It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Using your formula please demonstrate how to calculate the acceleration due to gravity of an object of mass m1 toward an object of mass m2.
Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Phage
Explanation: NO! Incorrect!
You left out Pi!
Therefor G = 0% of Pi ... NOT G = 0 .. because removing it from the equation simplifies the equation.
G its self has a measurable value [although only accurate to within the limits of our ability to measure that] and its value is G = 6.67*10E-11 Newtons of force.
Therefor, and since we are talking about ratio's [a/b] and percentages [%] there should be no issue setting one of the sides to zero % and defining that as the flat 'rod'.
Personal Disclosure: The issue is not with the Big G of gravity ... its is the little g's of gravity [due to mass] at either end that are the n% of Pi that bend the rod and it is here that my skill and talents in doing the maths break down. :shk:
Can you please help me resolve that?
How do I convert mass to little g .. and what amount of little g forces the 1 plancks length/second 'rod' to bend into a complete loop?
In special relativity, mass turns out to be part of a more general quantity called the energy–momentum tensor, which includes both energy and momentum densities as well as stress (that is, pressure and shear).[29] Using the equivalence principle, this tensor is readily generalized to curved space-time.
Would the little g's at either end have to add up to equal or more than the plancks mass of 2.176 51 x 10E-8 kg to force it into a closed loop?
Please walk me through the formula's ok.
Sorry if i come of as an uneducated tard with poor maths and geometry skills ok!
Even Einstein needed help with the maths and he was way smarter than I am ok.
Originally posted by Phage
Using your formula please demonstrate how to calculate the acceleration due to gravity of an object of mass m1 toward an object of mass m2.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi
No one really knows what causes gravity. I'm just glad something does.
I think gravity is close to Einstein's interpretation of space-time fabric bending...
What do you mean "less dense energy"? Come to think of it, what do you mean by "energy"? BTW, all masses produce gravitational forces.
when a mass rotates, revolves, and travels through the less dense energy areas of the fabric... it twists and turns it... or creates wakes and whirlpools... smaller masses that can not cancel out these whirlpools with their own,, fall victim...
So humans for some reason would become massless but a planet wouldn't?
where as to a human in a less energy dense area such as the fabric of space... there would be no near mass to relate what mass is, and the human would feel massless....
Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Phage
Explanation: NO! Incorrect!
You left out Pi!
Therefor G = 0% of Pi ... NOT G = 0 .. because removing it from the equation simplifies the equation.
G its self has a measurable value [although only accurate to within the limits of our ability to measure that] and its value is G = 6.67*10E-11 Newtons of force.
Therefor, and since we are talking about ratio's [a/b] and percentages [%] there should be no issue setting one of the sides to zero % and defining that as the flat 'rod'.
Personal Disclosure: The issue is not with the Big G of gravity ... its is the little g's of gravity [due to mass] at either end that are the n% of Pi that bend the rod and it is here that my skill and talents in doing the maths break down. :shk:
Can you please help me resolve that?
How do I convert mass to little g .. and what amount of little g forces the 1 plancks length/second 'rod' to bend into a complete loop?
I guess you are speaking of a distortion in the geometry, as a Planck length is usually considered a "point" - which is 1-dimensional. Well, if I may quote the wikipedia
In special relativity, mass turns out to be part of a more general quantity called the energy–momentum tensor, which includes both energy and momentum densities as well as stress (that is, pressure and shear).[29] Using the equivalence principle, this tensor is readily generalized to curved space-time.
Which leaves us stumped, as the calculations of tensor-mathematics are quite complex. Nevertheless, if this was a high building of info, there is the Burj Khalifa right around the corner.. Einsteins field equations..
Would the little g's at either end have to add up to equal or more than the plancks mass of 2.176 51 x 10E-8 kg to force it into a closed loop?
Please walk me through the formula's ok.
Sorry if i come of as an uneducated tard with poor maths and geometry skills ok!
Even Einstein needed help with the maths and he was way smarter than I am ok.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi
What do you mean "less dense energy"? Come to think of it, what do you mean by "energy"? BTW, all masses produce gravitational forces.
when a mass rotates, revolves, and travels through the less dense energy areas of the fabric... it twists and turns it... or creates wakes and whirlpools... smaller masses that can not cancel out these whirlpools with their own,, fall victim...
So humans for some reason would become massless but a planet wouldn't?
where as to a human in a less energy dense area such as the fabric of space... there would be no near mass to relate what mass is, and the human would feel massless....
Originally posted by Mugen
0% gravity = 0% pi
0% pi = 1 dimensional? (i'm thinking flat)
Originally posted by loveguy
Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Phage
Explanation: NO! Incorrect!
You left out Pi!
Therefor G = 0% of Pi ... NOT G = 0 .. because removing it from the equation simplifies the equation.
G its self has a measurable value [although only accurate to within the limits of our ability to measure that] and its value is G = 6.67*10E-11 Newtons of force.
Therefor, and since we are talking about ratio's [a/b] and percentages [%] there should be no issue setting one of the sides to zero % and defining that as the flat 'rod'.
Personal Disclosure: The issue is not with the Big G of gravity ... its is the little g's of gravity [due to mass] at either end that are the n% of Pi that bend the rod and it is here that my skill and talents in doing the maths break down. :shk:
Can you please help me resolve that?
How do I convert mass to little g .. and what amount of little g forces the 1 plancks length/second 'rod' to bend into a complete loop?
I guess you are speaking of a distortion in the geometry, as a Planck length is usually considered a "point" - which is 1-dimensional. Well, if I may quote the wikipedia
In special relativity, mass turns out to be part of a more general quantity called the energy–momentum tensor, which includes both energy and momentum densities as well as stress (that is, pressure and shear).[29] Using the equivalence principle, this tensor is readily generalized to curved space-time.
Which leaves us stumped, as the calculations of tensor-mathematics are quite complex. Nevertheless, if this was a high building of info, there is the Burj Khalifa right around the corner.. Einsteins field equations..
Would the little g's at either end have to add up to equal or more than the plancks mass of 2.176 51 x 10E-8 kg to force it into a closed loop?
Please walk me through the formula's ok.
Sorry if i come of as an uneducated tard with poor maths and geometry skills ok!
Even Einstein needed help with the maths and he was way smarter than I am ok.
Pardon the large quote.
Have a look at this photo. To me it explains that the singularity wasn't just a point where nothing existed prior to expansion of the universe. It helps to define the separate dimensions we are of, not in...
Watch this pic have trouble appearing according to preview option...
I think gravity happens due to the flow of electrical energy, but can't put my amateur finger on it.
This is a fun thread, thanks.
edit on (12/5/1212 by loveguy because: supposed to be clickable thumb, what gives