Sirjon

I'm back. Sorry for the long silence. I was busy for a while but I dearly appreciate you people, who participated in this discussion. Please allow me, to how we perceive gravity. First, and obviously the most prominent is the effect of gravity on our 'sense' of feeling. We feel how we're being dragged or pulled down by gravity, so for many, as a practical argument, agreed that gravity is a force. But in General Relativity, it is more like a descriptive visual effect of gravitation on planets and other celestial bodies in outerspace that defined gravity. which also agrees, mathematically and theoretically. Now, we know it well , if two equal forces interact on an object on two opposite directions, the net force is zero. That is the basis at which I am curious about. If the Earth is rotating on its axis, revolving around the sun and other external factors in ouerspace that may, (if somehow, there's something that if it isn't really a kind of force), acting upon us to keep our feet on the ground and stand straight, it isn't correct to speculate that the gravity equal to 9.80665 meter per second per second is only the net 'value' of computaion? If, then we able to gather all information that externally affects gravity on Earth, then isn't possible that there could be a different or higher computation, at all?

I knew it already. But the thing is, if gravity is not some sort of force, what makes a thing hit hard on the ground when fall from a high place, considering a free fall?

Well, I am keep on watching CNN and accordingly, there are news companies more leaning to Trump. On the other hand, Trump, in a way, doesn't want to be interviewed by CNN and other news that is critical to him. So inmy personal opinion, freedom of speech now-a-days is nothing but a tag-a-war of propaganda and fake news, to condition the minds of the people.

“Gravity is the force of attraction that makes things fall straight down.” That is how we commonly describe or define gravity. As to the song “ what goes up must come down”, due to gravity. Then, think about this: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/everything-you-thought-you-knew-about-gravity-is-wrong/2019/08/01/627f3696-a723-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html “ So: “Gravity is what makes things fall straight down.” Well, yes — depending on what we mean by “straight down.” The path seems straight only because you’re standing still relative to the Earth. As Galileo realized, if you drop a rock from the mast of a ship traveling on a river, its trajectory will appear to be an angle to an observer on the shore. Similarly, to someone outside the Earth who is observing a rock falling on our spinning planet, the path would appear to be on an angle. But the Earth is also orbiting the Sun, so that angle would actually be swooping, creating the appearance of a curve. And because the Sun is orbiting the center of the galaxy, that curve would be a very long curve. And the galaxy is moving toward other galaxies, and the universe is expanding, and the expansion is accelerating: How long and curlicued the rock’s trajectory appears depends wholly on where you are in relation to it. “ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Now, think about the forces that summed up to the given statement above: 1. First, the rotation of the Earth from it’s axis. Somehow you might say, it should bend into an angle, the fall of a thing, instead of gravity “makes things fall straight down”. Scientists would say, the Earth is very big that gravity is too strong that the rotation of the earth from it’s axis will have no effect and still, things will fall straight down. Okay, I will agree. 2. Second, we know well, that the Earth is traveling (revolving) around the Sun. So, we should also consider that factor. So the force of the Earth’s gravitational attraction would be greater than what we expected. 3. Third, the sun is also moving, revolving around the center of our galaxy. Add more force to counter that effect to keep things to fall straight down here on Earth (due to gravity). . 4th and so on - Our galaxy is moving toward other galaxies and the Universe is expanding, if it is right, in accelerating speed. So, adding all those factors, what should really be the counter-force to keep or makes things fall straight down due to Earth’s gravitational attraction? It would then contradict what scientists belief that gravitation. is about a million billion billion billion times weaker than the weak nuclear force. Think about it. I'm just wondering if there someone could answer my speculation.

Freedom of Speech is one of the pillars of American Ideology of Liberty, Equality and Democracy. However, like any other idealistic proposals with perpetual moral and humanitarian intentions, it is being circumvented by smart greedy politicians (or influentially powerful oligarchs) with their own hidden agenda. We know well how media, news outlets, etc. conditioned the minds of people based on this 'wisdom' but at the end, is nothing but deceitful lies. Still, it is the pubic opinion that judge every philosiphical and political stance. (That is what happening to my country's political arena for very long time now).

It is shifting counterclockwise. Initially, a black dot located in up location.. Let's call the four locations - left, right, up, down. With the rule:.. horizontally, (let and right), should be in white dots While vertically, should be in black dots. The shifting follows the 1, 2, 3, 4 pattern But with exception that if it rest in an occupied location (4 black dots in down location) and will add a supposed to be a black dot that we derived from the up location... a supposed to be a black 5 dots the possible answer, which is not present in the selection. So, my guess... The rule would then be, if two dots have the same color, they change to its opposite color... My answer then is #3 - 5 white dots located in down location. If my guess is correct, for the next shift, 5 shift counter clockwise, it would rest in the right location with six black dots, id we consider the 3 dots, white which we derived from right location. Is there a sense?

In a round surface, a quarter of it's surface will bulge out from the center and you'll see the corners to be deeper low. Wherever direction you'll look, it makes you feel you're on the top of the surface (if we imagine the Earth's surface to be a smooth, less the mountains, or differences in locations' elevations). But imagine, if this round surface is expanding every seconds of a time, then it would rather, look flat. It has to do with our brain, comparing the things we see, from a second ago to the next seconds of a time. Sorry, maybe you misunderstood me. - Three things, if we able to construct a flat floor on the surface of the Earth and by measurement, its corners bulges out of the true surface of the Earth, it only proves that the Earth is, indeed 'round' - Then, if there's no change in inclinations, compared to the true surface of the Earth, then the Flat Earth people 'wins' - Three, if the Earth is expanding from its center, therefore, no matter how big the surface we created to measurely flat(although I believe, there could be a limit to that), then it still look flat, although, indeed, the Earth is truly round.

Due to this government’s lockdown policy, I have more time to have ‘mental analysis’ (or simply call it, ‘out of the box imagination'). There is this on-going argument between proponents of the what-so-called ‘flat Earth’ that defies the textbook defenders of the ‘round Earth’. If you search the Internet, there’s so many topics going on, one claiming that the Earth to be flat, why others, of course, as already been established, that the Earth is round. As to my own opinion, the Earth is indeed ‘round’. But why it looks seems flat, as many experiments, in a way, as others are claiming and keep on proving it (with some success), has something to do with my ‘suggestion’ that EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE ARE EXPANDING IN THREE-DIMENSIONAL FASHION’. I could not present the Mathematics behind this but, as with, playing with my imagination, I can able to describe it. Let’s say, to make this argument to end all the way – let’s construct a plane floor on the quarter surface of the Earth. If my ‘hypothesis’ is correct, it would indeed look ‘flat’ on all directions. Why? I’m not a proponent of a Flat Earth, in fact I believe, too, that the Earth is ‘round’ as proven by Magellan (first man who supposed to circumnavigated the globe, bad thing, he was short lived by a Filipino Warrior, named Lapu-Lapu). It has to do with the hidden phenomenon that as you look to an object (directly in front of you). on a round surface, it simply, already moved upward a second ago, that would by, in a way, be measured to be in a straight line (what the Flat Earth people ‘suggested’). If you ‘imagine’ that way, then it only prove two things – the Earth is indeed expanding outward. Second, it only prove that gravity is not really a force but the effect of the Earth’s surface moving upward at all directions from it’s center.

Possibly. But as I comprehend it, time travel in the future is simply like, freezing space in a certain period of time and then flows back with the arrow of time. Since, there's no activity on the time traveler himself, he will then be amazed to discover that he's in 2050. Now, time travel in the past, in it's lower limit (I hope i use the right word), means to travel back in time before an event happens. Example, if you heard someone will going to assassinate your friend and it took you a minute to warn your friend before it actually happened, then that is considered to be a time travel (somehow). IMO, time is relative, as according to Einstein. As I also learned, all the activity going on in space (Astronomy) were already the 'past' as it took time for light to reach us. Now, a time traveler can conquer time if it can do an activity far more faster at it's contained occupied space. So, as I see it, it is one way for a time machine to possibly exist.

In a way, i appreciate you inserted the word 'currently'. Although, it is more like a SF, I am not really speculating a petty theory of my own, i just want to know your own opinion (may not hurt the real science, I believe), conducting a lively discussion regarding those two topics.

I am wondering if Time Travel and Teleporting have the same or similar process. I know it well that if we deal with shortening the time to be in a certain place instantly, in split second - that is Teleporting. Now, if you past by, reversing the time and to be on that same place at much older years - that is, Time Travel. Now, i also assume that it is possible for a man to travel in the future, by means of a more practical way - 'hibernation', a kind of a long sleep, given that your body will not be affected by old age or other external biological factors. Then of course, if Einstein is correct, it is impossible to travel back in time if an object has a mass of its own, travelling at the speed of light. Just for curiosity, for the sake of great number of topics regarding time travel and teleporting, I assume that we cannot travel back in time by simply speeding up, covering a large distance that will stop the clock and then , if we gain acceleration, reverse the hands of clock - that will end up to be a kind of a combination of teleporting + time travel. However, if we are contained in the what-so-called fabrics of Space-Time continuum, then MAYBE, someday, if our future technology could be able to discover a way to reverse the arrow of time (past>present>future), then Time travel will be a dream of the past. I realized then, as personal hypothesis, time travel and teleporting have different process, that is, in teleporting, you need to speed up travel to shorten time to be able to cover a large distance (if you're in London, then split second, you're in new York), while time travel has to do with 'staying' in the same place (or occupying the same space) while changing going on in it's environment (let's say, like in a SF, contained in a Time travel capsule), reversing the arrow of time. What is your say regarding this?

Yes, Tanya, that is also a good way of squaring numbers (of any number of digits) ending in five. Thank you. Now, when we deal with perfect square numbers less than 10000, that is in four-digits, we can also do a short cut method Check the list below: 1^2 = 1 9^2 = 81 both ends in 1 2^2 = 4 8^2 = 64 both ends in 4 3^2 = 9 7^2 = 49 both ends in 9 4^2 = 16 6^2 = 36 both ends in 6 0^2 = 0 5^2 = 25 ( no co-related pair) Although not all numbers ending in 1, 4, 6, or 9 are perfect square numbers, it's a smart practice to always make an 'assumption' that if the last digit falls in either numbers, then it could possibly be a perfect square. _______ \/ 1,296 Step 1: Group the number into two digits starting from the decimal point ______ \/ 12'96. Step 2: Find a single number which square value equal or nearest but less than to 12 Answer: 3 (the square of 3, which is 9) Since the given number end in 6, we can make assumption that last digit of your possible answers could either be 4 or 6 Possible Answers: 34, 36 Step 3: To get the correct answer, multiply the first digit of your known possible square roots by a number next to it, higher by 1. Next to 3 is 4, so 3 x 4 =12 (to get the estimate middle square value) Rule 1: If the first two digits of the actual given value (12'96) is higher, or equal to the estimate middle square value (which is12), choose the higher possible answer Rule 2: If it is lower to the estimate middle square value, choose the lower possible answer Answer : 36 Check: Square of 34 = 1,156 ( in 11'56, 11 is less than 12)

As I see it, at a point of singularity, the universe is at 'zero' size, could only mean 'nothing' , when it comes to its physical dimension. Is am wrong? Correct grammar:Am I wrong? This is what I mean regarding Dark matters https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/dark-matter.html Correction: Dark matter (singular)

As far as I know, it is how BB theorized, came from a point of 'singularity'

Okay, thanks for that information.