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

[LordSinister]

Interesting. Are you talking about the terminology part or do you want me to read the whole page? I'll have to reply back tonight. It will take me some time to read all of it.

The whole page.

It's an interesting read, and the hypothetical implications can be mind blowing.

Besides havin astrophysics as a hobby as a kid, I also collected comics, and in the comics the flash could perform a light speed punch. Check the video below.

https://nerdist.com/the-science-of-the-flashs-infinite-mass-punch/



It would require infinite energy to increase an object to the point where it increases in mass hence the inverse of the famous E=MC2 formula where you are creating mass by introducing a shit load of energy.

 

[Raymond]

Damn you're a dishonest lil dude lol

Lord Sin JUST said that what you have been saying is not practical, and I'll extrapolate from that the inference "and therefore is not a reasonable basis for your argument of 'motion is created by gravity' as a rule". Lord Sin, please correct me if I I have erred in this inference.

And lol @ you and Alex both being reduced to "you mad". I'm not mad at all man. If you are still agreeing with a nigga that said earth's gravity comes from the sun and still saying motion creates gravity, make no mistake, the owners of the 4 nuts you've tried to grab and point to like they're absolving you of your stupidness are in agreement with you about those things. No matter how many flea flickers your bitch ass tries to run lol

Matter of fact, no one on earth agrees with you either, or else you would have provided evidence of such by now instead of trying to change the subject every time you have been asked to do so. You ain't slick enough to get away w that one b, then niggas entertaining you just like to do math lol.

Yes about the Lordsin part. And I just said that I could learn something from what he posted for me to read. I haven't read it yet. And yeah, you sound mad. Throughout this entire thread I keep answering your questions and you keep ignoring my answers. There is no reasoning with that.

 

[Raymond]

The whole page.

It's an interesting read, and the hypothetical implications can be mind blowing.

Besides havin astrophysics as a hobby as a kid, I also collected comics, and in the comics the flash could perform a light speed punch. Check the video below.

https://nerdist.com/the-science-of-the-flashs-infinite-mass-punch/



It would require infinite energy to increase mass to the point where it increases in mass hence the inverse of the famous E=MC2 formula where you are creating mass by introducing a shit load of energy.

Cool, I'll check this out too. Will repsond late tonight.

 

[LordSinister]

Damn you're a dishonest lil dude lol

Lord Sin JUST said that what you have been saying is not practical, and I'll extrapolate from that the inference "and therefore is not a reasonable basis for your argument of 'motion is created by gravity' as a rule". Lord Sin, please correct me if I I have erred in this inference.

And lol @ you and Alex both being reduced to "you mad". I'm not mad at all man. If you are still agreeing with a nigga that said earth's gravity comes from the sun and still saying motion creates gravity, make no mistake, the owners of the 4 nuts you've tried to grab and point to like they're absolving you of your stupidness are in agreement with you about those things. No matter how many flea flickers your bitch ass tries to run lol

Matter of fact, no one on earth agrees with you either, or else you would have provided evidence of such by now instead of trying to change the subject every time you have been asked to do so. You ain't slick enough to get away w that one b, then niggas entertaining you just like to do math lol.

Yes, he's dealing with a hypothetical issue.

My practical background is in high voltage and motors. We studied a lot of Trig so that you can calculate the size of a capacitor banks to get motors to run efficiently etc. Lots of Ohm's law.

Well in Ohm'ss law you use Current (I) Resistance (R) Voltage (V) Watts (P) to calculate systems. So if I know the voltage and current I can derive resistance and so forth. I remember giving my proffersor a hypothetical that if the resistance was 0 Ohms you'd have infinte power. He said true, but there will always be some resistance to the flow of current, even in superconducting substances so that even though I was "right" it's not practical for the job you will be doing.

So for some of the NASA missions, Newtons laws work just fine but they are incomplete and not reflective for what we actually observe in the universe. The actual curvature of space time near high mass objects.

We experiance relativistic effects in our everyday life. The fact that the clocks in satelites move at a different speed than those on the ground and have to be adjusted to keep the GPS accurate is one. Technically people at the equator age faster due to their being "Less Gravity" compared to people north or south of it. But what does that add up to over the average life span of 70 years? A few millionths of a second?

Speed does increase mass which could hypothetically increase gravity, but at the speeds required to do it are not what we experience as gravity on our planet or in our solar system.

 

[sammyjax]

Yes about the Lordsin part. And I just said that I could learn something from what he posted for me to read. I haven't read it yet. And yeah, you sound mad. Throughout this entire thread I keep answering your questions and you keep ignoring my answers. There is no reasoning with that.

Well let me clear that up for you too famo, I'm not the least bit mad.

But saying that you've answered my questions is a lie, plain and simple. You've RESPONDED to them by dodging with presenting existing equations and trying to ascribe your personal interpretation to them. The only reason you've had to do that is because you can't simply provide examples of an nine anywhere agreeing with you.

Your answers are non answers. Jerome Corsi answers.

 

[sammyjax]

Yes, he's dealing with a hypothetical issue.

My practical background is in high voltage and motors. We studied a lot of Trig so that you can calculate the size of a capacitor banks to get motors to run efficiently etc. Lots of Ohm's law.

Well in Ohm'ss law you use Current (I) Resistance (R) Voltage (V) Watts (P) to calculate systems. So if I know the voltage and current I can derive resistance and so forth. I remember giving my proffersor a hypothetical that if the resistance was 0 Ohms you'd have infinte power. He said true, but there will always be some resistance to the flow of current, even in superconducting substances so that even though I was "right" it's not practical for the job you will be doing.

So for some of the NASA missions, Newtons laws work just fine but they are incomplete and not reflective for what we actually observe in the universe. The actual curvature of space time near high mass objects.

We experiance relativistic effects in our everyday life. The fact that the clocks in satelites move at a different speed than those on the ground and have to be adjusted to keep the GPS accurate is one. Technically people at the equator age faster due to their being "Less Gravity" compared to people north or south of it. But what does that add up to over the average life span of 70 years? A few millionths of a second?

Speed does increase mass which could hypothetically increase gravity, but at the speeds required to do it are not what we experience as gravity on our planet or in our solar system.

Right. And not only are these concepts and relativistic effects easily understandable, but there's also a wealth of scholarly papers available stating and proving these theories.

I haven't argued against any of that stuff one time. Dude keeps changing the argument hoping he can get to a middle ground that is damn near not even on the same subject of his original statement, so somebody that didn't call him a dumb bitch 100 times can say 'ok man I see how you're looking at that, cool' lol

Look up a couple posts fam

This nigga JUST agreed with a nigga on this point: earth's gravity and gravity on other planets comes from the sun.

Then doubled tripled quadrupled down on the very simple and direct statement that MOTION CAUSES GRAVITY.

Neither of these things is remotely close to right, but he keep sidestepping that shit. My argument was never the value of G, none of that shit.

Those two statements are objectively FALSE.

 

[Big Tex]

I have proof of the "gravity is a force" part. Now please show me where I said that Einstein was wrong. You're just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

If Einstein says gravity is not a force and you say it is, then you are saying he is wrong.

And where is this proof it is a force and not the bending of spacetime like Einstein said?

 

[LordSinister]

Right. And not only are these concepts and relativistic effects easily understandable, but there's also a wealth of scholarly papers available stating and proving these theories.

I haven't argued against any of that stuff one time. Dude keeps changing the argument hoping he can get to a middle ground that is damn near not even on the same subject of his original statement, so somebody that didn't call him a dumb bitch 100 times can say 'ok man I see how you're looking at that, cool' lol

Look up a couple posts fam

This nigga JUST agreed with a nigga on this point: earth's gravity and gravity on other planets comes from the sun.

Then doubled tripled quadrupled down on the very simple and direct statement that MOTION CAUSES GRAVITY.

Neither of these things is remotely close to right, but he keep sidestepping that shit. My argument was never the value of G, none of that shit.

Those two statements are objectively FALSE.

Yeah, his statement is wrong, but since the Earth and Sun move, they have slightly more mass than if they were stationary. But if the sun was completely stationary it would still distort space-time and still be able to keep bodies in orbit around it.

 

[sammyjax]

Yeah, his statement is wrong, but since the Earth and Sun move, they have slightly more mass than if they were stationary. But if the sun was completely stationary it would still distort space-time and still be able to keep bodies in orbit around it.

Right. But that slight increase in mass is analogous to the slight difference in aging on the equator and thusly is not 1. Enough to have any bearing on a discussion of anything other than that specific and miniscule effect, 2. Is so contextually insignificant that it's not even factored into the equations referenced as fundamental rules, and 3. Is not the spirit of his initial statement.

Ackowledging that the speed of these bodies contributes to their mass still comes down to measuring the relationship between mass and gravity, and has nothing to do with its origin. So even throwing him the small bones yall are trying to throw him, he's still wrong about his first statement. None of those bones make motion the SOURCE of gravity.

And don't even get me started about him cosigning that gravity on the earth and other planets comes from the sun lol yall letting him slide on that one

 

[Raymond]

Well let me clear that up for you too famo, I'm not the least bit mad.

But saying that you've answered my questions is a lie, plain and simple. You've RESPONDED to them by dodging with presenting existing equations and trying to ascribe your personal interpretation to them. The only reason you've had to do that is because you can't simply provide examples of an nine anywhere agreeing with you.

Your answers are non answers. Jerome Corsi answers.

You lie. I did provide a very clear example. But here's another one. The Earth has a mass. This mass is moving and it exerts a gravitational force or gravity on everyone in it. Now find me an example of a stationary mass that exerts a gravitational force on something. I will wait all day for this one.

 

[Raymond]

If Einstein says gravity is not a force and you say it is, then you are saying he is wrong.

And where is this proof it is a force and not the bending of spacetime like Einstein said?

Your logic is wrong on the first statement. I said I had proof that scientists today use gravity as a force. Nothing else.

 

[LordSinister]

Wait, so the sun gives the Earth gravity? On some ole Goku spirit bomb lend me your energy shit?!?!

 

[sammyjax]

You lie. I did provide a very clear example. But here's another one. The Earth has a mass. This mass is moving and it exerts a gravitational force or gravity on everyone in it. Now find me an example of a stationary mass that exerts a gravitational force on something.

No such thing as a stationary mass

That earth both moves and creates gravity are true while not (functionally) having shit to do with each other. The mass of the earth (and everything else in the universe) creates it's gravitational effect, and it's motion creates a VERY small increase in its mass, so small it's effect on earth's overall gravity is basically negligible.

But to entertain you to the extent that you might mean stationary in the relative sense that Freddy did, anything with mass creates the effect that we measure as gravity. Whether it is moving or not. The motion that is the acceleration towards each other between two bodies having mass is what we measure as the effect of gravity. Mass CAUSES this motion, because the PRESENCE of MASS is what causes the effect on spacetime that facilitates this motion that we measure as gravity.

 

[sammyjax]

Wait, so the sun gives the Earth gravity? On some ole Goku spirit bomb lend me your energy shit?!?!

See? The nigga is on some other shit bro lol

He ain't gon have no answers for that either. At least Alex abandoned ship, Raymond in here bailing water when the flex seal of concession is right there lol that pride though.

 

[LordSinister]

See? The nigga is on some other shit bro lol

He ain't gon have no answers for that either. At least Alex abandoned ship, Raymond in here bailing water when the flex seal of concession is right there lol that pride though.

Dead @ Flex seal.

Yeah cuzz, I gave you an out.

Minus Whale take the L before this turns into an Ock like they always do.

 

[Raymond]

No such thing as a stationary mass

That earth both moves and creates gravity are true while not (functionally) having shit to do with each other. The mass of the earth (and everything else in the universe) creates it's gravitational effect, and it's motion creates a VERY small increase in its mass, so small it's effect on earth's overall gravity is basically negligible.

OK Cool. Didn't now this part. Is there proof?

But to entertain you to the extent that you might mean stationary in the relative sense that Freddy did, anything with mass creates the effect that we measure as gravity. Whether it is moving or not. The motion that is the acceleration towards each other between two bodies having mass is what we measure as the effect of gravity. Mass CAUSES this motion, because the PRESENCE of MASS is what causes the effect on spacetime that facilitates this motion that we measure as gravity.

I would still like to see some proof if this. Not saying it's wrong. Just want to see some proof.

 

[Raymond]

See? The nigga is on some other shit bro lol

He ain't gon have no answers for that either. At least Alex abandoned ship, Raymond in here bailing water when the flex seal of concession is right there lol that pride though.

I said the Sun gives the Earth gravity??? See how you keep lying?

 

[LordSinister]

I would still like to see some proof if this. Not saying it's wrong. Just want to see some proof.

This is a good proof of mass warping space/time. What we consider gravity.

 

[Big Tex]

Your logic is wrong on the first statement. I said I had proof that scientists today use gravity as a force. Nothing else.

Where is the proof?

 

[Raymond]

Where is the proof?

NASA

 

[4 Dimensional]

This discussion started because I said this: "Gravity is NOT the property of a mass. It's is a force that is CREATED when that mass moves."

So I mistakenly thought that with your replies you were defending the "its a property of mass" argument. That probaly threw me off.

I was beginning to see your point that G has no physical bearing on the gravitational force equation, but the fact still remains that scientist were observing movement when they were determining the value of the constant G. The value comes from real measurements, just like the speed of light. For me to believe that gravity only requires mass I would have to see an example of a mass that's completely still pulling objects towards it. I doubt that example exists. But there are examples of gravity defined as a force, requiring mass and acceleration. Maybe if you push the G has no physical bearing part more I may see your point.

A different theory is Einstein's theory. To me that theory is defining gravity as a property of space.

This reply is about G.

And scientist was observing that movement to see an effect. Acceleration is a change of velocity over time.

a = [V(final) - V(initial)] / [t(final) - t(initial)]

According to this formula, initial velocity CAN be zero (Newton’s First Law, an object at rest v=0).

Any change in velocity after zero was by caused a force. Now, before you jump to a conclusion on what that force may be, just remember that G was measured using the Cavendish experiment.

Within that experiment the force that was used was torque.

F = (k * theta)/L

Where k is the torsion coefficient, theta is the angle between rest position and the equilibrium points measured in radians, and L is the total length of the bar in meters.

So if we take the gravitational force equation and solve for G, we get:

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

We can replace F in this equation with (k * theta)/L and get:

G = [k * theta * r^2]/(L * m1 * m2)

Here things get a little complicating because you have to find the torsion coefficient (k).

I’ll let you finish the rest and you interpret the motion as you see it.
https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravitation_cavendish_experiment_derivation.htm

How I see it is, motion was used to calculate torsion coefficient (k) using oscillation periods.

k = (4 * pi^2 * I)/T^2

Where T is oscillation period and I is the moment of inertia. When something is oscillating what is it doing? Going back and forth, right?

Now obviously this is a standard pendulum in the gif above, but during the Cavendish Experimet, the oscillation has brief moments of v = o and a = 0 while oscillation occurs.

For this experiment, “the gravitational force attracts the the balls and provide torque on the moment arm and twist the wire holding the balance” (from the link above)

In the end, this experiment does not PROVE that motion or mass is the SOURCE of gravity. However, it does explain where the motion in the gravitational force equation comes from. The motion in this experiment is showing the change of velocity, which is acceleration, due to the mass of the objects causing a gravitational force that provides torque on the moment arm while oscillation occurs to measure the value of G.

G is the residual value of the gravitational force equation found through this experiment. G has no physical baring on the gravitational force equation. It’s just an emperical physical constant that is a result from this test.

And to be clear, I wasn’t using this equation to prove my stance that gravity is created from mass. I’m merely explaining where the motion in the gravitational force equation is coming from. And since I have a better understanding how this experiment works, my stance remains because of the oscillating pendulum and the fact that it has to reach v = 0 and a = 0 at some point to measure G.

 

[LordSinister]

NASA

Are you talking about gravity assist used to propel spacecraft to higher velocities? They call it a gravity assist, but all they do is dip into the gravity well of large planetary bodies to increase the speed of the craft. Did you also know that when they do this, the planet also looses some of its own velocity? Voyager stole about what, an inch of the orbital momentum in billions of years.

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

 

[4 Dimensional]

Lmaooo. How are y’all able to reply with short and sweet comments?

Jeez EVERY explaination I have is straight overkill.

 

[Big Tex]

NASA

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic

“NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories
05.04.11


NASA's Gravity Probe B (GP-B) mission has confirmed two key predictions derived from Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which the spacecraft was designed to test.

The experiment, launched in 2004, used four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure the hypothesized geodetic effect, the warping of space and time around a gravitational body, and frame-dragging, the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates.

GP-B determined both effects with unprecedented precision by pointing at a single star, IM Pegasi, while in a polar orbit around Earth. If gravity did not affect space and time, GP-B's gyroscopes would point in the same direction forever while in orbit. But in confirmation of Einstein's theories, the gyroscopes experienced measurable, minute changes in the direction of their spin, while Earth's gravity pulled at them.

The findings are online in the journal Physical Review Letters.

"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University. "GP-B confirmed two of the most profound predictions of Einstein's universe, having far-reaching implications across astrophysics research. Likewise, the decades of technological innovation behind the mission will have a lasting legacy on Earth and in space."

GP-B is one of the longest running projects in NASA history, with agency involvement starting in the fall of 1963 with initial funding to develop a relativity gyroscope experiment. Subsequent decades of development led to groundbreaking technologies to control environmental disturbances on spacecraft, such as aerodynamic drag, magnetic fields and thermal variations. The mission's star tracker and gyroscopes were the most precise ever designed and produced.

GP-B completed its data collection operations and was decommissioned in December 2010.

"The mission results will have a long-term impact on the work of theoretical physicists," said Bill Danchi, senior astrophysicist and program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "Every future challenge to Einstein's theories of general relativity will have to seek more precise measurements than the remarkable work GP-B accomplished."

Innovations enabled by GP-B have been used in GPS technologies that allow airplanes to land unaided. Additional GP-B technologies were applied to NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer mission, which accurately determined the universe's background radiation. That measurement is the underpinning of the big-bang theory, and led to the Nobel Prize for NASA physicist John Mather.

The drag-free satellite concept pioneered by GP-B made a number of Earth-observing satellites possible, including NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment and the European Space Agency's Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer. These satellites provide the most precise measurements of the shape of the Earth, critical for precise navigation on land and sea, and understanding the relationship between ocean circulation and climate patterns.

GP-B also advanced the frontiers of knowledge and provided a practical training ground for 100 doctoral students and 15 master's degree candidates at universities across the United States. More than 350 undergraduates and more than four dozen high school students also worked on the project with leading scientists and aerospace engineers from industry and government. One undergraduate student who worked on GP-B became the first American woman in space, Sally Ride. Another was Eric Cornell who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2001.

"GP-B adds to the knowledge base on relativity in important ways and its positive impact will be felt in the careers of students whose educations were enriched by the project," said Ed Weiler, associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters.

NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., managed the Gravity Probe-B program for the agency. Stanford University, NASA's prime contractor for the mission, conceived the experiment and was responsible for the design and integration of the science instrument, mission operations and data analysis. Lockheed Martin Corp. of Sunnyvale, CA designed, integrated and tested the space vehicle and some of its major payload components. “

 

[Big Tex]

Lmaooo. How are y’all able to reply with short and sweet comments?

Jeez EVERY explaination I have is straight overkill.

Because this dude is spewing nonsense. Your brilliance is wasted on him lol.

 

[Big Tex]

This reply is about G.

And scientist was observing that movement to see an effect. Acceleration is a change of velocity over time.

a = [V(final) - V(initial)] / [t(final) - t(initial)]

According to this formula, initial velocity CAN be zero (Newton’s First Law, an object at rest v=0).

Any change in velocity after zero was by caused a force. Now, before you jump to a conclusion on what that force maybe, just remember that G was measured using the Cavendish experiment.

Within that experiment the force that was used was torque.

F = (k * theta)/L

Where k is the torsion coefficient, theta is the angle between rest position and the equilibrium points measured in radians, and L is the total length of the bar in meters.

So if we take the gravitational force equation and solve for G, we get:

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

We can replace F in this equation with (k * theta)/L and get:

G = [k * theta * r^2]/(L * m1 * m2)

Here things get a little complicating because you have to find the torsion coefficient (k).

I’ll let you finish the rest and you interpret the motion as you see it.
https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravitation_cavendish_experiment_derivation.htm

How I see it is, motion was used to calculate torsion coefficient (k) using oscillation periods.

k = (4 * pi^2 * I)/T^2

Where T is oscillation period and I is the moment of inertia. When something is oscillating what is it doing? Going back and forth, right?

Now obviously this is a standard pendulum in the gif above, but during the Cavendish Experimet, the oscillation has brief moments of v = o and a = 0 while oscillation occurs.

For this experiment, “the gravitational force attracts the the balls and provide torque on the moment arm and twist the wire holding the balance” (from the link above)

In the end, this experiment does not PROVE that motion or mass is the SOURCE of gravity. However, it does explain where the motion in the gravitational force equation comes from. The motion in this experiment is showing the change of velocity, which is acceleration, due to the mass of the objects causing a gravitational force that provides torque on the moment arm while oscillation occurs to measure the value of G.

G is the residual value of the gravitational force equation found through this experiment. G has no physical baring on the gravitational force equation. It’s just an emperical physical constant that is a result from this test.

And to be clear, I wasn’t using this equation to prove my stance that gravity is created from mass. I’m merely explaining where the motion in the gravitational force equation is coming from. And since I have a better understanding how this experiment works, my stance remains because of the oscillating pendulum and the fact that it has to reach v = 0 and a = 0 at some point to measure G.

Newton himself had no idea where gravity came from his equations just measure it. That’s why it’s silly of dude to try to use Newton’s laws to prove motion creates gravity, because if that was the case Newton would have seen that himself.

 

[4 Dimensional]

Because this dude is spewing nonsense. You brilliance is wasted on him lol.

Lol. I appreciate that.

I’ve been learning a lot from you kats. Y’all are filling in some gaps for me. When I consider those gasps, I try to incorporate them into my understanding of things. Next thing you know

But I’m just trying to support y’all stances because I am in agreement.

 

[Raymond]

Are you talking about gravity assist used to propel spacecraft to higher velocities? They call it a gravity assist, but all they do is dip into the gravity well of large planetary bodies to increase the speed of the craft. Did you also know that when they do this, the planet also looses some of its own velocity? Voyager stole about what, an inch of the orbital momentum in billions of years.

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

No. I'm talking about gravity defined as a force. I've been saying that this entire thread. "Gravity the force by which a planet or other body draws objects toward its center"
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/dictionary/Gravity.html.

I also know for fact that it's described as force when doing calculations for space travel and heat transfer for electronic boxes so they don't blow up.

 

[LordSinister]

Yeah, brother science is explaining orgasms to a thot, and we are just banging her until she comes and says "That's how it works."

Science all in the bedroom with a chalkboard, anatomy books, a Hitachi vibrator Dr. Ruth, Masters and Jonhson, and an MRI.

 

[4 Dimensional]

Newton himself had no idea where gravity came from his equations just measure it. That’s why it’s silly of dude to try to use Newton’s laws to prove motion creates gravity, because if that was the case Newton would have seen that himself.

I think so too.

If he would have considered the source, it probably would have changed how his laws were.

 

[4 Dimensional]

Yeah, brother science is explaining orgasms to a thot, and we are just banging her until she comes and says "That's how it works."

Science all in the bedroom with a chalkboard, anatomy books, a Hitachi vibrator Dr. Ruth, Masters and Jonhson, and an MRI.

Yooooooo, this shit is funny as fuck! Lmaoooo.

I’m about to use the shit out of that. That was clever as hell.

 

[LordSinister]

No. I'm talking about gravity defined as a force. I've been saying that this entire thread. "Gravity the force by which a planet or other body draws objects toward its center"
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/dictionary/Gravity.html.

I also know for

fact that it's described as a force when doing calculations for space travel and heat transfer for electronic boxes so they don't blow up.

Dude, 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!

 

[Big Tex]

No. I'm talking about gravity defined as a force. I've been saying that this entire thread. "Gravity the force by which a planet or other body draws objects toward its center"
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/dictionary/Gravity.html.

I also know for fact that it's described as force when doing calculations for space travel and heat transfer for electronic boxes so they don't blow up.

You keep getting caught up in semantics. That’s what you keep missing. The Jedi’s power is discribed as a force.

There is the force of will.

Do those two have formulas to describe them since they are referred to as forces?

Like Sinister said, NASA uses the curvature of space time around planets to sling probes into space. They do NOT rely on some force acting on them to do it.

 

[Raymond]

This reply is about G.

And scientist was observing that movement to see an effect. Acceleration is a change of velocity over time.

a = [V(final) - V(initial)] / [t(final) - t(initial)]

According to this formula, initial velocity CAN be zero (Newton’s First Law, an object at rest v=0).

Any change in velocity after zero was by caused a force. Now, before you jump to a conclusion on what that force may be, just remember that G was measured using the Cavendish experiment.

Within that experiment the force that was used was torque.

F = (k * theta)/L

Where k is the torsion coefficient, theta is the angle between rest position and the equilibrium points measured in radians, and L is the total length of the bar in meters.

So if we take the gravitational force equation and solve for G, we get:

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

We can replace F in this equation with (k * theta)/L and get:

G = [k * theta * r^2]/(L * m1 * m2)

Here things get a little complicating because you have to find the torsion coefficient (k).

I’ll let you finish the rest and you interpret the motion as you see it.
https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravitation_cavendish_experiment_derivation.htm

How I see it is, motion was used to calculate torsion coefficient (k) using oscillation periods.

k = (4 * pi^2 * I)/T^2

Where T is oscillation period and I is the moment of inertia. When something is oscillating what is it doing? Going back and forth, right?

Now obviously this is a standard pendulum in the gif above, but during the Cavendish Experimet, the oscillation has brief moments of v = o and a = 0 while oscillation occurs.

For this experiment, “the gravitational force attracts the the balls and provide torque on the moment arm and twist the wire holding the balance” (from the link above)

In the end, this experiment does not PROVE that motion or mass is the SOURCE of gravity. However, it does explain where the motion in the gravitational force equation comes from. The motion in this experiment is showing the change of velocity, which is acceleration, due to the mass of the objects causing a gravitational force that provides torque on the moment arm while oscillation occurs to measure the value of G.

G is the residual value of the gravitational force equation found through this experiment. G has no physical baring on the gravitational force equation. It’s just an emperical physical constant that is a result from this test.

And to be clear, I wasn’t using this equation to prove my stance that gravity is created from mass. I’m merely explaining where the motion in the gravitational force equation is coming from. And since I have a better understanding how this experiment works, my stance remains because of the oscillating pendulum and the fact that it has to reach v = 0 and a = 0 at some point to measure G.

True, motion from the pendulum in that experiment does not prove that it is the source of gravity. More like gravity is causing motion on that pendulum. And yes, I know your stance on mass creating gravity doesn't have to do with that equation. So why would did you bring it up in the first place? <--- This answer is important. We're getting somewhere now.

Off topic, but did they mention that v and a had to be zero for them to measure G?

 

[Big Tex]

Dude, 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?

Because they said the word force dude is stuck instead of realizing it’s just an easier way yo describe the affects of a gravity well.