jajrussel

And Actually, I think I’m getting it, but I searched the number of times the word pull and push showed up in just one volume of a University Text and the score was 226 for pull, and 187 for push. Note, this was entirely in interest of their being anthropomorphic terms of little use in physics, yet still extremely useful unless they are used as terms of physics. Which isn’t exactly what you said I misunderstood the application, you wrote push (versus) pull is not useful. I could have saved myself a lot of mental exercise had I read and understood correctly the first time. Sorry, and thanks.

You forced me to Google, thank you . I will disagree until I find a reason to ag🤣ree . I looked up Ubi materia ibi geometria also , in the description the statement is made that nature and mathematics are intimately connected. There is a PDF I intend to read to see if it allows me to continue to disagree. 👍

No. I don’t think it would have made a difference then, but I don’t know. There was a tumor I was living with unknowingly. A few years ago they took it out. Background wise unless you consider YouTube and or SFN post secondary education the answer is no

So there is a distinction there is F=ma push then there is F=GMm/R2 pull F =ma seems incomplete as a formula because it only accounts for how m is affected by acceleration, but what it seems to me doesn’t matter, because then, who? I think it is credited to Einstein, says acceleration is the same as gravity. So if F= ma then gravity can not be a force because you have to multiply acceleration which is the same as gravity times mass to get what is called force, so gravity and force can not be the same thing. Is this why it is said that gravity is not a force?

This is where I got the word lift. Not arguing just saying. Not certain if I added this picture correctly? Guess I have to hit submit to find out… note it is not a link, just part of a screenshot.

Okay, I was thinking for the first question that if both ma and GMm/R2 equaled force I could write it F=ma=GMm/R2 . Which is not exactly how I wrote it the first time but I borrowed the shorthand from swansont for the latter portion. What I thought I was writing is force equals mass time acceleration ,and force equals G times mass one times mass two divided by the radius squared. Since force is described as equal to both expressions. I assumed it would be okay to write F=ma=Gmm/R2 since the expression on each side of the equal signs I presumed to be equal. As for the second question. Are you saying that by canceling mass out, force and acceleration are shown to be the same?

Thanks , I don’t write or think fast enough. I’ll read and think on this a while.

Doesn’t F=GM1M2/R2 apply to me and the earth? At a spin of 28,437 km per hour we lift off. My assumption is that in order for that to happen the acceleration due to spin would have to exceed the forces connecting us.

Okay… I’m nearly 70 years old, and not in school. I’m pretty sure the rules of the forum will allow you to elaborate.

I read that Earth would have to spin at 28,437 km per hour to cause us to lift off the surface. I’m assuming at that point we would effectively be weightless. Seemingly throwing a wrench into F=GM1M2/R2 , so what effect would it have on the moon?

I merged two formulas for Force I saw in a video. First - Did I do it right? F = ma= (G*M1*M2)/R2 1. F = ma 2. F = G M1M2/ R2 Second- If it is right does G/R2 represent the acceleration part of F= ma ?

I remember reading that the root of the word pagan was essentially equal to peasant/not of the city. Apparently, now it is said to be the term that Christian Romans etc. used to allude to anyone not of the Abrahamic religions generally as a slur. My observation is that pagans seem to prefer the peasant/not of the city referral. Was it the video thumbnail that prompted the question. 😂 I didn’t understand what was written in Wikipedia any more than I did the comment. I assume by being an influence on those who grew up run the Navy? I remember hearing that most Hippies grew up to be Bankers, Doctors, Lawyer's, and such. I don’t know that George got that memo, but he was a good influence on some until the end.

SFN may not approve of video's, but upon hearing about the naked girls, hmm. Oh yes, why is Paganism rising? Having once followed a major religion I found that my peers were more accepting of those called pagan. It’s kind of an oddity to me, but I could never quite get it right when asked what I believed. Apparently, it’s conditional that you absolutely agree, and rarely did I meet someone who would agree to disagree. Maybe it was just me, but I feel more comfortable around people more open to differences. Paganism is generally accepted as eclectic. It’s definition not written in stone to the extent that major religions are, or for that matter to the point where followers of Heathenism, or Wicca seem to be staking out their territories within what the major religions call the pagan community. I remember when the Geraldines would issue challenge to name the god and goddess as writ of proof. Which, I never really understood because everyone supposedly knew that aside from being sacred those names were secret. But, why is Paganism rising, most simply the access and somewhat anonymity of the internet . Yes I know the perceived anonymity is pretty much a smokescreen, but if you watch the videos those claiming to be Pagan mostly cling to eclecticism. At least that is my perception, and my belief is, that is what makes it more appealing as a label one would feel comfortable wearing. In their videos Pagan personalities are almost always esthetically pleasing in both appearance and personality, so I would be surprised if belief in Paganism wasn’t rising. I didn’t watch the video so I don’t know if the question was actually about the video, but when it comes to matters of religion sometimes the question only presents to create a perception that doesn’t actually exist, which in the right atmosphere would definitely lead to a challenge for data. Often that is the case, but personally I would like to think that an interest in Paganism is rising, because I perceive it as eclectic, and I like that some people that are more open to differences do actually exist as a community that I can be a part of. 🤔 so long as they don’t ask for money…

Apparently I’ve misunderstood what they meant by stationary, but still as I read about it, it is still confusing. It says ( the ether has to be remaining stationary with respect to the star as the earth moved through it. ) looking at their picture I can only assume this means what? I don’t know, because all my guesses say why would they think they could recreate a situation that seems implied by that statement?

Aether, I know it doesn’t exist. My question is about why we know it doesn’t exist. The Michelson-Morley experiment. Which actually as I read about it doesn’t really make sense to me because if c is c invariant what exactly were they looking for? But, Einstein’s c invariant was after M&M, okay that lines up. Hmm, but what other proofs were being looked for? why was Aether assumed stationary? If they expected it to be stationary, why were they assuming a variation of c would be found? I would assume that a stationary system would have to be non-reactive. the reason I ask is because I was watching a video about dark matter, and dark energy and the reasons they are believed to exist and the reasons why they are called dark. So, we can see the reasons we think they do exist. Then I’m wondering, why did they think Aether existed, originally? What were they looking for to prove Aether existed? What would be the difference between an Aether that doesn’t react with light and matter, accept gravitationally, and dark matter? Was the M&M experiment based solely on an expected variable c? Thank you.

Okay. But I guess I’ll have to pay Dr. PhysicsA another visit because I made an assumption that energy divided by momentum would give a mass value. My other understanding was that a photon would only have zero mass at rest. This part is also confusing. I’ll have to go back and read it again, but I thought that the mention of spacetime being a coordinate system was meant to convince me that the very real effects you mention are not real. Markus, I’m not exactly sure how to put my understanding of GR into a few sentences. My understanding is that we live the life. We exist within the coordinate system. Plenty of people understand it better. They worked out laws of energy conservation that that I have been convinced by others work. 🙂 I’m not claiming to completely understand them, but I thought that the genius of Einstein’s general relativity was that there would be no actual need to formulate, other more general conservation laws. I’ll go out on a limb here and say that my understanding is that even if I see your clock as keeping time more slowly than mine that my understanding suggests that if each of us measures the amount of energy that our clock is using, then should we switch places taking our respective clocks with us. Any new measure should only vary by the norm that would be present had we not switched places. But, if I again look at your clock from my new perspective it is going to still be running slower than mine, because from my perspective you are moving, and the moving clock always presents as being slower. Hmm, I seem to have switched sides. So now, maybe I’m getting somewhere? The effect is real, we have to allow for it. Is this what everyone is saying? Or, is someone going to heap coals to my confusion by saying that the actual amount of energy used by each clock is dependent on its position, and my relationship to each clocks position, without bothering to explain that relativity actually adjusts the measure to the extent that should you join me our measures would be as nearly equal as two clocks in the same frame can be. And I apologize, I didn’t link the article. I wasn’t actually planning on thinking about it. But sometimes a statement stays with me, or maybe it was my thought of, “Oh well, so much for energy conservation”, linked with a desire to understand where does the energy go as each bit of matter deteriorates? If in fact expansion is linked to matter deterioration as the statement seemed to suggest. One thing I am sure of with near absolute certainty is that since I want it so bad, as soon as I Google it, Google is going to play dummer than dumb. Markus, at the risk of once again putting my ignorance on display. How does an expanding universe expand so fast that it rips atomic structures apart. I’m assuming that if that is a possible reason for the statement I remember being attributed to Penrose. Then there is a way it happens? I will try to find the article. Thank you 🙂 found it. https://futurism.com/the-byte/physicist-other-universes-before-big-bang The statement is right after the bolded statement ( Hard Reboot ) in the article. I have no idea why the print became so small. I tried to select it to increase the font size. Apparently I’m not allowed. I assume that the link will work. Note there seem to be a lot of advertisements in the article. Annoying advertisements that suggests that the original trending version was stripped down, but if you can stand the advertisements it is the same article. Note - It doesn’t really say much more than I stated to begin with either.

Okay... Thank you. The reason I asked the question is because I read one of those trending articles, well, actually I skimmed through it because I was distracted in the article there was a quote attributed to a person named Penrose. That using my bad paraphrasing went something like, "the universe is expanding, and will continue to expand until the last bit of matter deteriorates." I thought, well so much for energy conservation. Then I starting trying to figure out where where does all the energy go? My question was what I came up with. Now I see that joigus has replied so I'll stop and see what he has said, again thank you.

I was actually puzzling over the Janus post, and maybe yours helped to clarify, but I'm still puzzle because I thought that relativity was a physical phenomena that stated specifically that the effect is physical. One clock runs slower than another, due to gravity and or acceleration. I could possibly plot a curve, but no I wasn't speaking specific to geometry. I did use the term geodesic, but that was primarily because some like to define the path taken gravitationally between two objects as a geodesic. If relativity predictions are as correct and as real as it has been pointed out to me time after time, and probably a few dozen times in this forum, then I would assume any physical effect that presents is real, physically. Personally, I would prefer to believe that gravity is a force and that the dance between two massive objects as they move through space is simply point, and counter point due to that force. I am not the one who says that relative effects are real. I am the one who is accepting that they are, and if they are then maybe if an object of zero mass gains vertual mass through acceleration then possibly space if it is in fact expanding, might do the same. I mean no disrespect, but when you say that nothing is physically "bent", I am confused. Of course if Space doesn't warp, or expand, then I have no reason to be confused, but personally 🙂 I'm confused, maybe when you said that nothing is physically "bent" you weren't referring to space warping, and expanding. It's possible I took it out of context 🤔? Could you please clarify. And I do tend to get wordy. Knowing so I try not to, still it happens. To that extent I apologize.

In terms of events I was trying to paraphrase a section of the OP, but personally I don't think we can see the future, we can only assume it, so in a sense I was making an assumption based on my best understanding of the OP under the conditions it allowed. Even then, my thought was wrong because I assumed angular positions possibly less than or possibly greater than 180 degrees. I assume, not even if my life depended on it. However, if there is an emoji for it I can grovel. 🙂 Personally, I think we can only assume past, present, and future. This is a great thread, but some of the post are more confusing than the OP, no offense intended Moontanman.🙂

I should have read the whole thread first.

Okay I haven't actually read the whole thread because I got caught up in trying to understand the post as presented. This is the confusing part. If at point C you are 5 years in star A's past and you are presumably between Point A and point B it is seemingly a paradox. But if you are seeing light five ly's in A's past and B is five years in A's future it seems more like an equal radius than a paradox. But, you start of by saying Then you say Is it 10 light years, or five? Hmm, seems more like a thought exercise, than a paradox... Personally, this depth of thought has placed me in danger of drowning in possibilities. So, I'm gonna stop, take a nap, then come back and read the whole thread and see if there is anything that explains my confusion. 🤔😊 Didn't even get the chance to take a nap, but now I assume that any light I observed from point C is technically five light years distant from point A. But that's another discussion. Or, is it. Might be back to the equal radius thought?

The gravitational effect between two objects of mass seems apparent. Even uncomplicated until you start to think about it in detail, but gravity is said to warp Space which I assume can be attributed to mass. The assumption being that the effect is an attribute of mass. Generally there is no clear explanation of what Space is. It's this, it's that, know one really knows, yet it expands and warps. When a photon is affected by gravity we can say that it's velocity gives it just enough mass to be gravitationally effected. If Space is expanding it could be said that it has velocity. My understanding of term accuracy becomes convoluted at times, but Space is said to be expanding at an increasing rate, so I think velocity is the correct term. Is this velocity of Space, what allows gravitational warping of Space, much like a photon is effected because it has velocity, and wouldn't this account for most, if not all of the matter that is said to be missing in the universe? Another thought, is that the photon is simply following a geodesic of curved space but that simply brings us back to why space warps without an explanation.

Okay this made me laugh. Actually, it is the second thing written by swansont that I have read today that made my laugh. The first thing was his article on how a question about when a decade ends was such a terrible question. Then I remembered that it was swansont's blog, and it is well known that he has no sense of humor, so I immediately started trying to remember which of my meds I had recently taken... I believe this is where according to Poe's Law I'm supposed to put the little side ways smiley face. The problem is I can't remember exactly how to make the side ways smiley face so I'm hoping this one will do. 😂 Note, I am only joking about the frantic meds search...🤔🧐😂

Every bolded word is of your own doing. I simply read them and assumed that they were bolded with intent. I especially like this part Where you say please don't be, then embolden the word scared. Though it is annoying that you would imply that my being afraid was inspired by your desire to help certain people. My actual fear is that you might be in a position to teach, and it is based on my belief of religious freedom, and the realities that wrote it into the Constitution. From my perspective the sense of having to keep my mouth shut in order to belong is not limited to acceptance within a religious order. I can understand ones heart being filled with anger and hatred, but nothing justifies it being taught, and when you write and embolden specific words it does come across that your intent is to teach those who don't know any better, that they are wrong. You are right initially it was Spock, but I think Data was programmed to personify Spock, and it seems I remember Data with a slight tilt of the head, with an expression of perfect wonder, saying; "fascinating!" However, I could be wrong. 🤔🧐