Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"where g is the acceleration due to gravity"?, I think you have missed my point. Why is it in a vacuum do the objects experience the same acceleration? Seems to me like "gravity" applies a different amount of force depending on the mass of the object (F=ma) which is nonsense.
Your post says she "WAS very confused," yet you go on to say she hates being uneducated.
How is it that a person who hates being uneducated carries confusion about day/night into her employment years?
This is not quite true. If one has a fairly accurate scale one can measure this amount by changing one's latitude. In other words there is evidence that the average person can observe that the Earth is spinning. One needs an accurate scale and a test weight. At a known latitude one puts the test weight on the scale and gets a reading. One takes a trip to another latitude and if the difference in latitude is large enough, and the scale is accurate enough, one can measure the change in weight. Since one is using the same test weight each time we know that its mass does not change, but its weight does. A scale that is accurate to four decimal places should be enough, though at least five would be ideal. My cheap kitchen scale from Amazon is almost that accurate, which leads me to conclude that for about $50.00 one should be able to buy a scale that one could use to measure the spin of the Earth.Plugging in the values give Δf ≈ 0.08g which is a negligible difference.
"where g is the acceleration due to gravity"?, I think you have missed my point. Why is it in a vacuum do the objects experience the same acceleration? Seems to me like "gravity" applies a different amount of force depending on the mass of the object (F=ma) which is nonsense.
Yes, fake. Have you seen the previous posts?[/qote]
No, real. How would you prove that they are fake? You can't just claim that they are.
Its the effect of the firmament. There was a good video showing how a glass with the shape of the firmament can have similar effect (can't seem to find it now).
Videos are not evidence. You need to be able to properly support your claims. Either with links to proper peer reviewed science or experiments that people can do themselves. Before you propose an experiment you should ask what those who accept the fact that the Earth is a globe would expect to see. Quite often those that believe in a Flat Earth do not understand the globe model. If you have the wrong assumption about how the globe works you will only have a strawman argument and those are false.
You seem to think light has infinite range. You don't think the atmosphere would hinder you from seeing it (try to see through all the air in between)? Furthermore, there is a limitation of the eyes and devices. Try recognizing something represented by 1 pixel for instance.
No, we can make predictions based upon models. You would need to explain and be able to support why we have limited sight distances.
I don't see people selling gold at midnight and buying gold at midday. People would be taking advantage of it if it were true. To test it, you could try something that is 1000kg for instance, that shouldn't be "negligible". How about when you consider mid-summer and mid-winter, still "negligible"?
"air resistance" in a vacuum? You missed my point again.There is a thing called "air resistance". You can feel it yourself when you drive in your car. Stick your hand out in the wind when you are travelling at freeway speeds. You will feel the air pushing quite hard on your hand.
So much for sharing.It's really quite simple.
In the US, we take education for granted. In other parts of the world, it's an option -- or worse, a luxury.
No, I did not. The point is that there is no air resistance in a vacuum. That is why in a vacuum a feather falls as rapidly as a hammer."air resistance" in a vacuum? You missed my point again.
By the way, just in case you missed it (I've added it to my previous post):
FLAT EARTH DOME & SOUTHERN STAR TRAILS
I don't see people selling gold at midnight and buying gold at midday. People would be taking advantage of it if it were true. To test it, you could try something that is 1000kg for instance, that shouldn't be "negligible". How about when you consider mid-summer and mid-winter, still "negligible"?
Please explain it to me then because I must've missed that class. Why? Why is the acceleration due to "gravity" the same for all objects in a vacuum? This implies that each object experiences a different amount of "gravitational force" (remember, with F=ma, keeping "a" the same, and objects of different masses "m" different, means different F for each object).It's not nonsense, it's very basic physics. The vast majority of teenagers in high school physics classes can figure this stuff out...
I know weight and mass are not the same, but don't we use mass as weight in everyday language? Just replace what I said with something that has a great mass.Wait? Do you think that that discussion about weight on either side of the Earth means there is a change in the amount (mass) of an object (like gold as you seem to imply)?
Weight and mass are not the same thing, even if they are (or rather appear) to be measured with the same units.
Your exact quote was "Density and buoyancy is sufficient to explain the up and down movements of things.".Not sure.
With density and buoyancy, in a vacuum, because there is nothing opposing their movement, I think they just fall at maximum rate. Not sure what defines the rate, but its probably independent of the mass and density.
As far as I can tell, gravity doesn't explain this. Why is gravity treated as an acceleration in this case exactly? If gravity is a force, then it should follow F=ma, so the object with more mass should fall slower, so how does falling at the same rate "confirm" gravity is working?
Firstly, earth is special. The things you see above are not earthy things, not made of rocks etc. The moon is transparent. Have you ever seen the other side of the moon? The sun, moon, and the stars are moving clockwise above the earth (center of motion being the north pole - the center of the earth; also there is no south pole), the wondering stars (the "other planets") have the sun as their center of circular motion.
View attachment 314792 View attachment 314793 View attachment 314794
View attachment 314796View attachment 314797
View attachment 314798View attachment 314799
See my point about gravity in the "same rate in a vacuum" section. Furthermore, the weight of objects do not change between midday and midnight, so how can gravity and the solar system be true? I would expect that objects would weight less at midday compared to midnight because at midday the earth's and sun's gravitational pull would oppose each other on an object (causing it to weigh less), while at midnight, they would work together (causing it to weigh more). Obviously, this does not occur.
Please explain it to me then because I must've missed that class. Why? Why is the acceleration due to "gravity" the same for all objects in a vacuum? This implies that each object experiences a different amount of "gravitational force" (remember, with F=ma, keeping "a" the same, and objects of different masses "m" different, means different F for each object).
Because the force between two objects is determined by the formula F = GMm/r^2.No, the point is why the same acceleration?
It's a field, more mass more force.No, the point is why the same acceleration?
No, the point is why the same acceleration?
From wikipedia:Because the force between two objects is determined by the formula F = GMm/r^2.
Yes, there is a different force on each object, proportional to the mass of the object. If M is the mass of the Earth, and m is the mass of the object, then in a vacuum:
F = GMm/r^2 = ma
The m on each side of that equation cancel out. So:
a = GM/r^2
In other words, the acceleration of the object toward the Earth in a vacuum doesn't depend on the mass of the object at all.
Gravitational field:It's a field, more mass more force.
From wikipedia:
Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia
Newton's law of universal gravitation: This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia
Inductive reasoning: Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which a body of observations is synthesized to come up with a general principle. It consists of making broad generalizations based on specific observations. Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. If the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain; in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.
So, its "probable".
Cavendish experiment:
Cavendish experiment - Wikipedia
The Cavendish experiment, performed in 1797–1798 by English scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory and the first to yield accurate values for the gravitational constant. Because of the unit conventions then in use, the gravitational constant does not appear explicitly in Cavendish's work. Instead, the result was originally expressed as the specific gravity of the Earth, or equivalently the mass of the Earth. His experiment gave the first accurate values for these geophysical constants.
"the result was originally expressed as the specific gravity of the Earth", interesting.
How convenient to have things cancel out. I don't see much use for this equation. I suppose they would have used it to work out the supposed mass of the fake planets.
Gravitational field:
Gravitational field - Wikipedia
In physics, a gravitational field is a model used to explain the influences that a massive body extends into the space around itself, producing a force on another massive body. Thus, a gravitational field is used to explain gravitational phenomena, and is measured in newtons per kilogram (N/kg). In its original concept, gravity was a force between point masses. Following Isaac Newton, Pierre-Simon Laplace attempted to model gravity as some kind of radiation field or fluid, and since the 19th century, explanations for gravity have usually been taught in terms of a field model, rather than a point attraction.
"In its original concept, gravity was a force between point masses"
Sounds like the science is not "settled" yet.
Correct. All science is "probable".
So with science, "probable" things are "settled", okay. I'm not happy with "probable" things being "settled".What? No, it is more than settled.
Of course it is and you just confirmed it. How do you think that you are able to communicate here? Science is what makes it possible. You rely on "probable".So with science, "probable" things are "settled", okay. I'm not happy with "probable" things being "settled".
You should really check out the video I shared on the previous post. It's really interesting.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?