Civilization Among The Other Planets

[Finshaggy]

NO! The FORCE is the same, not the velocities. The force on the piece of lead that weighs about 140gr is the same force that pushes the gun back in your hand. However, the combined mass of you and the gun and the friction of your feet on the ground create a lot of inertia. If you were in space and fired that gun, you WOULD be pushed back, certainly not the same velocity as the bullet, but you would begin moving away from your starting position.

PROVE IT THOUGH. Maybe your right. I don't care now, prove something. Please. I want to know if you have even read anything before talking.

 

[cannabineer]

The question is, why does the amount of gravity on a mass change if G is constant?

Because the gravitational force is contingent on the two masses acting on each other, and on distance. F = m1m2g / d2

cheers 'neer

Addendum. In the Beretta example, one mass, eight grams of bullet, receding at 1200 fps. The other mass, estimate 80kg, so 10000 times as much. It'll head the other way at 0.12 fps, or 1.5 inches per second. If you align the gun's bore with your center of mass, you won't tumble.

 

[LightningMcGreen]

Plus READ THIS ARTICLE THAT PROVES WHAT I'M SAYING. Read the bottom, go ahead. The earth is densest at the middle. Making more gravity at the middle.

You were Hostile first, I returned hostility because I'm not going to be corrected over and over by a VERY VERY VERY confused individual.

Please prove A SINGLE POINT.

Ok, l don't know where your getting the idea l was in any way being a dick...l was merely explaining, and finding sources to back up my claim of supposed "facts" on things that l had heard on the subject...isn't that constantly what people ask for?

Please, don't deflect your negativity with anyone else on me, because l have yet to try and belittle you or make any insenuations that you were stupid.

 

[Luger187]

Plus READ THIS ARTICLE THAT PROVES WHAT I'M SAYING.

Read the bottom, go ahead. The earth is densest at the middle. Making more gravity at the middle.

You were Hostile first, I returned hostility because I'm not going to be corrected over and over by a VERY VERY VERY confused individual.

Please prove A SINGLE POINT.

it looks like the article says it has 0 gravity in the middle(exact middle that is). this is because gravity is pulling equally on all sides and one side cancels the other side out.

 

[LightningMcGreen]

it looks like the article says it has 0 gravity in the middle(exact middle that is). this is because gravity is pulling equally on all sides and one side cancels the other side out.

Exactly..so that is to say, that gravity will still be present due to the mass, it's just one wouldn't FEEL the effects of it...am l understanding correctly?

 

[mindphuk]

Yes. The theory of relativity was proven. That was the whole argument yesterday.

No. Relativity is still wrong. We know it's wrong, Einstein even knew it was wrong. It's wrong because the math breaks down in certain situations. It conflicts with another very successful theory, the standard model of particle physics which explains the other 3 forces except gravity.

The most you can say about general relativity is that it is a successful theory with a lot of support and is mostly correct but the term "proof" and "proven" do not actually mean anything in science. There are proofs in mathematics but not science. In everyday language, what we call a colloquial use of the term proven, you are right but in science we don't say that, partially because there are certain assumptions that we make in science. Thenumber has brought up one of those assumptions, that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. We can't really prove that claim, it is something we must assume to be correct.

Please understand, I'm not trying to be hostile with you or make this an argument. I am trying to tell you something that is a fundamental of the scientific method. I would forget the past and start fresh again. Let's agree to debate politely.
Please see this article. It explains it better than I can http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

[Finshaggy]

Ok, l don't know where your getting the idea l was in any way being a dick...l was merely explaining, and finding sources to back up my claim of supposed "facts" on things that l had heard on the subject...isn't that constantly what people ask for?

Please, don't deflect your negativity with anyone else on me, because l have yet to try and belittle you or make any insenuations that you were stupid.

I wasn't being negative at you. I was quoting you to make my point.

 

[Finshaggy]

it looks like the article says it has 0 gravity in the middle(exact middle that is). this is because gravity is pulling equally on all sides and one side cancels the other side out.

READ IT AGAIN DUMB ASS. It says that the earth is denser and more gravity filled cloer to the center too. Go suck gravities cock, and maybe you'll get it then.

 

[Luger187]

Exactly..so that is to say, that gravity will still be present due to the mass, it's just one wouldn't FEEL the effects of it...am l understanding correctly?

yes. if you imagine the earth as a perfect sphere with the same density throughout, that is. if one side has like 5 more pounds, even that will move the center of gravity a little, so its actually not in the exact center. but if it was a perfect sphere like i said, and you were in the center, you wouldnt feel the effects of gravity(from the earth).

now, lets say your body is also a perfect sphere. if you were to go to the center of mass of the earth, would the earth feel your gravitational effect? wouldnt things still want to be pulled into you a bit more because you are there?

 

[grizlbr]

Oh Hell! A physics forum on a pot head site under spirituality? Got one Physics class left before I have my Ass. degtee. So I might as wade in. How to you prove a theorem with theories? It has been observed that water becomes ICE when it gets cold! Did I prove anything? Vapor when it gets hot? And how many calories did I expend thinking and typing about the observation that thermal energy is required for H2O to change physical states? But did I actually Prove Anything? Did I miss something? We are talking about gravity the attraction between all things that have mass and defined at the molecular level with ideas? Can not measure a gravity wave but we can observe the forces at large enough scale to use the forces to control the direction of a sate-light or explorer? Is that what we are to bounce around?

 

[Finshaggy]

No. Relativity is still wrong. We know it's wrong, Einstein even knew it was wrong. It's wrong because the math breaks down in certain situations. It conflicts with another very successful theory, the standard model of particle physics which explains the other 3 forces except gravity.

The most you can say about general relativity is that it is a successful theory with a lot of support and is mostly correct but the term "proof" and "proven" do not actually mean anything in science. There are proofs in mathematics but not science. In everyday language, what we call a colloquial use of the term proven, you are right but in science we don't say that, partially because there are certain assumptions that we make in science. Thenumber has brought up one of those assumptions, that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. We can't really prove that claim, it is something we must assume to be correct.

Please understand, I'm not trying to be hostile with you or make this an argument. I am trying to tell you something that is a fundamental of the scientific method. I would forget the past and start fresh again. Let's agree to debate politely.
Please see this article. It explains it better than I can http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Again, your wrong. It may never be truly proven. But your article taught me I was just using the wrong words. What I have been trying to say is "accepted by science". I personally would never accept them as true because they aren't proven again and again. Which you were wrong about yesterday, science accepts things without them being true beyond a doubt.

This whole argument is based on a difference in opinion about how right science is. I'm done with it.

 

[LightningMcGreen]

READ IT AGAIN DUMB ASS. It says that the earth is denser and more gravity filled cloer to the center too. Go suck gravities cock, and maybe you'll get it then.

...what he stated, and confirmed for me, was that, we are not saying the gravity isn't there...we're in agreement that there is more mass at the center, hence, there IS more gravity. But, you just wouldn't FEEL it.

 

[Luger187]

In the center of the Earth, there are equal amounts of mass in all directions at any given distance, so gravity pulls equally hard in all directions, so an object at the center of the Earth would feel zero net gravity. Such an object would be under enormous pressure, because it does feel the weight of all mass that lies on top of it.
Outside of the Earth, gravity behaves as if all mass of the Earth were concentrated in the very center point, but inside the Earth gravity does not behave like that.
Gravity comes from mass, not from a particular point. Only in the precise center is the gravity equal to zero.
This holds also in the center of a black hole, if the law of gravity as we know it is still valid there (which we don't know).
If the Earth were hollow inside, and all of its mass were in the surface shell, and the mass distribution was spherically symmetric, then you'd be weightless everywhere in the hollow space inside the Earth.
The green line in http://www.splung.com/kinematics/images/gravitation/variation%20of%20g.png shows the variation of the strength of gravity with distance from the center of the Earth. Gravity is zero in the very center, then rises fairly linearly to about 109% of the surface gravity at about 55% of the distance to the surface, then drops back to about 100% and stays there until the surface. Beyond the surface the gravity decreases with the square of the distance from the center.
The red line in the same graph shows the variation of gravity if the Earth were equally dense everywhere. Then the strength of gravity would increase linearly from 0 in the middle to 100% at the surface. That in the "real" Earth the variation of gravity is different is because the Earth is not equally dense everywhere, but is a lot denser near the middle than near the surface.

READ IT AGAIN DUMB ASS. It says that the earth is denser and more gravity filled cloer to the center too. Go suck gravities cock, and maybe you'll get it then.

if you go into the center of mass of the earth, you will feel no gravitational effects. just because it is more dense in the middle doesnt mean that when you get to that center of mass, gravity will suddenly skyrocket. its still zero

 

[Finshaggy]

...what he stated, and confirmed for me, was that, we are not saying the gravity isn't there...we're in agreement that there is more mass at the center, hence, there IS more gravity. But, you just wouldn't FEEL it.

Ok, but my argument isn't that. You guys tried to tell me a magnet was stonger. BULL SHIT.

 

[Finshaggy]

if you go into the center of mass of the earth, you will feel no gravitational effects. just because it is more dense in the middle doesnt mean that when you get to that center of mass, gravity will suddenly skyrocket. its still zero

Just because gravity is 0 in the middle doesn't mean the closer to the middle you are the weaker gravity gets AS YOU STATED BEFORE. I repeat. DUMB ASS

 

[LightningMcGreen]

Ok, but my argument isn't that. You guys tried to tell me a magnet was stonger. BULL SHIT.

What MP (and someone else) said earlier...yes, magnets are stronger than the force of gravity, over a SHORT distance. The example was picking up a paperclip with a magnet. But, if it's a small household magnet, it loses the battle with gravity after a couple inches. So for the sake of argument, you could say it is and isn't. Yes over small distances, no over longer ones.

I was no part of that, but l was aware of that fact.

 

[cannabineer]

We need to clearly distinguish between gravitational strength and gravitational potential.
cheers 'neer

 

[Finshaggy]

What MP (and someone else) said earlier...yes, magnets are stronger than the force of gravity, over a SHORT distance. The example was picking up a paperclip with a magnet. But, if it's a small household magnet, it loses the battle with gravity after a couple inches. So for the sake of argument, you could say it is and isn't. Yes over small distances, no over longer ones.

BUT NO THEY AREN'T at the center. Gravity is weak on top, because that's not its full force. Get it? They're being hipsters and following the word of someone they revere. To the end of the earth, because they think it's good.

If you other two guys haven't tried blue ribbon with cigarettes and wine, you should try it. It would fit you well.

 

[LightningMcGreen]

Rawbudzski said it...RIU is the best lol

 

[grizlbr]

Oh Hell! A physics forum on a pot head site under spirituality? Got one Physics class left before I have my Ass. degtee. So I might as wade in. How to you prove a theorem with theories? It has been observed that water becomes ICE when it gets cold! Did I prove anything? Vapor when it gets hot? And how many calories did I expend thinking and typing about the observation that thermal energy is required for H2O to change physical states? But did I actually Prove Anything? Did I miss something? We are talking about gravity the attraction between all things that have mass and defined at the molecular level with ideas? Can not measure a gravity wave but we can observe the forces at large enough scale to use the forces to control the direction of a sate-light or explorer? Is that what we are to bounce around?

Just so I will not be aqused of continuing to edit my post and continue the time line is this our fourth dimention with only 1 direction? So the theory is that we are gama radiation passing thru a nateral small enough that we pass between elemental particles? So where does the singalarity theory fit into this subatomic idea?