[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
In any case, I think we might have heard everything we need to hear about acceleration due to gravity from Brofessor Billy. Somehow managed to get every single thing about how gravity works wrong, pretty impressive.
Lol of course it depends on the shape you massive donk. The only reason that the gravitational field is uniform on the surface of a spherical Earth is because a). every point on the surface is equidistant from the centre (that is kinda the definition of a sphere) and b). for the purposes of our calculations, the density of the Earth, while not uniform, is also equidistributed f
"Centre" of what? A uniform field has no centre. Parallel field lines do not converge.
A gravitational field on a sphere is NOT uniform. Equipotentials also apply to non-uniform fields. Field lines diverge away from the centre, this is not what is modelled with terrestrial gravity, i.e. free-fall, i.e. every practical application of gravity (besides orbital motion which is not of concern here). For that we use a uniform field, a plane surface.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok, tell me more. Why do you think parallel lines are important? Do you think there is some universal law that says gravity has to act in parallel lines, whatever that means? Parallel to what? Each other? Then I can just rotate the whole set of these lines by any angle I want and they remain parallel, is that how this works? There is no such thing as parallel lines on the surfa
Field lines are parallel when describing a uniform field. This is the type of field that allows a constant g. That allows predictions of free fall behaviour.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
"Centre" of what? A uniform field has no centre. Parallel field lines do not converge.A gravitational field on a sphere is NOT uniform. Equipotentials also apply to non-uniform fields. Field lines diverge away from the centre, this is not what is modelled with terrestrial gravity, i.e. free-fall, i.e. every practical application of gravity (besides orbital motion which is not o
Centre of gravity lmao.
I don't know what you're saying with the rest of that word salad, but I think you are confused. The fact that we make certain simplifying assumptions modelling something in freefall a few 100 metres above the centre of the earth does not mean that those assumptions still hold when analysing how gravity would work around a large mass that is not a sphere.
Actually, you do, it's just that for most heights we are working with our approximation of 9.81 works fine. But of course it depends on height, gravity falls off with distance squared. Maybe you should have paid more attention in high school, then you could really get stuck in to correcting those NIST donks.Here, genius:
Ah yes because NIST's wtc analysis is concerned with "inner core" and "space".
Free fall under gravity is a constant g, no more or less (after accounting for uncertainty in measurement and minor deviations).
Height dependence is Newton's law of universal gravitation, an entirely different conception. But we see already you struggle with non-uniform vs uniform fields.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Centre of gravity lmao.
I don't know what you're saying with the rest of that word salad, but I think you are confused. The fact that we make certain simplifying assumptions modelling something in freefall a few 100 metres above the centre of the earth does not mean that those assumptions still hold when analysing how gravity would work around a large mass that is not a sphere.
"A uniform gravitational field converges to a centre of gravity".
Are you dying on this hill sir?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Field lines are parallel when describing a uniform field. This is the type of field that allows a constant g. That allows predictions of free fall behaviour.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Again, this is a simplifying assumption when modelling gravity an negligible heights at the surface of a spherical planet with uniform or equidistributed density, so the centre of mass coincides with the geometric centre of the planet. Even then, those lines are not actually parallel, they converge at the centre of the planet. It is a simplifying assumption.
In any case, I think we might have heard everything we need to hear about acceleration due to gravity from Brofessor Billy. Somehow managed to get every single thing about how gravity works wrong, pretty impressive.
Anybody sensible (reaching quite a bit round these here parts) will read perfect textbook statements from me and multiple errors from you.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Again, this is a simplifying assumption when modelling gravity an negligible heights at the surface of a spherical planet with uniform or equitidistributed density, so the centre of mass coincides with the geometric centre of the planet. Even then, those lines are not actually parallel, they converge at the centre of the planet. It is a simplifying assumption.
An assumption that works perfectly and is independent of any "Earth shape" you care to invoke. Glad that is finally cleared up.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
"A uniform gravitational field converges to a centre of gravity".
Are you dying on this hill sir?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The statement I am making is that strength of gravity is the same at every point on the surface of an idealised spherical planet and its direction is always towards the centre of gravity, i.e. the the geometric centre of the planet. This does not hold in general for other shapes.
An assumption that works perfectly and is independent of any "Earth shape" you care to invoke. Glad that is finally cleared up.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
No. It does not. The surface of a flat disc ("thin" cylinder) would have a horizontal component to gravity, pulling you inwards towards the centre of the disk. Its magnitude would also vary with distance from the centre, so there would be no constant "g". On other shaped planets, it would still be different, depending on the shape. This is what I've been trying to explain to your stubborn dumb ass. A sphere is a very special shape where a lot of simplifying assumptions can be made in the calculations precisely because every point on the surface is equidistant from the centre, and the mass is evenly distributed with respect to the centre.
Anybody sensible (reaching quite a bit round these here parts) will read perfect textbook statements from me and multiple errors from you.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Your "perfect text book statements" are perfect when applied to a sphere. It's like if I were to say that the volume of any planet is (4/3)pi*r^3 where r is "the distance from the centre" because that's what every textbook says. Well yeah, because textbooks assume their readers to be familiar with the general shape of planets. If I started to assert that my volume formula works for an arbitrary shaped planet, you might rightly start to question my sanity.
Ah yes because NIST's wtc analysis is concerned with "inner core" and "space".Free fall under gravity is a constant g, no more or less (after accounting for uncertainty in measurement and minor deviations).Height dependence is Newton's law of universal gravitation, an entirely different conception. But we see already you struggle with non-uniform vs uniform fields.Sent from my
Right, but the NIST report has the hidden assumption of a spherical Earth, remember?
Also, please tell us more about how Earth's gravity is exempt from Newton's law of universal gravitation, so much so to make it "an entirely different conception". This, I have to hear.
No. It does not. The surface of a flat disc ("thin" cylinder) would have a horizontal component to gravity, pulling you inwards towards the centre of the disk. Its magnitude would also vary with distance from the centre, so there would be no constant "g". On other shaped planets, it would still be different, depending on the shape. This is what I've been trying to explain to yo
More incoherent babble, begging the question and strawmanning.
The uniform field - parallel field lines, i.e. in the same direction - with a field strength equal in magnitude at any point in the field, is what it is. That is NOT a gravitational field according to Newton's inverse sq law. There is no inbetween. There is one model for some predictions and a different model for other predictions. Free fall predictions have, by neccessity, field lines perpendicular to the surface, inconsistent with a spherical model with radial field lines.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Your "perfect text book statements" are perfect when applied to a sphere. It's like if I were to say that the volume of any planet is (4/3)pi*r^3 where r is "the distance from the centre" because that's what every textbook says. Well yeah, because textbooks assume their readers to be familiar with the general shape of planets. If I started to assert that my volume formula works
So you are dying on the hill then.
Are you in agreement that
"A uniform gravitational field converges to a centre of gravity".
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Also, please tell us more about how Earth's gravity is exempt from Newton's law of universal gravitation, so much so to make it "an entirely different conception". This, I have to hear.
The inv sq law: radial field lines consistent with a *non-uniform* gravitational field. Contrary to what is known as terrestrial gravity, the tendency for a body to fall at a rate of g in a vacuum due to a *uniform* gravitational field.
I'll provide pictures if you promise to be good.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok, I don't even know wtf you are going on about now. I have a feeling you are playing word games with "uniform gravitational field" vs. "a gravitational field whose magnitude and direction (with respect to the centre, not with respect to another point on the surface) is constant on the surface of a spherical planet". Or you're just abusing the fact that we use a uniform field as an approximation for small scale calculations on the Earth's surface. But I'm bored with your babbling, someone else can give it a shot if they're interested.
The inv sq law: radial field lines consistent with a *non-uniform* gravitational field. Contrary to what is known as terrestrial gravity, the tendency for a body to fall at a rate of g in a vacuum due to a *uniform* gravitational field.
I'll provide pictures if you promise to be good.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Jfc dude, you are embarrassing yourself. Holy ****.
The inv sq law: radial field lines consistent with a *non-uniform* gravitational field. Contrary to what is known as terrestrial gravity, the tendency for a body to fall at a rate of g in a vacuum due to a *uniform* gravitational field.
I'll provide pictures if you promise to be good.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yeah, show me a text book that says this lol. Is it the flat earth Bible?
I'd have no idea how or where to look it up. Do you have one from "The Joos" to "J. Epstein" saying "For the record, we done 9/11" too by any chance?
