Print

[_iffy]

^^ haha

the gold factory was sarcasm.

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 4 2006, 07:46 PM)

^^ haha

the gold factory was sarcasm.

[_iffy]

QUOTE

Gold is bought and sold every day. the value of gold is set by the worlds supply aswell as demand. If a "gold makeing factory" was built, it would flood the market with gold - lowering it's value.

notice the quotation marks...

Oh yeah i should tell you, it would cost more to make gold useing a particle accelerator, than the gold is worth

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 4 2006, 07:52 PM)

^^ the pic not showing up for me
anyways here's my quote
notice the quotation marks...

Oh yeah i should tell you, it would cost more to make gold useing a particle accelerator, than the gold is worth

Since you cant manufacture gold your point IS.

What really let everyone know you were a complete idiot was the atomic structure being influenced by atmospheric pressure BS you posted. We had a good laugh on that one.
 

WHAT ABOUT OUR BET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[throwingks]

QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 4 2006, 05:38 PM)

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

Those questions arent answerable by anyone I know. I am not attacking Puck, I just remember he making a statement a while ago about something being as obvious as the theory of gravity. I remember thinking "is it really that obvious?" So I started this thread. Also to have a new place so, my other thread went back on track. It worked a little.

It is understood that the weight at the center of earth would be 0 if you had a perfectly spherical shape in the exact center, because gravity would be pulling equally in all directions. So one, does have an answer, but no way to prove.

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 4 2006, 05:43 PM)

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

So to make it accurate you would have to calculate twice. Once for each object then get the summation?

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Apr 4 2006, 08:10 PM)

Those questions arent answerable by anyone I know. I am not attacking Puck, I just remember he making a statement a while ago about something being as obvious as the theory of gravity. I remember thinking "is it really that obvious?" So I started this thread. Also to have a new place so, my other thread went back on track. It worked a little.

It is understood that the weight at the center of earth would be 0 if you had a perfectly spherical shape in the exact center, because gravity would be pulling equally in all directions. So one, does have an answer, but no way to prove.

Considering the earth is being slung around the sun with considerable momentum, Its not like you would be weightless a force would be acting upon you like it is on the the surface of the earth.

In the sense of the classical force balance:

The sum of the forces = M*a. And this really only most precisely applies to objects in freefall.

Consider:

- ) a rocket, accelerating upward,
- ) or you walking down the street
- ) swimming in the ocean.
- ) Living on a space station

F = m*a: isnt a catch all.

P.S. From sea level to crest of Mt Everest g(a) fluctuates less than 1%. Which for all intensive purposes is negligible.

[throwingks]

How negligable would that force be? Doesn't inertia apply?

As to the different scenarios, for my references I am using a perfect vacuum. So the only 2 forces would be G1 and G2.

[_iffy]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 4 2006, 09:01 PM)

I'm a stupid idiot, who likes little boys and i smell like dung and im a stupid idiot my name is jha'dhur

I told you, you could make gold. Do you remamber any of that? Do you remember what you type right after you post?
It wasn't just atmospheric pressure, it was also gravity.
As far as the bet... it wasn't a bet, you offerd a reward for a search. I think you should keep every penny you have. You'll need it later.

ThrowingksI think you need to start a new thread entitled "jha'dhur's thread"

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 4 2006, 08:31 PM)

F=ma is not a derivation of the "law of gravity"

do you even realize that without F=ma you would never be able to arrive at the law of gravity?
The law of gravity necessitates the Gravitational constant...which could not have been calculated without F=ma
Ok....first off...your thinking about this wrong....G isnt gravity.....

Secondly
When two magnets pull on each other....they attract each other....
you can measure the force of their attraction....but you cannot measure the individual force of each magnet...
The equation from earlier describes the force between the two masses.....

F is the gravitational pull....
Not G......

We have a tendency to name constants in Physics....
and besides...G is a constant....but we are constantly refining it....
Its constant to the physical world...not so much to us....
G=6.67 × 10−11....which isnt a lot of fun to write down....

SO
....G is not gravitational pull...F is...
....You cannot measure the individual force caused by an individual mass....since they are interacting....

I think I can explain one other thing....
the marble vs the sun
Gravity is directly proportional to mass....(well for the cases of this discussion)
thats why both masses are included in the equation....

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 4 2006, 09:49 PM)

Umm actually it is...
i.e. your rocket example....

^ lets say that your rocket is accelerating at 20 m/s^2

it has a mass of 20,000 kg....
F(net)=20*20,000=400,000 Newtons
F(g)=-9.8*20,000=-196,000 Newtons
F(rocket)=F(net)-F(g)=596,000 Newtons

So the rocket is using a force of 596,000 Newtons to rise at the acceleration of 20 m/s^2

As you put it:

If the rocket is traveling at a velocity of 20 m/s and is not accelerating what is its force?

[lordvader129]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 4 2006, 09:59 PM)

As you put it:

If the rocket is traveling at a velocity of 20 m/s and is not accelerating what is its force?

the force applied for an acceleration of 0 is 0

F = MA
F = M*0
F = 0

[Chook]

Hey, I'm Puck's roommate.

F=ma               ,is just an equality
Σ(F)=ma       ,is the direction in which an object is acclerating (sum of all forces)

F= Gconst * (M1*M2)(r^2), is the attractive force of two objects due to force of gravity
F= Cconst * (q1*q2)(r^2), is attractive/repulsive force due to electromagnetic force (i got some of the constant's proper letters wrong)

g=Gconst * M/r^2, is a substitution for the gravity constant, but this is only for a point attraction.  To calculate the attraction you would have to integrate and approximate the forces.

Lightwaves exist as both energy and mass, it depends on what they are interacting with, its from einstein's E=mc^2

That is why light can move, even higher energy waves contain particles, or excite particles, depending on what they are doing.

Were i am confused is that electromagnetic fields tend to terminate on opposite charges, and do not know how the field lines of gravity look.  I have always thought of them as a perfect sphere from a point source.

What we know isn't perfect, and we try to improve.

The internet will decrease the change of getting laid.

We are on the internet  

And it is in our genes to want to "procreate"

so we all are the dumberer

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Apr 4 2006, 10:11 PM)

the force applied for an acceleration of 0 is 0

F = MA
F = M*0
F = 0

Hey, I'm Vaders Roommate:


Come on PUCKY you can't possibly beat this.

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 4 2006, 10:16 PM)

F(g)=m*g

An object in motion tends to stay in motion....so gravitational force must be equal to the force being exerted by the rocket....

which in this case would be 196,000 Newtons

Now...this isnt a very practical situation because something had to start the rocket moving in the first place, and  then the gravitational force decreases with distance...

By the way....that whole object in motion thing....Newton's 1st law

Think of it this way....
if I start a marble rolling...and there is nothing to stop it...including friction....I am not continually applying force...I only applied force when the marble started rolling....which if why F=ma

So which is it???

2 HEADS are better than ONE.....

LOL

[lordvader129]

actually both are right

let me help you wrap your head around that one

since gravity is pulling down on the rocket, a constant force much be applied to maintain a constant velocity, that force is 196,000 N

however, sicne gravity is pulling down on the rocket that force is canceled by the force of gravity (-196,000 N) resulting in a NET force of 0 N

196,000 + (-196,000) = 0



BTW, you running out of bullshit pics? that last one was a rehash

[puckSR]

It really sucks to get another lesson in physics....doesnt it Xmedia

seriously though....we can completely quit talking about this...

I dont expect you to admit that your wrong....but I do expect you to shut up when you realize that you are wrong.....

If you were arguing this entire F=ma thing from the perspective of Einstein or quantum mechanics...I would entertain it all....but this is just proving your an idiot