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

[Raymond]

you don't find it the tiniest bit strange that you are interpreting that equation in a way that literally nobody has ever stated? I'm gonna ask...AGAIN...and I'm positive you'll deflect because, like in every case so far in this thread, your head is too far up your ass to accept having it fucked up...

-Where are you getting this interpretation from?
-What makes you think that you are interpreting it correctly when that is not how the global scientific community interprets it? Are you saying everyone else is wrong?
-Can you at least cite an example of your interpretation being used somewhere in the wild?

I'm basing it on the definition of force. And the constant G has acceleration units in it. That's why I asked you to search how that equation came to be in the first place but you didn't want to. And your boy wants to ignore the constant altogether and thinks he can define gravitational force that way.

The global scientific community knows that gravitational force is created by masses and movement. They're not retarded. And if you want to go deeper, there are different definitions of where exactly gravity come from. But I'm not talking about any of them. I'm talking specifically about gravitational force. The equation your boy posted.

Your boy posted an example when he calculated gravitational force between two objects. Except he didn't show the units. Run his example but with the units for all the variables and you'll see an example. I'll be honest. Neither you or 4dimensional understand where G comes from but you hate to admit it. That's OK. To me that's not as bad as trying to calculate a force without using acceleration. That is absurd.

If you want me to be very specific about something let me know and I'll go into more detail. I've posted all of this before.

 

[shaddyvillethug]

NASA just landed a mars rover

Game

Set

Match

 

[4 Dimensional]

I'm basing it on the definition of force. And the constant G has acceleration units in it. That's why I asked you to search how that equation came to be in the first place but you didn't want to. And your boy wants to ignore the constant altogether and thinks he can define gravitational force that way.

The global scientific community knows that gravitational force is created by masses and movement. They're not retarded. And if you want to go deeper, there are different definitions of where exactly gravity come from. But I'm not talking about any of them. I'm talking specifically about gravitational force. The equation your boy posted.

Your boy posted an example when he calculated gravitational force between two objects. Except he didn't show the units. Run his example but with the units for all the variables and you'll see an example. I'll be honest. Neither you or 4dimensional understand where G comes from but you hate to admit it. That's OK. To me that's not as bad as trying to calculate a force without using acceleration. That is absurd.

If you want me to be very specific about something let me know and I'll go into more detail. I've posted all of this before.

I haven’t ignored that constant at ALL. Now you making stuff up.

 

[Raymond]

I haven’t ignored that constant at ALL. Now you making stuff up.

OK fine. You didnt ignore it. You were pushing that narrative hard though.

But, can you explain this:

Ok. Simple.

Force = mass * acceleration. Do you understand how you need both mass and acceleration (movement ) ?

You were suggesting that you only need mass because you said that gravitational force is a property of mass.

Simple

 

[sammyjax]

I'm basing it on the definition of force. And the constant G has acceleration units in it. That's why I asked you to search how that equation came to be in the first place but you didn't want to. And your boy wants to ignore the constant altogether and thinks he can define gravitational force that way.

The global scientific community knows that gravitational force is created by masses and movement. They're not retarded. And if you want to go deeper, there are different definitions of where exactly gravity come from. But I'm not talking about any of them. I'm talking specifically about gravitational force. The equation your boy posted.

Your boy posted an example when he calculated gravitational force between two objects. Except he didn't show the units. Run his example but with the units for all the variables and you'll see an example. I'll be honest. Neither you or 4dimensional understand where G comes from but you hate to admit it. That's OK. To me that's not as bad as trying to calculate a force without using acceleration. That is absurd.

If you want me to be very specific about something let me know and I'll go into more detail. I've posted all of this before.

Im trying to keep this simple, you are ignoring my (very) direct questions.

Can you provide a single example of your interpretation being used ANYWHERE else?

 

[Big Tex]

Im trying to keep this simple, you are ignoring my (very) direct questions.

Can you provide a single example of your interpretation being used ANYWHERE else?

Force = mass * acceleration


Just thought I’d save Raymond some typing.

 

[Big Tex]

Funny thing is force in that equation is a measurement. It’s not creating anything.

Raymond thinks you take a pile of mass, times it with some acceleration and gravity comes spilling out

 

[sammyjax]

Force = mass * acceleration


Just thought I’d save Raymond some typing.

Funny thing is force in that equation is a measurement. It’s not creating anything.

Raymond thinks you take a pile of mass, times it with some acceleration and gravity comes spilling out

Lol

Homie lost in a sauce of his own creation.

 

[LordSinister]

All I know is when my dick has more mass it pulls more pussy so maybe he's on to something?

 

[Raymond]

Im trying to keep this simple, you are ignoring my (very) direct questions.

Can you provide a single example of your interpretation being used ANYWHERE else?

Fam, you can do your own calculation with that equation on two different bodies of mass. What are you talking about ignoring your direct question? Are you slow? Grab one body of mass. Grab another body of mass. Measure the distance between them. Plug them into the equation F = Gm1m2/r2 and you get your answer. Account for all the units of every variable. That is an example of my interpretation of calculating gravitational force. It's an equation used to calculate gravitational force. I'm not going to Google how other people plugged in numbers to calculate gravitational forces because you can plug in your own numbers into that equation.

There is no way you can now flip this into something else, as you've been doing every time I've answered your 7th grade questions, but I want to see you try.

 

[RAY V.]

Just like them cats from Sentinel Island, they on the moon waiting for our asses to come back there

 

[BitchI'llKillYa]

no while not disagreeing with the fact everything is in motion...

Im simply sayin... super massive black holes in the center of galaxies will not on its own move from its location.

and if thats the case does everything truly move within the universe.

things can be in motion and stationary at the same time is all Im sayin..

You want to know if the black hole can move independently from its corresponding galaxy?

No, they travel together.

No things cant be in motion and stationary at the same time. Now FEELING the motion is different, we dont feel perpetual motion only changes in motion like acceleration or deceleration.

Relative to the galaxy, black holes are still moving as they rotate and change in size as the consume energy etc.

They do remain at the 'center' of their accompanying galaxy, but the 'center' of every galaxy is moving in space as well as size.

If you dont want to accept that, it's fine by me.

 

[BitchI'llKillYa]

NASA just landed a mars rover

Game

Set

Match

Or did they............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

[EPDC]

 

[4 Dimensional]

OK fine. You didnt ignore it. You were pushing that narrative hard though.

But, can you explain this:

Ok. Simple.

Force = mass * acceleration. Do you understand how you need both mass and acceleration (movement ) ?

You were suggesting that you only need mass because you said that gravitational force is a property of mass.

Simple

1) Acceleration is produced through some force acting on a mass.

a = F/m

Acceleration is a result of force per unit mass. So that means that acceleration can not be a result and variable at the same time or every variable in Newton's second law would cancel each other out.

If there is no force then acceleration would be zero and there is no motion, but the mass would still exist.

2) How can a force acting on an acceleration produce a mass? To me that doesn't make physical sense. If acceleration (motion) is a result then how can a force act upon an acceleration to produce a mass?

m = F/a

I'm merely suggesting that mass can produce acceleration (motion) as long as there is an unbalanced force acting on the mass.

If there is no force, then there is no acceleration (motion).

F = 0

If acceleration is zero then F is zero

F/m = a

0/m = a

0 = a

Since everything has a mass then mass can never be zero, but acceleration (motion) can be zero.

So as the pertains to gravitational force, two masses are attracted to each other by some type of force. The attraction results an acceleration (motion).

However when we solve for G

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

This means the universal gravitational constant is the numerical value of the force between two unit masses kept at a unit distance from each other. Motion here is only a result in this case and not the cause of something.

I'm spent on this topic, btw. Don't feel like going any further with this. We'll have to disagree here particulars because we are really just going in circles.

This reminded me of the debate I had with my advisor on what causes wind. Both the temperature gradient and pressure gradient causes wind and it's impossible to see which can exist without the other. That debate lasted for 4 years and I got a few publications out of it.

You taking me down that same path. I'm good on all that, man. I collect Black Films now.

 

[sammyjax]

Fam, you can do your own calculation with that equation on two different bodies of mass. What are you talking about ignoring your direct question? Are you slow? Grab one body of mass. Grab another body of mass. Measure the distance between them. Plug them into the equation F = Gm1m2/r2 and you get your answer. Account for all the units of every variable. That is an example of my interpretation of calculating gravitational force. It's an equation used to calculate gravitational force. I'm not going to Google how other people plugged in numbers to calculate gravitational forces because you can plug in your own numbers into that equation.

There is no way you can now flip this into something else, as you've been doing every time I've answered your 7th grade questions, but I want to see you try.

Just like I thought

All that typing to cover up for the fact that three bullshit you in here talking ain't never been uttered by another muthafucka with a brain

You pulled it out of your ass, and everyone can see you ducking the question

You're cooked in this thread b

 

[sammyjax]

1) Acceleration is produced through some force acting on a mass.

a = F/m

Acceleration is a result of force per unit mass. So that means that acceleration can not be a result and variable at the same time or every variable in Newton's second law would cancel each other out.

If there is no force then acceleration would be zero and there is no motion, but the mass would still exist.

2) How can a force acting on an acceleration produce a mass? To me that doesn't make physical sense. If acceleration (motion) is a result then how can a force act upon an acceleration to produce a mass?

m = F/a

I'm merely suggesting that mass can produce acceleration (motion) as long as there is an unbalanced force acting on the mass.

If there is no force, then there is no acceleration (motion).

F = 0

If acceleration is zero then F is zero

F/m = a

0/m = a

0 = a

Since everything has a mass then mass can never be zero, but acceleration (motion) can be zero.

So as the pertains to gravitational force, two masses are attracted to each other by some type of force. The attraction results an acceleration (motion).

However when we solve for G

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

This means the universal gravitational constant is the numerical value of the force between two unit masses kept at a unit distance from each other. Motion here is only a result in this case and not the cause of something.

I'm spent on this topic, btw. Don't feel like going any further with this. We'll have to disagree here particulars because we are really just going in circles.

This reminded me of the debate I had with my advisor on what causes wind. Both the temperature gradient and pressure gradient causes wind and it's impossible to see which can exist without the other. That debate lasted for 4 years and I got a few publications out of it.

You taking me down that same path. I'm good on all that, man. I collect Black Films now.

Its funny how they end up tricking us into all this explanation

Homies og statement was "gravity is created by motion."

Niggas should have just laughed like Kawhi

 

[4 Dimensional]

Its funny how they end up tricking us into all this explanation

Homies og statement was "gravity is created by motion."

Niggas should have just laughed like Kawhi

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.

 

[sammyjax]

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 not gravity.

And I fell right into it.

 

[4 Dimensional]

Exactly.

 

[bonammi]

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.

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

You want to know if the black hole can move independently from its corresponding galaxy?

No, they travel together.

No things cant be in motion and stationary at the same time. Now FEELING the motion is different, we dont feel perpetual motion only changes in motion like acceleration or deceleration.

Relative to the galaxy, black holes are still moving as they rotate and change in size as the consume energy etc.

They do remain at the 'center' of their accompanying galaxy, but the 'center' of every galaxy is moving in space as well as size.

If you dont want to accept that, it's fine by me.

thats all Im sayin is even though the universe is moving... massive black holes located at the center of galaxy will not move from its position..

here is where we disagree and as I said before it was semantics..

You say nothing can be motionless and move at the same time..

I say hog dookie, e.g: say you are riding an uber on some shared riding shit..

and have a long way to go, you decide to meditate, to keep your mind extra focused and sharp..and body balanced..

you dont move the whole ride....are you not motionless but in motion??

Of course you are... you are moving but yet your body remains motionless in its location in the car.

therefore it is possible to be motionless and in motion at the same time..

 

[Raymond]

Just like I thought

All that typing to cover up for the fact that three bullshit you in here talking ain't never been uttered by another muthafucka with a brain

You pulled it out of your ass, and everyone can see you ducking the question

You're cooked in this thread b

You're funny. I can see you're trolling now. I just gave you a direct answer.

 

[Raymond]

1) Acceleration is produced through some force acting on a mass.

a = F/m

Acceleration is a result of force per unit mass. So that means that acceleration can not be a result and variable at the same time or every variable in Newton's second law would cancel each other out.

If there is no force then acceleration would be zero and there is no motion, but the mass would still exist.

2) How can a force acting on an acceleration produce a mass? To me that doesn't make physical sense. If acceleration (motion) is a result then how can a force act upon an acceleration to produce a mass?

m = F/a

I'm merely suggesting that mass can produce acceleration (motion) as long as there is an unbalanced force acting on the mass.

If there is no force, then there is no acceleration (motion).

F = 0

If acceleration is zero then F is zero

F/m = a

0/m = a

0 = a

Since everything has a mass then mass can never be zero, but acceleration (motion) can be zero.

So as the pertains to gravitational force, two masses are attracted to each other by some type of force. The attraction results an acceleration (motion).

However when we solve for G

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

This means the universal gravitational constant is the numerical value of the force between two unit masses kept at a unit distance from each other. Motion here is only a result in this case and not the cause of something.

I'm spent on this topic, btw. Don't feel like going any further with this. We'll have to disagree here particulars because we are really just going in circles.

This reminded me of the debate I had with my advisor on what causes wind. Both the temperature gradient and pressure gradient causes wind and it's impossible to see which can exist without the other. That debate lasted for 4 years and I got a few publications out of it.

You taking me down that same path. I'm good on all that, man. I collect Black Films now.

I agree with what you wrote above. Though most of it was unecessary. This is the crucial part right here:

"So as the pertains to gravitational force, two masses are attracted to each other by some type of force."

They are attracted by some type of force. You're saying the force already exists in the mass. I'm saying that force was only created because a mass from somewhere was moving. That's it.

The gravitational constant has that motion factored in it. We should have discussed only about the gravitational constant and we wouldn't have been going in circles. You're saying you're spent on the subject but to me we haven't even started until we show how that constant was derived. And after, we can talk about where that "some type of force" came from. It's all good though. This is progress. At least on this thread.

 

[Helico-pterFunk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...survives-six-half-minutes-terror-descent.html

 

[Big Tex]

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.

Show a credible source where NASA said they lost the technology to go to the moon.

They said no such thing.

They went there several times and haven’t had a reason or the resources to return.

 

[sammyjax]

I agree with what you wrote above. Though most of it was unecessary. This is the crucial part right here:

"So as the pertains to gravitational force, two masses are attracted to each other by some type of force."

They are attracted by some type of force. You're saying the force already exists in the mass. I'm saying that force was only created because a mass from somewhere was moving. That's it.

The gravitational constant has that motion factored in it. We should have discussed only about the gravitational constant and we wouldn't have been going in circles. You're saying you're spent on the subject but to me we haven't even started until we show how that constant was derived. And after, we can talk about where that "some type of force" came from. It's all good though. This is progress. At least on this thread.

Show someone in agreement with you. Just one, dawg. Every muhfucka on the planet is saying what @4 Dimensional is saying. All I'm asking is for you to provide the same.

That's a very reasonable request. You're saying I'm trolling to avoid having to say you can't meet it.

Nothing trollish about a single word in this reply b. Anyone can see this.

 

[sammyjax]

Show a credible source where NASA said they lost the technology to go to the moon.

They said no such thing.

They went there several times and haven’t had a reason or the resources to return.

Niggas read only headlines. And sometimes it's not even the headline, it's what some nigga says about the headline. Smh.

 

[Raymond]

Show someone in agreement with you. Just one, dawg. Every muhfucka on the planet is saying what @4 Dimensional is saying. All I'm asking is for you to provide the same.

That's a very reasonable request. You're saying I'm trolling to avoid having to say you can't meet it.

Nothing trollish about a single word in this reply b. Anyone can see this.

You are one person and you said this.

gravitational force is created by mass, not movement. See the above equation posted by

In this quote you are agreeing with me and disagreeing with 4dimensional. Or you are halfway agreeing with me, but you are 100% disagreeing with 4dimensional. He said it's a property. The key point of this entire argument is created vs property. You said created. A discussion of what property means would be a whole other new thread. But basically, a property cannot be created.

 

[sammyjax]

You are one person and you said this.



In this quote you are agreeing with me and disagreeing with 4dimensional. Or you are halfway agreeing with me, but you are 100% disagreeing with 4dimensional. He said it's a property. The key point of this entire argument is created vs property. You said created. A discussion of what property means would be a whole other new thread. But basically, a property cannot be created.

Another dodge.

You're mischaracterizing my point, but for clarity let me state unequivocally my position: gravity is not created by motion. Plain and simple. And I'll let @4 Dimensional answer whether or not that position is at odds with what he's saying, instead of you telling us both what we are saying.

You are running around the car to keep from having to provide a single source where anyone on the whole damn internet shares your interpretation.

This is peer review, no theory is accepted without that.

 

[shaddyvillethug]

Y’all some smart niggas

 

[Raymond]

You're mischaracterizing my point, but for clarity let me state unequivocally my position: gravity is not created by motion. .

So you're lying. It's in print in front of you. The "not created by motion" part was also displayed.

Anyways, what causes the acceleration that is used to calculate gravity, would be a better discussion to have. On the other hand, density is a property, and it was used to calculate the gravitational constant G. So a property was used to calculate this parameter G that I keep insisting on. But, gravity is still a force. No matter what you want to call it, it's a force. And you keep saying who else sees it the way I do. Every person who believes that F=Gm1m2/r2 defines gravitational force, believes that the force was created by a motion. Acceleration was used to derive the gravitational contant G. And of course, you also need mass to create this force.

I know you're going to say I'm deflecting blabla because you don't understand. It's OK. It's for the lurkers. What's in bold is exactly what I'm saying. There really is no other better way for me to explain this. Read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant. and look on the right where it says units. Now read what I said in bold again.

 

[sammyjax]

So you're lying. It's in print in front of you. The "not created by motion" part was also displayed.

Anyways, what causes the acceleration that is used to calculate gravity, would be a better discussion to have. On the other hand, density is a property, and it was used to calculate the gravitational constant G. So a property was used to calculate this parameter G that I keep insisting on. But, gravity is still a force. No matter what you want to call it, it's a force. And you keep saying who else sees it the way I do. Every person who believes that F=Gm1m2/r2 defines gravitational force, believes that the force was created by a motion. Acceleration was used to derive the gravitational contant G. And of course, you also need mass to create this force.

I know you're going to say I'm deflecting blabla because you don't understand. It's OK. It's for the lurkers. What's in bold is exactly what I'm saying. There really is no other better way for me to explain this. Read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant. and look on the right where it says units. Now read what I said in bold again.

You got no evidence anyone has ever interpreted that shit the way you are.

You keep trying to speak for the rest of the world because it's the only way you rationalize your stance. You have to fabricate your support.

 

[Raymond]

You got no evidence anyone has ever interpreted that shit the way you are.

You keep trying to speak for the rest of the world because it's the only way you rationalize your stance. You have to fabricate your support.

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

 

[BitchI'llKillYa]

You are so fuckin wrong it hurts my head.

Good luck with that shit

Lol riding in an uber yet motionless. You are moving with the car,earth,solar system,galaxy,universe... bottom line.

You will only FEEL changes in velocity.

Black holes move, grow, rotate etc.

The location within their galaxy doesnt change, but that has nothing to do with movement.

thats all Im sayin is even though the universe is moving... massive black holes located at the center of galaxy will not move from its position..

here is where we disagree and as I said before it was semantics..

You say nothing can be motionless and move at the same time..

I say hog dookie, e.g: say you are riding an uber on some shared riding shit..

and have a long way to go, you decide to meditate, to keep your mind extra focused and sharp..and body balanced..

you dont move the whole ride....are you not motionless but in motion??

Of course you are... you are moving but yet your body remains motionless in its location in the car.

therefore it is possible to be motionless and in motion at the same time..