swansont

! Moderator Note That’ll do, donkey. That’ll do

Right When you say radius is 6500 and elevation is 6500, that’s confusing. You also had r^2=422,250,000, which is not 6500^2 So I had no idea what you were doing. Now I see 422,250,000 was a typo, and you meant 42,250,000 km^2 It depends on whether the scale measures mass or weight. kg represents mass. Weight would be in N. The triangle is irrelevant at this point, since we’re just looking at the gravitational interaction. With a balance scale, g is irrelevant. Just as long as it’s nonzero.

! Moderator Note Please stop opening new threads for discussions that are variations on existing topics you have already introduced..

! Moderator Note Overlapping topics merged

! Moderator Note Tangent on food and plants has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123816-food-and-plants-split-from-why-do-scientist-think-they-know-everything/

Correcting your misconceptions isn’t meant as an insult, even though there are some that interpret it that way. As for the rest, consider it societal pressure to improve your contributions. In a setting like this, when you repeatedly overstep your limit of competence, which requires correction, it is considered poor form. Further, you are doing so with unjustified confidence. Basically you’re decrying brusque behavior that’s a response to your own rude behavior.

The Moody Blues interpretation and the British Navy interpretation are equally valid.

For force you need to include the mass of the object Where does 422,250,000 come from? (also, that's 4.2225 x 10^8, so multiplying by 10^6 gets you 4.2225 x 10^14) N/kg is not a force. This would be the acceleration. 9.43 m/s^2 would be the acceleration due to gravity at the distance you put into the calculation, assuming your math is correct Why would you do this? Is g= 9.81 m/s^2 at that altitude? Force triangles mirrored? You’re just evaluating the gravitational force. So a scale reads 1.92 kg for a 2 kg mass? Does that make sense? Elevation and radius are not the same thing

That’s because it’s an interpretation, not a theory. It’s akin to saying there’s no proof against a mnemonic, like “Every Good Boy Deserves Favor” or ROY G BIV

! Moderator Note It’s usually not a good idea to admit to arguing in bad faith. Don’t you recall a recent thread where you were told the staff is still evaluating your contributions here, and debating your reinstatement?

Wood is primarily carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Carbon comes from CO2, which can be broken down via photosynthesis; O2 is a byproduct. Hydrogen and oxygen are present in water. The radiant energy allows the carbon to be removed from CO2, but there is no conversion of this energy to matter. I wish you would include correct science.

How is this an example of “science downplay IQ in government or businesses like in the past.” Colleges require certain tests (e.g the SAT in the US), which are allegedly tests to measure intelligence and learning. One could argue that getting a degree is an equivalent of such a test, if degrees were awarded on merit. So I don’t see how this is downplaying IQ. But “science” is not an entity, nor is “science” requiring (or not requiring) IQ tests.

It’s not that, either. It’s the carbon in CO2, facilitated by the radiant energy. But the energy isn’t converted to matter

It wasn't an apology; I guess we haven't ruled out that the problem might just be reading comprehension.

! Moderator Note And Phi didn't accuse you of saying it. Phi gave you an out for the strawman you appeared to be making, and you've chosen not to take the graceful approach of clarifying what you meant, in a way that eliminates the strawman. Instead, we have this. ! Moderator Note This is a response that absolves you of any wrongdoing; you've decided that the answer is that someone is mad at you and it's their fault that there is a disagreement, rather than the possibility that you had misinterpreted or misread something, or were just wrong about something. This approach leaves a lot to be desired.

You would do well to read The Poison Squad by Deborah Blum. It will dispel the notion of authentic wholesome foods being available (in the US, at least, in the late 1800s and on), and probably make you glad there are laws protecting the consumer. They weren't always there, and there's a reason they were implemented.

That's not going to mix too well with physics, which may or may not follow one's intuition, and benefits from having more facts at one's disposal. It's certainly not a justification for pontificating on topics you haven't studied. It's a justification for asking questions and learning. (and free scientific resources for learning are available, should you choose to avail yourself of them)

! Moderator Note Which is basically what I said before in locking the previous thread. I was hoping to exclude the option of "repost the exact same question"

It's mathematical. That statement is equivalent to "F is proportional to Mm/r^2" When you include a constant of proportionality (G) you can write it as an equality.

Yes. In addition (or as part of the solution), why is the angle 25.9 degrees, what is the height, and what is the separation of the two masses?

Light doesn't suffer from air resistance in the same way as an arrow. The speed is constant for light, even in a medium (and in this case, a sparse medium). The deflection of light by a body as massive as the sun is hard to measure (~1.75 arc seconds for grazing incidence). The deflection by the earth is proportionally smaller. An arrow spends a lot more time in flight, so the cumulative effects would be expected to be larger (even before accounting for the difference between Newtonian gravity and general relativity predictions of the deflection of light) Yes, well there's rather more to it than your not-very-rigorous analysis uncovers. Light waves having to travel at c is a discovery of electrodynamics which would be a good place to start — if you've studied electrodynamics.

Dark matter is thought to be located within galaxies, to account for the rotation curve deviation from normal matter. I don't see why annihilation events would be sparse. What neutral matter/antimatter particles are you considering here?

Mass usually isn't a concern for orbits because the acceleration due to gravity is independent of the object's mass; it depends on the mass of the celestial body in question. There are a whole bunch of orbital calculations you can do that are independent of the satellite's mass. If it's unimportant because it's tiny, why is there any concern? No work is done in elevating mass? Really? You think that comes from assuming the force is parallel? The work done in elevating a mass is its potential energy. Without a drawing I fear that I can't parse what you're talking about. Why do you care about whether a mass is trying to slide on a beam? Do we actually notice this? IOW, how big is this effect? (that will tell us how much we should worry about it) You haven't quantified anything. So no, it does not address my question.

It might, if you gather enough evidence that shows your model is correct. But you were saying they were functionally the same, and also that it's just an eductaed guess. No. Theories do not become laws. A law in science is a relationship that can be expressed mathematically. Newton's law of gravitation, F = GmM/r^2, or Newton's second law, F= ma, for example. Or Moore's law, that computer power doubles every ~18 months. That's not from the progression of a theory.

If it were a measured value, it will be measured to some level of certainty. The arc of the path is something that can be quantified and accounted for. (c is now a defined value, so these uncertainties show up in measurements that depend on c) As far as "A projectile diminishes in velocity perpetually as it approaches a terminal point" goes, I can't figure out what you mean. Do you have an example?