distance between them and a constant called the gravitational constant (G).

How did they come about this gravitational constant? Again, from Wikipedia: "Between 1640 and 1650, Grimaldi and Riccioli had discovered that the distance covered by objects in free fall was proportional to the square of the time taken, which led them to attempt a calculation of the gravitational constant by recording the oscillations of a pendulum.[14]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

So as you can see, from their experiements, "distance was proportional to the square of the time taken". You know what they're using to determine the value of G? Acceleration. Movement.

So here on Earth, gravity is the result of 2 forces. And those 2 forces are both the result of movements.

I'm not knocking your statement about objects amassing gravity at all. It's an interesting topic, and deserves its own thread.

 

[Raymond]

If gravity is a force then why don't we have gravity guns?

We have stun guns
We have layers
We can shoot hi energy particles
Why can't we shoot gravity?

lol

 

[Big Tex]

Sorry, I didn't see this until now. Movement creates gravity and gravity creates movement. For gravity creates movement, gravity causes the planets in our solar system to orbit around the sun.

For movement creates gravity, gravity on Earth is the result of 2 forces. The Earth's centrifugal force, which is the result of the Earth's rotation: a movement.

Have you ever seen or used a centrifuge? You do know centrifugal force coming from the Earth’s rotation would shoot us out into space - not towards the Earth.

I also notice how you have moonwalked all around Einstein who proved gravity is not a force.

There are no legit scientists that are claiming Newton was right and Einstein was wrong.

 

[Raymond]

Have you ever seen or used a centrifuge? You do know centrifugal force coming from the Earth’s rotation would shoot us out into space - not towards the Earth.

I also notice how you have moonwalked all around Einstein who proved gravity is not a force.

There are no legit scientists that are claiming Newton was right and Einstein was wrong.

What part of Newton being right does not mean that Einstein was wrong didn't you understand?

 

[sammyjax]

This dude feet gotta be hurting

Everything to get away from this right here

Motion does not create gravity

 

[sammyjax]

That Wikipedia link I posted is fake. Gotcha. I'm out this thread. I swear those flat Earth discussions are more entertaining.

From that wiki link:

According to Newton's law of universal gravitation, the attractive force (F) between two point-like bodies is directly proportional to the product of their masses (m1 and m2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, r, (inverse-square law) between them

Now what the fuck is it about this that is confusing you?

 

[Big Tex]

What part of Newton being right does not mean that Einstein was wrong didn't you understand?

Einstein’s entire theory of general relativity says that Newton was wrong. They can’t bith be right about what causes gravity.

Newton was able to measure the effects of gravity but his ideas on what causes gravity were wrong.

Watch this vid fam. It’s 7 minutes. And it will explain it to you.

 

[Big Tex]

This dude feet gotta be hurting

Everything to get away from this right here

Motion does not create gravity

All of his arguments and his equations are about measuring gravity, not where it comes from. I mean he is quadrupling down trying to prove motion creates gravity when no one in the scientic community says it does.

 

[LordSinister]

https://www.quora.com/Hypotheticall...ng-at-the-speed-of-light-plummeted-into-Earth

This is what I was speaking on, and I believe what has him confused

 

[sammyjax]

All of his arguments and his equations are about measuring gravity, not where it comes from. I mean he is quadrupling down trying to prove motion creates gravity when no one in the scientic community says it does.

EXACTLY. Of course there's motion, that's wtf Newton was measuring. It ain't got shit to do with the CAUSE of the effect.

Motion does not cause gravity. Period.

Muhfucka indignant as hell too lol

 

[4 Dimensional]

Sorry, I didn't see this until now. Movement creates gravity and gravity creates movement. For gravity creates movement, gravity causes the planets in our solar system to orbit around the sun.

For movement creates gravity, gravity on Earth is the result of 2 forces. The Earth's centrifugal force, which is the result of the Earth's rotation: a movement. And Newton's law of universal gravitation, which is also the result of a movement. I'll use wikipedia's definition.

"Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

OK so where does this force come from? It was observed from tests and later on concluded that you could determine the force between 2 objects by using their mass, the distance between them and a constant called the gravitational constant (G).

How did they come about this gravitational constant? Again, from Wikipedia: "Between 1640 and 1650, Grimaldi and Riccioli had discovered that the distance covered by objects in free fall was proportional to the square of the time taken, which led them to attempt a calculation of the gravitational constant by recording the oscillations of a pendulum.[14]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

So as you can see, from their experiements, "distance was proportional to the square of the time taken". You know what they're using to determine the value of G? Acceleration. Movement.

So here on Earth, gravity is the result of 2 forces. And those 2 forces are both the result of movements.

I'm not knocking your statement about objects amassing gravity at all. It's an interesting topic, and deserves its own thread.

From that wiki link:

According to Newton's law of universal gravitation, the attractive force (F) between two point-like bodies is directly proportional to the product of their masses (m1 and m2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, r, (inverse-square law) between them

Now what the fuck is it about this that is confusing you?

Another long winded post by me after I said I was spent I guess I lied.

These are fundamental questions I have running through my head in this discussion that is fucking with my logic. Y’all may answer the questions too if I’m off base with anything.

1) Is gravity a force or an effect?

Ray seems to be on the line that it’s a force (correct me if I am wrong on that account) with the gravitational constant, G, being a fundamental base argument that motion exist within this constant because it contains acceleration. I see where you are coming from.

But then there is Newton’s First Law: an object is either at constant rest or constant motion unless acted upon by an external force.

So in other words, an object can not accelerate unless an external force acts upon it. This is where Newtons’ Second Law come in to play, which leads to my second question.

2) is the gravitational constant, G, a real force?

While the constant constains a Newton, I don’t think it’s a real force. What do you y’all think?

The same wiki page y’all posted says it’s a “physical constant.” And nothing I have read or researched thus far is suggesting that the gravitational constant, G, is a force. It is commonly referred to as an “empirical physical constant.” Meaning that these constants can not be derived, it’s demensionless and can only be measured. It’s true that G contains a Newton within its units, but from my understanding, a forces unit of measurement is a Newton and only a Newton, which is essentially what Newton’s 2nd Law states as it pertains to the unit of measurements.

So based on my understanding from Newton’s second Law, the Gravitational Constant is not a force. While it contains a Newton within its measurement, it is not solely measured as a Newton. I don’t see how it would be possible to even consider the gravitional constant as a force because it was go totally against Newton’s second law. (And Ray, I’m not saying you said it was a force either, merely trying to make logic out of all this).

3) What is the physical nature of G? What is it’s purpose other than just balancing the gravitional force equation: F = G(m1*m2)/r^2 ?

Seem here G is used to find a force because a Newton will be left over once you cancel out all the units in the gravitational force equation.

So again, according to Newton’s First Law, you need a force to accelerate an object that is either at constant rest or constant motion. Since the gravitational constant, G, is not a force (based on my understanding), then it can not accelerate an object.

********************************************

So essentially, we are discussing between Newton and Einstein. Newton’s Laws of motion doesn’t consider the source of gravity, but the Theory of Relativity does with mass being the source. Hence, E = mc^2.

And since “c” is the speed of light and is a constant just like “G” is— “c” has no physical baring on the equation, which means mass and energy are equivalent.

So my position on this topic still stand that motion is not necessary to create gravity. Only mass because acceleration (motion) is a result and not a cause. I believe through my understanding of these concepts, that the curvature in space-time due to the mass of an object creates motion, which mass and motion can work uniformly after mass has create the curvature.

 

[4 Dimensional]

That density argument is the dumbest shit to roll from a flare earthers lips

the dumbest shit ever!

I couldn’t believe it. It was so absurd. Then they tried to use OUR math to prove it. I almost went out and whipped a random person’s ass because of that argument.

Cash and Fourteen dem niggas

From that wiki link:

According to Newton's law of universal gravitation, the attractive force (F) between two point-like bodies is directly proportional to the product of their masses (m1 and m2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, r, (inverse-square law) between them

Now what the fuck is it about this that is confusing you?

This is where I have been at the entire thread. Granted I did state some shit wrong in a early post after going back to read it, but the argument of mine have been pretty much based on that principle.

EXACTLY. Of course there's motion, that's wtf Newton was measuring. It ain't got shit to do with the CAUSE of the effect.

Motion does not cause gravity. Period.

Muhfucka indignant as hell too lol

Yeah, this is what I was try to articulate with the math, but sometimes that doesn’t go the way I plan when I’m these discussions.

But it’s hard for me to leave it out.

 

[Raymond]

Another long winded post by me after I said I was spent I guess I lied.

These are fundamental questions I have running through my head in this discussion that is fucking with my logic. Y’all may answer the questions too if I’m off base with anything.

1) Is gravity a force or an effect?

Ray seems to be on the line that it’s a force (correct me if I am wrong on that account) with the gravitational constant, G, being a fundamental base argument that motion exist within this constant because it contains acceleration. I see where you are coming from.

But then there is Newton’s First Law: an object is either at constant rest or constant motion unless acted upon by an external force.

So in other words, an object can not accelerate unless an external force acts upon it. This is where Newtons’ Second Law come in to play, which leads to my second question.

2) is the gravitational constant, G, a real force?

While the constant constains a Newton, I don’t think it’s a real force. What do you y’all think?

The same wiki page y’all posted says it’s a “physical constant.” And nothing I have read or researched thus far is suggesting that the gravitational constant, G, is a force. It is commonly referred to as an “empirical physical constant.” Meaning that these constants can not be derived, it’s demensionless and can only be measured. It’s true that G contains a Newton within its units, but from my understanding, a forces unit of measurement is a Newton and only a Newton, which is essentially what Newton’s 2nd Law states as it pertains to the unit of measurements.

So based on my understanding from Newton’s second Law, the Gravitational Constant is not a force. While it contains a Newton within its measurement, it is not solely measured as a Newton. I don’t see how it would be possible to even consider the gravitional constant as a force because it was go totally against Newton’s second law. (And Ray, I’m not saying you said it was a force either, merely trying to make logic out of all this).

3) What is the physical nature of G? What is it’s purpose other than just balancing the gravitional force equation: F = G(m1*m2)/r^2 ?

Seem here G is used to find a force because a Newton will be left over once you cancel out all the units in the gravitational force equation.

So again, according to Newton’s First Law, you need a force to accelerate an object that is either at constant rest or constant motion. Since the gravitational constant, G, is not a force (based on my understanding), then it can not accelerate an object.

********************************************

So essentially, we are discussing between Newton and Einstein. Newton’s Laws of motion doesn’t consider the source of gravity, but the Theory of Relativity does with mass being the source. Hence, E = mc^2.

And since “c” is the speed of light and is a constant just like “G” is— “c” has no physical baring on the equation, which means mass and energy are equivalent.

So my position on this topic still stand that motion is not necessary to create gravity. Only mass because acceleration (motion) is a result and not a cause. I believe through my understanding of these concepts, that the curvature in space-time due to the mass of an object creates motion, which mass and motion can work uniformly after mass has create the curvature.

My quick answers
1) It's a force. And ironically, in space, it's caused by other forces.
2) It's not a force. It's used to calculate a force.
3) You said it: balancing the gravitional force equation. That's it purpose. It's not a force. They were trying to determine this constant first by recording the oscillations of a pendulum. It's not dimensionless. It's just like the speed of light.

Yes, mass and energy are equivalent. But energy is not force. Something causes force. While energy is just there. Energy is indeed a property of mass.

Gravitational acceleration as a result of the curvature of space-time is a different way of looking at gravity. And I don't see anything wrong with your position on that. But that's not what the equation F = Gm1m2/r2 represents. Curvature can cause this force, but so does motion. This thread has been about motion. Also that curvature has the greatest effect on gravity, force, motion from a universe perspective. I believe it eventually overrules F=Gm1m2/r2.

 

[sammyjax]

Another long winded post by me after I said I was spent I guess I lied.

These are fundamental questions I have running through my head in this discussion that is fucking with my logic. Y’all may answer the questions too if I’m off base with anything.

1) Is gravity a force or an effect?

Ray seems to be on the line that it’s a force (correct me if I am wrong on that account) with the gravitational constant, G, being a fundamental base argument that motion exist within this constant because it contains acceleration. I see where you are coming from.

But then there is Newton’s First Law: an object is either at constant rest or constant motion unless acted upon by an external force.

So in other words, an object can not accelerate unless an external force acts upon it. This is where Newtons’ Second Law come in to play, which leads to my second question.

2) is the gravitational constant, G, a real force?

While the constant constains a Newton, I don’t think it’s a real force. What do you y’all think?

The same wiki page y’all posted says it’s a “physical constant.” And nothing I have read or researched thus far is suggesting that the gravitational constant, G, is a force. It is commonly referred to as an “empirical physical constant.” Meaning that these constants can not be derived, it’s demensionless and can only be measured. It’s true that G contains a Newton within its units, but from my understanding, a forces unit of measurement is a Newton and only a Newton, which is essentially what Newton’s 2nd Law states as it pertains to the unit of measurements.

So based on my understanding from Newton’s second Law, the Gravitational Constant is not a force. While it contains a Newton within its measurement, it is not solely measured as a Newton. I don’t see how it would be possible to even consider the gravitional constant as a force because it was go totally against Newton’s second law. (And Ray, I’m not saying you said it was a force either, merely trying to make logic out of all this).

3) What is the physical nature of G? What is it’s purpose other than just balancing the gravitional force equation: F = G(m1*m2)/r^2 ?

Seem here G is used to find a force because a Newton will be left over once you cancel out all the units in the gravitational force equation.

So again, according to Newton’s First Law, you need a force to accelerate an object that is either at constant rest or constant motion. Since the gravitational constant, G, is not a force (based on my understanding), then it can not accelerate an object.

********************************************

So essentially, we are discussing between Newton and Einstein. Newton’s Laws of motion doesn’t consider the source of gravity, but the Theory of Relativity does with mass being the source. Hence, E = mc^2.

And since “c” is the speed of light and is a constant just like “G” is— “c” has no physical baring on the equation, which means mass and energy are equivalent.

So my position on this topic still stand that motion is not necessary to create gravity. Only mass because acceleration (motion) is a result and not a cause. I believe through my understanding of these concepts, that the curvature in space-time due to the mass of an object creates motion, which mass and motion can work uniformly after mass has create the curvature.

Right and this is what Tex was saying

Newton's shit was about measurement, not source. The distortion of spacetime causes the motion, and the distortion of spacetime is caused by mass. It's actually a really simple premise if you ask me.

 

[Big Tex]

To insist gravity is a force, you need to disprove Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Because it states gravity is not a force.

So I’ll wait for that math or proof.

 

[Big Tex]

Right and this is what Tex was saying

Newton's shit was about measurement, not source. The distortion of spacetime causes the motion, and the distortion of spacetime is caused by mass. It's actually a really simple premise if you ask me.

MPH = Miles / Hours

That formula tells you how fast the car is moving but does not tell you what makes the car move.

That’s the equivilant of what Raymond keeps arguing.

 

[sammyjax]

MPH = Miles / Hours

That formula tells you how fast the car is moving but does not tell you what makes the car move.

That’s the equivilant of what Raymond keeps arguing.

Man gotdamn it's so fucking simple I can't believe this jack handle has been able to keep this bullshit up for this many pages.

 

[Raymond]

Another long winded post by me after I said I was spent I guess I lied.

These are fundamental questions I have running through my head in this discussion that is fucking with my logic. Y’all may answer the questions too if I’m off base with anything.

1) Is gravity a force or an effect?

Ray seems to be on the line that it’s a force (correct me if I am wrong on that account) with the gravitational constant, G, being a fundamental base argument that motion exist within this constant because it contains acceleration. I see where you are coming from.

But then there is Newton’s First Law: an object is either at constant rest or constant motion unless acted upon by an external force.

So in other words, an object can not accelerate unless an external force acts upon it. This is where Newtons’ Second Law come in to play, which leads to my second question.

2) is the gravitational constant, G, a real force?

While the constant constains a Newton, I don’t think it’s a real force. What do you y’all think?

The same wiki page y’all posted says it’s a “physical constant.” And nothing I have read or researched thus far is suggesting that the gravitational constant, G, is a force. It is commonly referred to as an “empirical physical constant.” Meaning that these constants can not be derived, it’s demensionless and can only be measured. It’s true that G contains a Newton within its units, but from my understanding, a forces unit of measurement is a Newton and only a Newton, which is essentially what Newton’s 2nd Law states as it pertains to the unit of measurements.

So based on my understanding from Newton’s second Law, the Gravitational Constant is not a force. While it contains a Newton within its measurement, it is not solely measured as a Newton. I don’t see how it would be possible to even consider the gravitional constant as a force because it was go totally against Newton’s second law. (And Ray, I’m not saying you said it was a force either, merely trying to make logic out of all this).

3) What is the physical nature of G? What is it’s purpose other than just balancing the gravitional force equation: F = G(m1*m2)/r^2 ?

Seem here G is used to find a force because a Newton will be left over once you cancel out all the units in the gravitational force equation.

So again, according to Newton’s First Law, you need a force to accelerate an object that is either at constant rest or constant motion. Since the gravitational constant, G, is not a force (based on my understanding), then it can not accelerate an object.

********************************************

So essentially, we are discussing between Newton and Einstein. Newton’s Laws of motion doesn’t consider the source of gravity, but the Theory of Relativity does with mass being the source. Hence, E = mc^2.

And since “c” is the speed of light and is a constant just like “G” is— “c” has no physical baring on the equation, which means mass and energy are equivalent.

So my position on this topic still stand that motion is not necessary to create gravity. Only mass because acceleration (motion) is a result and not a cause. I believe through my understanding of these concepts, that the curvature in space-time due to the mass of an object creates motion, which mass and motion can work uniformly after mass has create the curvature.

You know what, based on your description of the speed of light, I'm beginning to see your point. The only thing that holds me back is the fact that a force is generated. Since it can be generated and changed at any time by any external event, it can't be a property. It doesn't exist. Something else has to activate it. And we can't change the definition of gravity to something else if the equation that explicity depicts it as a force still works. But that equation assumes that we're taking a still snapshot. It's at a given state. So it's not being generated at that state. It is what it is. I'm beginning to think you're right but for the wrong reason. By for the wrong reason I'm thinking that its definition should be changed. What are you seeing that I'm not seeing?

 

[Big Tex]

You know what, based on your description of the speed of light, I'm beginning to see your point. The only thing that holds me back is the fact that a force is generated. Since it can be generated and changed at any time by any external event, it can't be a property. It doesn't exist. Something else has to activate it. And we can't change the definition of gravity to something else if the equation that explicity depicts it as a force still works. But that equation assumes that we're taking a still snapshot. It's at a given state. So it's not being generated at that state. It is what it is. I'm beginning to think you're right but for the wrong reason. By for the wrong reason I'm thinking that its definition should be changed. What are you seeing that I'm not seeing?

If you watched the vid I posted. It showed that Newton’s formulas didn’t work in some cases. That what led Einstein to figure out why. Hell, even the orbit of Mercury doesn’t doesn’t follow Netwon’s formula.

 

[Gods_Debris]

This will fuck you up...

It ain't andromeda we need to worry about.

don't judge me but I find this chick sexy as fuck.

 

[4 Dimensional]

To insist gravity is a force, you need to disprove Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Because it states gravity is not a force.

So I’ll wait for that math or proof.

Considering gravity as a force completely destroys Newton’s 2nd Law. A force needs to be cause by something, so what would it be?

Considering gravity as an effect only makes the most sense to me for now.

You know what, based on your description of the speed of light, I'm beginning to see your point. The only thing that holds me back is the fact that a force is generated. Since it can be generated and changed at any time by any external event, it can't be a property. It doesn't exist. Something else has to activate it. And we can't change the definition of gravity to something else if the equation that explicity depicts it as a force still works. But that equation assumes that we're taking a still snapshot. It's at a given state. So it's not being generated at that state. It is what it is. I'm beginning to think you're right but for the wrong reason. By for the wrong reason I'm thinking that its definition should be changed. What are you seeing that I'm not seeing?

I think it semantics on how this stuff is defined. This is why I asked the questions that I did.

If we consider gravity as a force, then what happens to Newton’s 1st and 2nd Laws? They fall apart. Plus something would still have to cause this force.

This is what messed me up.

F = ma — (I’m cool with)

a = F/m — (I’m cool with)

m = F/a — (makes no sense whatsoever)

How can two things that are results of something create a mass? That is where quantum comes in and I’m not really that deep into that.

The only way I can see gravity is it being an effect from mass. This would allow Newton’s second law to hold and supports Einstein’s theory.

But even Einstein’s theory has the same issue

E = mc^2 — I’m cool with

m = E/(c^2) — makes no sense

So we keep circling around with “what force or energy causing the creation of mass?” This is quantum level stuff we have reached.

This has always been my issue with physics. In a pure mathematical world we can not get away with half the stuff that physics get away with. We are not allowed to assume.

Man gotdamn it's so fucking simple I can't believe this jack handle has been able to keep this bullshit up for this many pages.

I think so, but I have a tendency to question further on stuff.

But it also reminds me how much we don’t know in physics and how we do have to make assumptions in some areas to make things work.

I’ll tell you what, this whole discussion got me looking at Newton’s Laws a lot differently.

Actually got me looking at a lot of things differently, especially as I think about how these emperical physical constants are used.

 

[Big Tex]

Considering gravity as a force completely destroys Newton’s 2nd Law. A force needs to be cause by something, so what would it be?

Considering gravity as an effect only makes the most sense to me for now.



I think it semantics on how this stuff is defined. This is why I asked the questions that I did.

If we consider gravity as a force, then what happens to Newton’s 1st and 2nd Laws? They fall apart. Plus something would still have to cause this force.

This is what messed me up.

F = ma — (I’m cool with)

a = F/m — (I’m cool with)

m = F/a — (makes no sense whatsoever)

How can two things that are results of something create a mass? That is where quantum comes in and I’m not really that deep into that.

The only way I can see gravity is it being an effect from mass. This would allow Newton’s second law to hold and supports Einstein’s theory.

But even Einstein’s theory has the same issue

E = mc^2 — I’m cool with

m = E/(c^2) — makes no sense

So we keep circling around with “what force or energy causing the creation of mass?” This is quantum level stuff we have reached.

This has always been my issue with physics. In a pure mathematical world we can not get away with half the stuff that physics get away with. We are not allowed to assume.



I think so, but I have a tendency to question further on stuff.

But it also reminds me how much we don’t know in physics and how we do have to make assumptions in some areas to make things work.

I’ll tell you what, this whole discussion got me looking at Newton’s Laws a lot differently.

Actually got me looking at a lot of things differently, especially as I think about how these emperical physical constants are used.

The Higgs-Boson generates mass.

 

[4 Dimensional]

The Higgs-Boson generates mass.

Yeah, I remember when that happened. It’s interesting, but definitely outside of my understanding. I’m not good with physics on a subatomic level.

However, this can answer some questions but how would you be able to incorporate into General relativity, especially mathematically?

 

[Mixd]

Just coming into the thread, saw when it was first posted and now 15 pages. Haven't read thru but has anyone brought up Van Allen belts?

 

[Big Tex]

Yeah, I remember when that happened. It’s interesting, but definitely outside of my understanding. I’m not good with physics on a subatomic level.

However, this can answer some questions but how would you be able to incorporate into General relativity, especially mathematically?

To be honest that is above all our pay grades. There seems to be different rules of physics for very large objects and very small objects.

Scientists everywhere are trying to find the theory that ties Einstein and quantum physics together.

Also, we need a science thread that’s not arguing flat earth stuff. Some smart brothas here.

 

[sammyjax]

Considering gravity as a force completely destroys Newton’s 2nd Law. A force needs to be cause by something, so what would it be?

Considering gravity as an effect only makes the most sense to me for now.



I think it semantics on how this stuff is defined. This is why I asked the questions that I did.

If we consider gravity as a force, then what happens to Newton’s 1st and 2nd Laws? They fall apart. Plus something would still have to cause this force.

This is what messed me up.

F = ma — (I’m cool with)

a = F/m — (I’m cool with)

m = F/a — (makes no sense whatsoever)

How can two things that are results of something create a mass? That is where quantum comes in and I’m not really that deep into that.

The only way I can see gravity is it being an effect from mass. This would allow Newton’s second law to hold and supports Einstein’s theory.

But even Einstein’s theory has the same issue

E = mc^2 — I’m cool with

m = E/(c^2) — makes no sense

So we keep circling around with “what force or energy causing the creation of mass?” This is quantum level stuff we have reached.

This has always been my issue with physics. In a pure mathematical world we can not get away with half the stuff that physics get away with. We are not allowed to assume.



I think so, but I have a tendency to question further on stuff.

But it also reminds me how much we don’t know in physics and how we do have to make assumptions in some areas to make things work.

I’ll tell you what, this whole discussion got me looking at Newton’s Laws a lot differently.

Actually got me looking at a lot of things differently, especially as I think about how these emperical physical constants are used.

all valid

But ultimately we got here because a nigga said everybody knows earth and other planets gravity comes from the sun

I said no the fuck it doesn't

And another nigga said wait he's right, because gravity is created by motion

Then Alex and Raymond suited up (I'm assuming they dressed each other or "cross-dressed", if you will) and started trying to rationalize that assertion.

Everything we've given them in the way of entertaining that bullshit should be considered a gift by them.

 

[4 Dimensional]

To be honest that is above all our pay grades. There seems to be different rules of physics for very large objects and very small objects.

Scientists everywhere are trying to find the theory that ties Einstein and quantum physics together.

Also, we need a science thread that’s not arguing flat earth stuff. Some smart brothas here.

Yes. The rules are very different on a subatomic scale.

In weather, we have the same issue. Large scale patterns doesn’t not work the same on mesoscale. Like hurricanes vs tornadoes.

Anytime you get that small you enter all new issues.

 

[Big Tex]

all valid

But ultimately we got here because a nigga said everybody knows earth and other planets gravity comes from the sun

I said no the fuck it doesn't

And another nigga said wait he's right, because gravity is created by motion

Then Alex and Raymond suited up (I'm assuming the dressed each other or "cross-dressed", if you will) and started trying to rationalize that assertion.

Everything we've given them in the way of entertaining that bullshit should be considered a gift by them.

I told my girl “I just spent three days arguing with niggas that gravity is not created by the sun or motion. The fuck am I doing with my life...”

 

[4 Dimensional]

all valid

But ultimately we got here because a nigga said everybody knows earth and other planets gravity comes from the sun

I said no the fuck it doesn't

And another nigga said wait he's right, because gravity is created by motion

Then Alex and Raymond suited up (I'm assuming the dressed each other or "cross-dressed", if you will) and started trying to rationalize that assertion.

Everything we've given them in the way of entertaining that bullshit should be considered a gift by them.

Alex totally abandoned this thread. Lol.

But it’s all good. You’ve been very consistent here. You usually are.

It’s been a while since a thread has reached this level though. Still wasn’t as bad as the density discussion. At least I was able to think about some things here.

 

[sammyjax]

I told my girl “I just spent three days arguing with niggas that gravity is not created by the sun or motion. The fuck am I doing with my life...”

nigga I swear on my life I just had the same conversation with my girl tonight

Alex totally abandoned this thread. Lol.

But it’s all good. You’ve been very consistent here. You usually are.

It’s been a while since a thread has reached this level though. Still wasn’t as bad as the density discussion. At least I was able to think about some things here.

that nigga hit the ejector seat w the quickness lmaaaaao

As much as I request the math from these guys, it's usually to make the point that math to support their claims doesn't exist, not to teach them. I ain't walking through all them damn equations because i know them niggas don't have the foggiest idea what that shit means. If they did, we wouldn't be having the conversations in the first place.

So I try to use simple analogies and make requests that highlight the wrongness of their claims. I supplement this with a generous helping of cuss words and insults, because that's my pleshaaaah.