[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
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.
This statement is false (with respect to mass). Masses exert their own gravitational pull back on the earth which affects their interaction. However, the effect is minuscule, because the mass is minuscule compared to that of the Earth. That does not mean the effect does not exist.
Hence, the gravitational field is UNIFORM. If the field were not uniform then the vector would have a different value depending on its position.
Vectors have two values (that is the definition of a vector, something you learn in school), a magnitude and direction. I am not sure which "value" you are referring to. We can assume the same magnitude, notwithstanding minuscule variations in distance from the centre gravity and the mass of the object in question. The direction is not the same, it is exactly towards the centre of gravity, i.e. the centre of the Earth.
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.
This is just word salad. At best, you are just re-asserting your own claim from above, still without evidence.
Quantified as Newton's second law, the resultant force, weight, is proportional to the acceleration, g. Constant of proportionality is inertial mass.
More word salad. Inertial mass of what? And how can mass be a constant of proportionality when you just told us that the force does not depend on the 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 isEvery 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 propor
More word salad and/or re-asserting the same claim without evidence, albeit using slightly different words.
What Brofessor Billy is doing here is interspersing provably true physical facts, e.g.
"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"
with his own nonsense claims, for which he provides no evidence, and which are in fact provably false, e.g.
"Hence, the gravitational field is UNIFORM. If the field were not uniform then the vector would have a different value depending on its position"
and hoping nobody notices.
Or, to put it less charitably, he's basically saying the equivalent of "diagrams in physics textbooks always show the ground as flat (unless over very large distances), ergo the ground is flat". He is just throwing in this uniform gravity mumbo jumbo because everyone would laugh him out of the room if he removed all the obfuscation and just said it like that, but uNiFoRm gRaViTy, sounds complicated yo, might be something there.
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
Citation for this lol. This is standard.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
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.
You have to meticulously assess the original reports. Then you see the quality or otherwise of the measurements, assumptions, uncertainties etc.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The gravitational field of the Earth is exactly the shape you'd expect a gravitational field around a sphere to be, you donk. You are mercilessly abusing the term "pointing in the same direction" to mean "parallel", or someone lied to you.
It might be "standard" in flat earth circles, but you're gonna need to provide some proof of it here. Hint: all radii of a circle point in the same direction, i.e. towards the centre, but they are not all parallel to each other.
This statement is false (with respect to mass). Masses exert their own gravitational pull back on the earth which affects their interaction. However, the effect is minuscule, because the mass is minuscule compared to that of the Earth. That does not mean the effect does not exist.
So it goes, but, an effect that is not measurable does not exist. Physics 101. You still need to define Science, sir.
Vectors have two values (that is the definition of a vector, something you learn in school), a magnitude and direction. I am not sure which "value" you are referring to. We can assume the same magnitude, notwithstanding minuscule variations in distance from the centre gravity and the mass of the object in question. The direction is not the same, it is exactly towards the centre of gravity, i.e. the centre of the Earth.
The value of a vector is its magnitude AND its direction, both are required to describe a vector. Hence there are no two gravitational force vectors equal according to the inv sq law. Contrariwise, all vectors are equal in mag and dir in a uniform field, the field that describes free fall.
Inertial mass of what? And how can mass be a constant of proportionality when you just told us that the force does not depend on the mass?
I assumed common understanding of inertia and inertial mass. Silly me.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
What Brofessor Billy is doing here is interspersing provably true physical facts, e.g. "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" with his own nonsense cl
I see you deny the observable fact of free fall under gravity, terrestrial gravitation, and claim as true Newton's law of gravitation. The latter has no scientific support. Newton himself famously declared he offered no hypothesis.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Or, to put it less charitably, he's basically saying the equivalent of "diagrams in physics textbooks always show the ground as flat (unless over very large distances), ergo the ground is flat". He is just throwing in this uniform gravity mumbo jumbo because everyone would laugh him out of the room if he removed all the obfuscation and just said it like that, but uNiFoRm gRaViT
A uniform field is not complicated. I would instead advise considering what is said on the basis of what is said, not these pathetic strawmen.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok, I'm getting bored of this. You are an incorrigible donk but you can stay, you're pretty entertaining. Maybe someone else will be bored enough to have a go (if you do, careful, he keeps conflating different meanings of "uniform", which can mean "constant" or "unchanging", or "a gravitational field where all the field lines are parallel" - the Earth's gravitational field is approximately uniform in the former sense but not the latter, and it would indeed need to be flat for the gravitational field to be "uniform" in the latter sense).
Peace.
Spoiler
The gravitational field of the Earth is exactly the shape you'd expect a gravitational field around a sphere to be, you donk. You are mercilessly abusing the term "pointing in the same direction" to mean "parallel", or someone lied to you.It might be "standard" in flat earth circles, but you're gonna need to provide some proof of it here. Hint: all radii of a circle point in th
The gravitational field is [trigger warning: the next word is highly complicated, just for the initiated into the deepest of mysteries] *uniform* [remaining the same in all cases and at all times; unchanging in form or character] in the terrestrial gravitation model used in mechanics. That is, weight is the product of inertial mass and gravitational field strength.
Hence, there can be no radial field lines emananting from a spherical surface.
To paraphrase Newton, we feign no hypothesis.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The gravitational field is [trigger warning: the next word is highly complicated, just for the initiated into the deepest of mysteries] *uniform* [remaining the same in all cases and at all times; unchanging in form or character] in the terrestrial gravitation model used in mechanics. That is, weight is the product of inertial mass and gravitational field strength.Hence, there
You repeating the same nonsense over and over is not proof, evidence, a citation, or a source. We don't "trust you, bro."
I see you deny the observable fact of free fall under gravity, terrestrial gravitation, and claim as true Newton's law of gravitation. The latter has no scientific support. Newton himself famously declared he offered no hypothesis.
Just noticed this gem, lmao. Apparently one of the most lauded and well known discoveries of all time has "no scientific support."
Newton proposed no mechanism for why the law works, i.e. what causes gravity. We have made some progress in this regard since his time. You might have, for example, heard of a guy called Einstein, whose theories, to be fair, enjoyed about as much "scientific support" as Newton's.
Just noticed this gem, lmao. Apparently one of the most lauded and well known discoveries of all time has "no scientific support."Newton proposed no mechanism for why the law works, i.e. what causes gravity. We have made some progress in this regard since his time. You might have, for example, heard of a guy called Einstein, whose theories, to be fair, enjoyed about as much "sc
"Scientific support" meaning experimental support, not the support of "the scientific community". Just for clarity.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
"Scientific support" meaning experimental support, not the support of "the scientific community". Just for clarity.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I mean, you're obviously a bit far gone if you think that classical gravity has no experimental support. You might as well be a flat earther or something.
This is much funnier than I would have guessed. Please continue.
So when I used to offshore sail and we'd plot our course with the curvature of the earth in mind we were actually making our trip longer instead of just going in a straight line? And all these present day dummies keep making the same mistake?
To think this nearly got overlooked.
You said Newton did not know the cause of gravity, correct?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I'm not a mind reader, but as far as I am aware he did not propose a mechanism which causes gravity, correct. Why are you asking me if I said something that you can scroll up and see a handful of posts ago?
Forget that. Let's go to basics.
1. You said Newton did not know what mechanism caused gravity.
2. You now say that classical gravity (GR is also classical but I assume you mean Newtonian) has experimental support.
On it's face we have a Science fail of epic proportion.
Anyway, what are the three necessary components of an experiment please?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
(and no the Cavendish (gravity rather than electric) was not an experiment please read his original report).
I am somewhat intrigued by your dismissal of Cavendish and particularly this line. Cavendish lays out the experiments he did in detail, under the heading "Account of the Experiments" in his memoir so whatever definition of experiment you're using obviously isn't one shared by the man himself (or apparently anybody who has ever done an actual experiment). Of the first few experiements (he did others that further confirmed the findings) he notes:
These experiments are sufficient to show, that the attraction of the weights on the balls is very sensible, and are also sufficiently regular to determine the quantity of this attraction pretty nearly, as the extreme results do not differ from each other by more than 1/10 part.
