Yeah, and they used force cause the page is for little kids. Look at the tickle me Elmo graphics and shit!!
Russia Says Proposed Mission To The Moon Will ‘Verify’ Whether The USA. Actually Landed There
- Thread starter RoomService
- Start date
Yeah, and they used force cause the page is for little kids. Look at the tickle me Elmo graphics and shit!!
Yes this has all been about semantics. Calling it a force vs not calling it a force. I didnt say I didnt believe in the curvature of space time. I said gravity is defined as a force. And more important is the fact that the mathematical equation for gravitational force works. You can link to a million pages about the curvature of space time if you like, but gravity as a force works and works mathematically. It works for NASA. It just works.
Lol. So. Do yo want me to find you a different website were gravity is defined as a force.Yeah, and they used force cause the page is for little kids. Look at the tickle me Elmo graphics and shit!!
Here you go:
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/what-is-gravity/en/
Last edited:
What does this have to do with gravity not being a force? You're trying to argue against not calling it a force when you just called it a force in the same sentence.
I only brought it up because so much of what I say and what I mean by things gets lost in translation. I feel like part of the issue here are semantics. I have to be clear where I stand because we have caused confusion beforehand.
They didn’t mention that v and a had to be zero to measure G. That’s my interpretation of how a pendulum and oscillation works. I study oscillations in my field (weather), so I’m sure that understanding translate similarly to this experiment.
Also, they used a horizontal pendulum in the Cavendish Experiment. Not a standard vertical pendulum that is commonly known.
Edit: and I forgot this part. The pendulum was also use to measure the angle (theta), which is the turn of the bars.
Last edited:
Dude. It doesn’t.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-200-year-old-mystery-of-mercurys-orbit-solved-1458642219
“It wasn't too long after Newton published his laws of motion that people noticed something was off about them. To be specific, they were off by the orbit of an entire planet. And they remained off until Einstein, and general relativity, explained why Mercury moves the way it does.
The laws of motion were, and remain, powerful tools for understanding the world. When they debuted, Newton used them to explain the motions of pendulums and the motions of planets. Both the earthly and the celestial fell into the realm of the explainable, and people settled back, comfortable with their conception of the universe. That is, until something about Mercury's orbit seemed just a tad off.
The Precession of Mercury
The orbits of the planets are slight ovals, with the sun located toward one end of the oval. The point at which the planet comes closest to the sun is the perihelion, and the farthest point of the oval is the aphelion. The oval orbits themselves move. As if the sun were a pin stuck into them, the orbits slowly rotate around it, in a motion called precession.
The precession of the orbits is accounted for by Newton's laws of motion. As astronomers charted the progress of the planets, they conformed agreeably to predictions based on those laws of motion. All except one. Mercury's orbit made its round faster than predicted. It didn't race ahead. The precession was 93 percent accounted for, but no one could adequately explain that last seven percent.
For 200 years people tried to get Newton’s laws assuming gravity as a force to work with Mercury’s orbit. It was only when Einstein said gravity was not a force but the curvature of spacetime that the orbit of Mercury could be understood.
NASA is not sending probes into space using Newton over Einstein.
You responded with another page for kids lol
I guess when they measured G is not as important as the fact that the pendulum was moving because of gravity.
But this is what confuses me about your initial post with the gravitational force equation. In trying to show your point, you posted an equation that sees gravity in a different light as you do? Or does that equation still support your interpretation of gravity?
Yeah, but they mention Einstein, don't they?
Technically true, but gravity can be described as Force = ma.
Fam, this article is about relativistic mass. And it explicitly states that the gravitational attraction of a body does not depend on a mass being at rest. It says that that it depends on relativistic mass, which is: the mass of a body in motion.
Which is exactly what I've been saying. I swear winning an argument on bgol is like winning the special olympics.
Lets just just get back to those flat Earth threads. They're more entertaining. I'll start: I believe the Earth is flat and that NASA is a hologram. Russia is flat too. OK, go! Prove me wrong.
Troll level=MC2
Everything is in motion, so does it matter? We got brothers in here building weather machines and shit, but you're saying they're wrong.
The motion doesn't create the warping of space, the mass of the object does. anyway, I see Cash, 14 and Alex left you here do die death by a thousand cuts, but I'm cool. I gave you the out you needed.
Toodles.
It matters because the article specifically states that is does not come from a mass at rest. The warping of space I'm cool with but it wasnt what I was discussing. You're trying to prove that what Im saying is wrong when I said the same thing that article said about a mass in motion.Everything is in motion, so does it matter? We got brothers in here building weather machines and shit, but you're saying they're wrong.
The motion doesn't create the warping of space, the mass of the object does. anyway, I see Cash, 14 and Alex left you here do die death by a thousand cuts, but I'm cool. I gave you the out you needed.
Toodles.
Also, I'm not out this thread yet. I want to hear what 4dim replies.
Last edited:
Lol. I'm not trolling here. I really wanted to see some proof that gravity is not a force and that it is not caused by a mass in motion as the article put it.
Exactly. Cat is on Destrahan’s level at this point.
I’ve posted at least five links in this thread. Also you can google general relativity for yourself.
pbbbbbffff..LMAO
he's still going.
@Raymond here's a thought experiment for you . a hail Mary of sorts in an attempt to drag you kicking and screaming from your blithely wanton ignorance, humor me:
imagine that there is only one particle in the whole universe. a single solitary mass alone in the vast and seemingly infinite void of space. the objext cannot rotate or move and there is no frame of reference other than time. in this universe does gravity still exist? what of acceleration? What of G? If you correctly answer these three questions perhaps you'll win back some semblance of sanity. good luck.
he's still going.
@Raymond here's a thought experiment for you . a hail Mary of sorts in an attempt to drag you kicking and screaming from your blithely wanton ignorance, humor me:
imagine that there is only one particle in the whole universe. a single solitary mass alone in the vast and seemingly infinite void of space. the objext cannot rotate or move and there is no frame of reference other than time. in this universe does gravity still exist? what of acceleration? What of G? If you correctly answer these three questions perhaps you'll win back some semblance of sanity. good luck.
OK, but that doesn't prove that the equation that is used to describe it as a force is wrong.
Just so you know, acceleration does not equal speed or movement. Acceleration is the change in speed.
So if gravity can be described as equal to mass times acceleration, if acceleration = 0 - meaning an object travelling at a steady, unchanging speed - then that moving object would have no gravity because anything times 0 = 0.
THIS is actually a good point. I can work with this. This is something to expand on.
What are you talking about.The universe is a hologram created by evil russian dictators from NASA. There is no universe and that particle is flat.pbbbbbffff..LMAO
he's still going.
@Raymond here's a thought experiment for you . a hail Mary of sorts in an attempt to drag you kicking and screaming from your blithely wanton ignorance, humor me:
imagine that there is only one particle in the whole universe. a single solitary mass alone in the vast and seemingly infinite void of space. the objext cannot rotate or move and there is no frame of reference other than time. in this universe does gravity still exist? what of acceleration? What of G? If you correctly answer these three questions perhaps you'll win back some semblance of sanity. good luck.
Alex said it and you agreed with him. It's right there man, at least look at that shit before you pop off nigga damn.
you care lol we need people like you. Nobody would learn if all teachers talked like me when a nigga didn't get it.Lmaooo. How are y’all able to reply with short and sweet comments?
Jeez EVERY explaination I have is straight overkill.
Lmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaao
I can't figure out why he can't get it except he's trying not toDude, they are saying gravity as a force but what is happening is the distortion of space-time. In my job, we talk about the "flow of electrons" to describe what's happening but that is not what is really happening at an atomic level. The electrons are "flowing" but not like water in a hose. It's easier for us to think of that way, and speak of it that way.
Is it easier to say we are going to launch a probe at Venus so that it's captured in the planet's gravity. The probe then uses the gravity well and the orbital momentum of the planet to increase the probe's velocity. Or is "Gravity assist" easier on the palate?
EDIT
Wait my Ninja, did you just Quote a NASA page for Kindergarten to 4th grade to prove your argument?!?!?!
Ole Speak and Spell ass physicist!
Personally I think he's rolling with that subject change to try to ride it out of the hole his og statements put him in
Dude you are a complete fool
nigga ain't going though lol he like fuck thatEverything is in motion, so does it matter? We got brothers in here building weather machines and shit, but you're saying they're wrong.
The motion doesn't create the warping of space, the mass of the object does. anyway, I see Cash, 14 and Alex left you here do die death by a thousand cuts, but I'm cool. I gave you the out you needed.
Toodles.
Them niggas always leave at the first whisper of math lol he was doomed from the start.
my nigga said Destrehan lmaaaaao
This muhfucka might be Destrehan w a new name honestly
Everything is in motion, so does it matter? We got brothers in here building weather machines and shit, but you're saying they're wrong.
The motion doesn't create the warping of space, the mass of the object does. anyway, I see Cash, 14 and Alex left you here do die death by a thousand cuts, but I'm cool. I gave you the out you needed.
Toodles.
Curry and Kyrie who are worth prolly a billion combined >>> u bgol 10-7 niggas
Ok, stop right there!
This thread is pure comedy.
I just add a poll to this old thread.
So what happened
OMG there's votes for no lmao what a time to be alive! Mass information at your fingertips all while mass derangement and stupidity is at an all time high!
Kim Kardashian is worth more than both of em, what are her thoughts on the subject?
We must know.
Similar threads
