Print

[_iffy]

so a field would be a plate of spegetti vs. the net result?
I should explain that better.
When doing the math for that example, you add up all the vectors and end up with a "net result"

Are you saying "A feild would be all those vectors not added up?

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 3 2006, 06:27 PM)

But what damam's talking about i have no idea.

You dont have any idea bout anything............

[_iffy]

^^ do you have something to add to the thread or are you just flaming for flaming's sake?

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 3 2006, 06:38 PM)

^^ do you have something to add to the thread or are you just flaming for flaming's sake?

I am confused.

Which one of you is dumber and which is dumberer.

[slightly_damp]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 4 2006, 12:35 AM)

You dont have any idea bout anything............

Dude if you're gonna be a troll, at least do it properly for gods sake!

You are giving us other trolls a bad mane !

[puckSR]

hey iffy....
did you get the idea of the field?

if you didnt I'll try a little bit better of an explanation....

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 3 2006, 06:54 PM)

jha'dhur....seriously...what is your problem?

Instead of trying to explain any of this to iffy...you just keep insulting him....
I have a reputation for being an asshole to people when they are wrong....
but as long as they are trying...I will at least try to help....
You just blatantly are an asshole....your not trying to help...your not being constructive...
Your just being an asshole....

Thank You

OH the irony...

Coming from a self indulgent, marginal prick like you I take as a complement.

BUT SERIOUSLY, which one of you is DUMBERER.

GOOD money is on PUCK...

_IFFY what about or bet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[_iffy]

QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 3 2006, 07:48 PM)

^ i never claimed you could turn lead into gold.
What i said was you could add individual electrons, protons, until you end up with gold.

I feel kinda weird quoting myself, but maybe that's the only way you'll hear it.

puckSR
I can visualize a spherical volume surounding a plant. And I can paste a label of a feild to it.
See what's confusing me is you have the equation, and gravity is always "turned on", so why have a feild?
what is this feild.
I can see the the feild being that lower left hand corner of that graph i made. An area where gravity becomes significant.

I've been doing some reading, specifically maxwell's equations, and i came across "gravitational lens"
Light, having no mass, is forced to change it's direction, just like a comet would. The only way that could work is if there was a gravitational feild. The gravitation equation doen't apply.

If this is what your getting at then, ok i need more reading. But i can assure you i can visualize it just fine.
Do you understand what i understand?

[_iffy]

^^ was that directed to me?
i wasn't angry at all. I was being serious. (not flaming)

[_iffy]

it wasn't an insult haha.
sorry for the missunderstanding

ok

like an onion where the core is a planet, and every layer, would be a "range of gravitational intensity"...

were does the feild end, cause gravity is infinite?

is there a concensus somewhere?

Like the amount of deviation over a given distance of a traveling object is less than "x" gravity is not applied?

[throwingks]

Gravitational Force = (Gravity * Mass1 * Mass2) / (Distance^2)

The bigger distance gets the closer you get to 0. Although you can never reach 0 it is pretty much the same thing as being 0.

(M1 * M2 * G) / (D^2) = (GF)
Let D = 1 through infinity
100/1 = 100
100/4 = 25
100/9 = 11.111111111111111111111111111111
100/16 = 6.25
100/25 = 4
100/36 = 2.7777777777777777777777777777778
100/49 = 2.0408163265306122448979591836735
100/64 = 1.5625
100/81 = 1.2345679012345679012345679012346
100/100 = 1
100/121 = 0.8264462809917355371900826446281
etc.

But, why isnt the equation:
F = [(G1 * M1) * (G2 * M2)] / (D^2)

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Apr 4 2006, 04:31 PM)

Gravitational Force = (Gravity * Mass1 * Mass2) / (Distance^2)

The bigger distance gets the closer you get to 0. Although you can never reach 0 it is pretty much the same thing as being 0.

(M1 * M2 * G) / (D^2) = (GF)
Let D = 1 through infinity
100/1 = 100
100/4 = 25
100/9 = 11.111111111111111111111111111111
100/16 = 6.25
100/25 = 4
100/36 = 2.7777777777777777777777777777778
100/49 = 2.0408163265306122448979591836735
100/64 = 1.5625
100/81 = 1.2345679012345679012345679012346
100/100 = 1
100/121 = 0.8264462809917355371900826446281
etc.

But, why isnt the equation:
F = [(G1 * M1) * (G2 * M2)] / (D^2)

Because F and F(g) arent the same.

Your friend keeps wanting to exchange the becuase netwon uses that derivation to describe the force acting on an object within earths gravitatinal field relative to that objects mass.

However once you leave the gravity well of a large object that argument (F=ma) falls short of describing the gravitational forces that you would experience. (i.e. in a space shuttle in between earth and the sun)

Where you are "essentially" weightless in microgravity.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 4 2006, 04:34 PM)

Well....first off...where in the heck are you getting G1 and G2...
G is not Gravity...
G is the gravitational constant....it doesnt ever change.....
Second if you are assuming that G1=G2....then you would have G^2.....which would simply be a redefinition of the constant....
G is simply a constant......to balance the equation and make it work....
IT IS NOT "GRAVITY' OR ANY MEASUREMENT OR IN ANY WAY A VARIABLE

I made it up as a reference to the Gravity from object 1 (G1) and the Gravity from object 2 (G2). No matter how big or small an object is it has a gravitational pull. If G is always constant why dont they just use that number instead of giving it a variable? G of the sun != the G of a marble in the middle of space. That is why I am saying the gravitational pull of both objects should be used in the equation. On Earth we are all relatively close to the origination of the earths gravity (we think). So you can assume its consistency. However, an object with a larger mass, even though it weighs the same as an object with a smaller mass, will have more gravitational force. Do I make any sense?

To use your magnetic example. If a huge magnet pulled on a smaller magnet, it would be a stronger pull than if the same huge magnet pulled on a piece of metal the same size as the smaller magnet.

I don't have the answers, these are not rhetorical questions. I am trying to learn.

P.S. All of this describes gravity and how it interacts. None of it pertains to the original questions of the thread.

[_iffy]

QUOTE

However, an object with a larger mass, even though it weighs the same as an object with a smaller mass, will have more gravitational force. Do I make any sense?

Weight = mass x acceleration.
If m1>m2 then they can't weigh the same. (unless m2 has a rocket pushing it down on the scale)

Using your magnets as an example, if you put two magnets on a smooth table, bring them close to one another, let go, they will both move and meet in the middle.

Same with gravity. Stars can collide. Planetary orbits decay. It's just gravity is a weaker force than magnetism so it takes alot longer.

QUOTE

P.S. All of this describes gravity and how it interacts. None of it pertains to the original questions of the thread.

It's your thread what do you want to do?

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Apr 4 2006, 07:01 PM)

I made it up as a reference to the Gravity from object 1 (G1) and the Gravity from object 2 (G2). No matter how big or small an object is it has a gravitational pull. If G is always constant why dont they just use that number instead of giving it a variable? G of the sun != the G of a marble in the middle of space. That is why I am saying the gravitational pull of both objects should be used in the equation. On Earth we are all relatively close to the origination of the earths gravity (we think). So you can assume its consistency. However, an object with a larger mass, even though it weighs the same as an object with a smaller mass, will have more gravitational force. Do I make any sense?

To use your magnetic example. If a huge magnet pulled on a smaller magnet, it would be a stronger pull than if the same huge magnet pulled on a piece of metal the same size as the smaller magnet.

I don't have the answers, these are not rhetorical questions. I am trying to learn.

P.S. All of this describes gravity and how it interacts. None of it pertains to the original questions of the thread.

Dude Puck, is conceptually mistaken.

F=ma has no relevance outside of the influence of a large body.

The equation you quote which contains the universal gravity constant is the singular definition.

F=ma is a derivation of that expression which describes gravity on the planet earth.

Gravity acts along the line of the center of masses it is not multidirectional. It pulls you to earths center it doesnt push also.

P.S. _IFFY I do recall you mentioning a gold factory, dont back away from that foolishness now.

What happened to OUR BET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11