[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
Obv you have never studied undergrad physics.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
What does it matter what I've studied? Show me a textbook, undergrad physics or otherwise, that says the Earth's gravitational field is uniform. Not approximately uniform, so it can be assumed to be uniform locally on small scales without too much loss of precision to make calculations easier. Actually uniform.
Also, am I to infer from your other posts that the Earth's gravity does not in fact obey Newton's law of universal gravitation? Tell me more about this too.
What does it matter what I've studied? Show me a textbook, undergrad physics or otherwise, that says the Earth's gravitational field is uniform. Not approximately uniform, so it can be assumed to be uniform locally on small scales without too much loss of precision to make calculations easier. Actually uniform.Also, am I to infer from your other posts that the Earth's gravity d
Show you this and that, tell me this, you do not deserve it. There is no such thing as "actually uniform" any more than an inverse sq law predicts with certainty. Further proof of general ignorance as to what Science is.
W = mg describes terrestrial gravitation. F = GMm/r2 describes universal gravitation. Equating the two is done for sure by the books (use discernment and do not regurgitate), but that is not the same as the former being a local approximation for the latter. Knowing the difference between the two models is how this is taught, and not by some amercian youtuber "this is an approximation for that at yada".
In summary, your attempt to undermine the wtc "argument" by ad homming me about flat earth has backfired spectacularly as we have seen who is the more trained in the scientific method.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
JFC, did you just repeat everything I've been saying and do a victory lap? My dude, you are ****ed in the head.
If not, explain to me exactly, in your own words, the difference between "terrestrial gravitation" and "universal gravitation". You stated before that these are entirely different concepts. Go on.
Because I got so far as disproving progressive collapse, and to an extent disproving collapse of any description, by the impossibility of this occurring at a rate approaching freefall. Then it was ad hom city.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Because I got so far as disproving progressive collapse, and to an extent disproving collapse of any description, by the impossibility of this occurring at a rate approaching freefall. Then it was ad hom city.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
1. You didn't disprove **** even if we assume the Earth to be spherical.
2. You certainly didn't disprove **** if the Earth is flat, since you don't understand how acceleration due to gravity on a non-spherical Earth works.
JFC, did you just repeat everything I've been saying and do a victory lap? My dude, you are ****ed in the head.
If not, explain to me exactly, in your own words, the difference between "terrestrial gravitation" and "universal gravitation". You stated before that these are entirely different concepts. Go on.
Screaming toddler. That is all I am hearing.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Does it look like this? Or is it more cylindrical than conical? Enquiring minds need to know!
Screaming toddler. That is all I am hearing.
"In my own words" roll about laughing etc.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Must admit, I never saw "you're not asking me nicely enough so I'm not going to back up any of my claims!" coming.
I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked! I really thought you were on to something there. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to wait until you publish your findings.
Homeslice thinks the Earth is flat and complains that counterarguments are "youtuber level". Sorry my dude, I don't think Einstein and Hawking are devoting much of their time to investigating your thesis.
Turtles plural, all the way down. Otherwise it wouldn't work.
The flat earther dishpit is oddly entertaining, for sure.
There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.
- da Vinci.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Brofessor, I want to hear more about how terrestrial gravity is fundamentally different from universal gravity. Is this also true of other things? Is terrestrial electromagnetism different from universal electromagnetism? What about terrestrial hydrogen, does it have more protons than universal hydrogen?
Help me see! (Using terrestrial or universal light, I don't mind.)
Also, would be nice if you could commit to an Earth shape. I assume your shape is thin and flat, with a large surface area in relation to its volume, since it seems very important to you that the gravitational field lines are approximately parallel near the surface, and that is the shape which would cause this to happen. But that still leaves a plethora of possibilities. Come on, tell us, we need to know what shape planet you live on!
Brofessor, I want to hear more about how terrestrial gravity is fundamentally different from universal gravity. Is this also true of other things? Is terrestrial electromagnetism different from universal electromagnetism? What about terrestrial hydrogen, does it have more protons than universal hydrogen?
Help me see! (Using terrestrial or universal light, I don't mind.)
Fundamentally different yes.
Law of terrestrial gravitation is
At any given location on the Earth, all objects that are subject only to the effect of gravity have the same downward acceleration vector g, irrespective of their mass and composition.
Hence, the gravitational field is UNIFORM. If the field were not uniform then the vector would have a different value depending on its position. For instance, in some begging the question speculation of a radial field then each and every point in the field has a different vector, NON-UNIFORM field. Parallel field lines have same magnitude and direction at any point in the field. No convergence, no centre of gravity.
Quantified as Newton's second law, the resultant force, weight, is proportional to the acceleration, g. Constant of proportionality is inertial mass.
You want to leap to some causative mechanism? I suggest you start with learning the scientific method and defining physics.
Newton's law of universal gravitation is
Every particle of matter attracts every other particle of matter with a gravitational force, whose magnitude is directly proportional to the product of the (gravitational) masses of the particles, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Hence fundamentally different. This field is NOT UNIFORM. It projects radially outwards from a centre of gravity, by definition the value of the field is not the same at any two different points. Mathematical description reflects this. Note there is no single experiment to support universal gravitation (and no the Cavendish (gravity rather than electric) was not an experiment please read his original report).
Assuming the resultant force and gravitational force are equal, and assuming inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass, allows the magnitude of g to be derived. There is no experimental basis (that's no physics) for doing this.
As to the rest of your buffoonary just no. You are allowed out of the naughty corner do not ruin it for everybody else.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Also, would be nice if you could commit to an Earth shape. I assume your shape is thin and flat, with a large surface area in relation to its volume, since it seems very important to you that the gravitational field lines are approximately parallel near the surface, and that is the shape which would cause this to happen. But that still leaves a plethora of possibilities. Come o
It is irrelevant to pursuing true knowledge. Collect enough evidence and the solution may reveal itself.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Hence, the gravitational field is UNIFORM. If the field were not uniform then the vector would have a different value depending on its position. For instance, in some begging the question speculation of a radial field then each and every point in the field has a different vector, NON-UNIFORM field. Parallel field lines have same magnitude and direction at any point in the field
Gonna need a cite on this, bro.
(For anyone who's not too sure, what homeslice is saying here is basically "If the Earth were a sphere, its gravitational field would not be unform". He then asserts without evidence that the gravitational field is in fact uniform, presumably abusing the fact that it is approximated as such for small scale calculations close to the surface, pretty much in the same way we approximate the ground as flat for those same calculations).
There have also been practical experiments as far back as the 18th century that measure the horizontal component of gravity caused by proximity to a mountain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehalli...). The gravitational field on Earth is provably not uniform but the simplifying assumption that it is is good enough for virtually all use cases.
