Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Comments

17 comments

Date Votes
  • Don McManus
    Did not watch much of the video, but it was understood and taught in the little public high school I attended that gravity itself was not a force, rather the interaction of mass with gravity resulted in force.

    Newton had the basic concept, as he understood that the force created by gravity between two objects was proportional to the mass of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between said objects.   

    Einstein brings time into the equation, which creates some interesting relativistic points of view, particularly when dealing with extreme velocities.  

    Is this what is being discussed, or should I watch the video when time is available.
    0
  • Mr. Perfect
    Did not watch much of the video, but it was understood and taught in the little public high school I attended that gravity itself was not a force, rather the interaction of mass with gravity resulted in force.

    Newton had the basic concept, as he understood that the force created by gravity between two objects was proportional to the mass of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between said objects.   

    Einstein brings time into the equation, which creates some interesting relativistic points of view, particularly when dealing with extreme velocities.  

    Is this what is being discussed, or should I watch the video when time is available.

    I suggest you watch it.
    0
  • mogley98
    Care to lay it out for a layman LOL
    0
  • Mr. Perfect
    mogley98 said:
    Care to lay it out for a layman LOL

    That's what the video does.
    0
  • BobJudy
    NASA says it is a force but that may be because of the need to define it that way in their flight calculations. 
    https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/what-is-gravity/en/
    Bob
    0
  • Don McManus
    I suggest you watch it.
    Ok, I watched it.

    Not 100% sure what he is trying to say here.  For virtually every motion that people experience, Newtonian physics explains things adequately.  Calling the acceleration of gravity a curve in spacetime because it is the result of deviation from a geodesic path caused by an applied metric tensor does not change the fact that it is a result of the acceleration of gravity.  We all agree that gravity is not a force, and I believe that the statement that there is no such things as gravitational fields must be re-visited as the recent observation of what may be gravity waves (as predicted to exist by AE) suggests the possibility that gravitational fields may in fact exist.

    I guess the the simple question is:  Does curved spacetime cause the acceleration we call gravity, is the acceleration we call gravity the curvature of space time, or does the acceleration we call gravity cause the curvature of spacetime?

    But more importantly, how does it effect the masses?







    3
  • bpost
    The guy that is cartooned falling will feel the full effects of gravity when he lands....
    0
  • spasmcreeksrun
    gravity sucks
    0
  • susie

    And that is why I didn't major in a hard science. Lol. I start out following fairly well then I hit a rabbit hole.

    0
  • Don McManus
    @...: 31545856971419/comments/

    Imagine three bodies, A, B, and C.

     Bodies A and C  are separated from central body B by 3 parsecs, and 10 parsecs, respectively.

     Body B blips instantaneously out of existence at time T.

     

    Which body will experience the gravitational attraction from B at 0  first , and at what time(s)  ?

    A will cease to see b in approximately 10 years, and will cease to feel its pull at approximately the same time. C will do the same at approximately 33 years.

    0
  • Don McManus
    This Is Why The Speed Of Gravity Must Equal The Speed Of Light
    It's been spectacularly confirmed by observation, but theoretically, it couldn't have been any other way.

    the esteemed scientific journal, Forbes, seems to agree with Mr. Einstein that a gravity field propagates at roughly the speed of light. This is corroborated by other sources as well. It is difficult to prove, of course, as we have yet to exploit the trans-light speeds available through sub-space, but from a practical viewpoint, it seems a reasonable place to start.

    0
  • Don McManus

    The fact that you do not think I know does not mean I do not know.


    i think.

    3
  • mohawk600

    The fact that you do not think I know does not mean I do not know.


    i think.

    ............therefore YOU ARE.
    0
  • Don McManus

    This quote suggests you know it is not so.

    But you do not know it is not so.


    Perhaps time will tell.

    0
  • Don McManus
    Actually that is not true.

    It says it is better not to know than to know that which is not.  

    Your interpretation of its meaning is not in alignment with the statement.

    While it is my belief that the quote from Billings is correct and you are also correct in your statement, the two are quite  different.

    Or, if you prefer, relatively different.




    0
  • Nanuq907
    Barzillia said:
    Or it means that it is wiser to remain non-committal, rather than to claim certainty in areas when the knowledge is uncertain.
    That argues against all scientific endeavour.  The idea of science is to push into unknown areas, form hypotheses, produce results and publish them to challenge others to disprove your efforts.  The more your results are proved the more certain is the knowledge.  But many or most scientific endeavours result in theories, not proofs.  Hence uncertainty will always remain.
    0
  • asop
    And on the liter side, isn't that "Flash Gordons" space ship :o
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity