How the fuck would gravity have mass. This nigga sound stupid af.
Caused by mass. So fucking simple. Nigga running the heels off his shoes to not concede to you and big tex and lord sin and mean old Sam and fucking Albert Einstein.
Russia Says Proposed Mission To The Moon Will ‘Verify’ Whether The USA. Actually Landed There
- Thread starter RoomService
- Start date
Caused by mass. So fucking simple. Nigga running the heels off his shoes to not concede to you and big tex and lord sin and mean old Sam and fucking Albert Einstein.
Right.
So IF gravity has a mass, then there is no way to explain the mass of an object that it would act on because all the units would cancel out in Newton’s 2nd Law.
All the units are not suppose to cancel out in Newton’s second law. You got to be left with something so you can say what it is.
Seriously. The fact he casually shugs off the theory of general relativity and comes back with not only is gravity a force, but it also has mass and force has an object (lol what?)
Last edited:
I understood it.Damn, you're another one. Didn't understand what I wrote either . Even when quoting what other scientists said.
LOL
I don't know if you do
Egg
Zactly
that chitlins brain ass nigga knew he had it fucked up two pages ago, he just trying to find a way out that let him save face
you're complicating this fam. those are measurement values. m=f/a doesn't mean those things create mass it means you can describe mass if you know those values. substitute the value of F (F=ma) for F in the original equation. what happens to a?
dude etc? time squared. the acceleration being described is the increasing speed of the two objects as their centers of gravity move towards each other. remember the mass warps space causing GRAVITY WELLS. the dips in space fabric "pull" objects like a bowl pools water to its lower basin.in 3d space the objects "fall" into one another. by your logic acceleration is itself a force . if anything time would be the only force acting that it's origin and creation of is unaccounted for.
Last edited:
ok i see you came to that conclusion. dude is in another universr
Poor use of word on my end.
However, how do you describe mass using force over acceleration?
What would the wording be?
I have not read this yet but to me it seems like propaganda. Reagan use to preach about the nations of the earth setting aside their petty differences and come together to fight a force outside of this white world. Independence Day was about this. All the air forces coming together to fight an outside force outside of the white world. On that movie they showed all the air forces coming together. But they never showed a black air force. But at the end of the movie they show blacks coming out with spears and stuff looking up in the sky at these other races that saved them from a force outside of this white world.
In Jonestown all blacks work the fields except for 2 whites. The majority of the followers were black but the people of Guyana say they never knew blacks lived in Jonestown because the only people allowed to go into town was whites. But it was the whites that had to been totally brainwashed already or to scared to try to run. Whites that study the past and look for things are either totally brainwashed or they are carefully monitored. I do not completely trust anything that comes from whites but I will study and use common sense.
In Jonestown all blacks work the fields except for 2 whites. The majority of the followers were black but the people of Guyana say they never knew blacks lived in Jonestown because the only people allowed to go into town was whites. But it was the whites that had to been totally brainwashed already or to scared to try to run. Whites that study the past and look for things are either totally brainwashed or they are carefully monitored. I do not completely trust anything that comes from whites but I will study and use common sense.
hold on i'm goung to lose cell signal for a bit swear I'm be back
Sure you did. That's why you have no response for it.
I'm not relating e=mc^2 to gravity. I was referring to the analogy that 4dimensional made that made me look at the equation of gravitational force another way. What you're describing here is another topic. We're talking about Newton's gravitational force.
Gravty, meaning force, has a mass means that mass is required for force to exist. The mass is there and when accelerated, force is created. You didn't read the sentence right after it. Nothing would give gravity a mass. The mass is there.
Is gravity created by mass or is gravity a property of mass?
Fam you're stupid. Go back and read his notes and my answer.
Nah. The whole time I've been saying a moving mass causes gravity.
You're talking about Einstein. Do you understand how stupid you sound when what you're saying is going against what Einstein said? But then you say that you and Einstein are in agreement? lol
And do you unsderstand that your boy's equation is going against what Einstein said? I know you don't understand that either.
You also don't understand the fact that what you said goes against what your boy said about gravity because you don't know the difference between a property and something thats created.
I can't teach stupid. I also have absolutely no problem with what Einstein said.
Last edited:
Please show me an equation where the units on the left side of that equation don't cancel out with the units on the right side of that equation.
There IS a way to explain the mass of an object that gravity would act on. It's called Newton's gravitational force equation. It includes the mass of the first object and the mass of the second object. Or are you talking about something else? Can you please define the part of Newton's 2nd Law where his gravitational force equation does not apply?
Last edited:
ahhhh, good one.
This is 100% nonsense man
the effect we collectively refer to as gravity is caused by the presence of mass in spacetime. Not the movement or motion of it. Simply the presence of it.
you realize you have not gotten a single cosign, nor have you provided any extra-bgol agreement with a single position of yours. Right?
nah I think you'd be great at teaching stupid lol
Motion does not create gravity.
No one has said that on bgol, no one has said it in the scientific community, no one has said it on the whole internet. Not a single person in this discussion has agreed with you and we all agree with each other.
Your head is so far up your ass you look like a gay fibonacci spiral.
so you’re gonna roll with gravity having a mass?
Gravity is heavy man, hella heavy. Still waiting on my gravity gun. Cuz is saying planes are heavier in the air than on the ground.
That’s only true at about 90% or so the speed of light.
That’s only true at about 90% or so the speed of light.
This dude is insane lmaoGravity is heavy man, hella heavy. Still waiting on my gravity gun. Cuz is saying planes are heavier in the air than on the ground.
That’s only true at about 90% or so the speed of light.
damn Raymond you are on some other shit famo. it's like you read the words, absorb the information and then, somewhere in that chain, suffer from some kind of otherwordly logical dyslexia. shit is super bizarre. I'm not even mad at you just extremely and profoundly befuddled.
ok so this assumes that you have an object and that the object has an unknown value of mass but that you know (or assume) it does have a quantifiable mass component.
you already know this thing is extant but you want to know it's value. if you know the force it is exerting and it's acceleration you will know the value of the mass component (by simply dividing known acceleration out of the equation). it's not about forming mass just defining it's quantitative value. Raymond's bizarre logic is introducing logical fallacy into this.
If that’s what’s he rolling with, then I’m not going to argue further.
Thanks. I do understand that much, but physically it makes no sense to me. A force being exerted on an acceleration? That sounds so crazy.
well no, the force has it's own acceleration. they aren't acting in "physical" opposition to each other. the force is a function of acceleration times mass.
an object has a mass, the mass has an acceleration. bam there is a force. Raymonds line if thinkhing ignores such things as POTENTIAL energy and inertia.
Last edited:
Y’all have no clue how this thread is driving me back to pure mathematics. Lol.
I’m following you, but your interpretation is different from how I see it. I’m not saying you’re wrong or anything. It’s different.
Yes a force do have acceleration. But an acceleration over an acceleration leaves a value that is for mass.
I get it and don’t get it at the same time. In math it reads as “mass equals a Force per acceleration.” That’s just sounds funny to me.
Im on his neck, he'll never admit he fucked up in here
You want to bicker.
I stopped addressing you when your arrogance out ran your grasp of the conversation.
But hey, what did einstein know...
Lol
It's like a mirror dimension
gravity is not a force it's a disruption, gravity cant be created only accumulated, you are so arrogant and stubborn that you can even consider any other argument than your own.
Last edited:
no you get it exactly you're just allowing raymond's daffy ass corrupt your well reasoned mind and math is pure reason. but reason requires you know the WHY of something not just how.
when you derive the mass value what you're doing is unraveling an equation for finding acceleration and force mass is simple mass. it is not dependent on motion it just is what it is. avagadro'a number. when you use a triple beam scale what are SCALING? you're simply balancing (better stated as removing) the effect of earth's gravity on the object you are measuring to find a particle measure. if you tried to do the same thing on the moon your value would be 1/6th of what you get on earth why is that? would the mass of that obect have changed? of course not and it's why scales need to be calibrated. to remove the effects of acceleration due to gravity. it always goes back to force is mass times acceleration.
Similar threads
