Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Forces of nature and such
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Quid est Veritas?" data-source="post: 74995709" data-attributes="member: 385144"><p>Yes, he used the behaviour of fibres under torsion to indirectly determine the force. What is your point? This force was balanced by an opposite force, which based on application of Newton's laws, is then ascribed to an attractive force between the masses. Outside of that, stating it 'was' attraction, is certainly an unscientific statement. On what basis 'was' this force necessarily due to the attraction between the masses otherwise?</p><p></p><p>Regardless, it is still not directly observed. If I am misunderstanding something, please enlighten me, but constantly just stating I am, is frankly pointless. This is not my idiosyncrasy though, but what I had been taught a few years ago. If I have the inclination, I'll go and look for my old physical measurements textbooks sometime. I certainly did not think anything I said was 'controversial' in the least.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quid est Veritas?, post: 74995709, member: 385144"] Yes, he used the behaviour of fibres under torsion to indirectly determine the force. What is your point? This force was balanced by an opposite force, which based on application of Newton's laws, is then ascribed to an attractive force between the masses. Outside of that, stating it 'was' attraction, is certainly an unscientific statement. On what basis 'was' this force necessarily due to the attraction between the masses otherwise? Regardless, it is still not directly observed. If I am misunderstanding something, please enlighten me, but constantly just stating I am, is frankly pointless. This is not my idiosyncrasy though, but what I had been taught a few years ago. If I have the inclination, I'll go and look for my old physical measurements textbooks sometime. I certainly did not think anything I said was 'controversial' in the least. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Forces of nature and such
Top
Bottom