[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.10587093 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 9 KB, 479x225, 3-list-equations-gravitation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10587093

I just can't wrap my head around how dumb this equation is. Is this 1. even accurate?

A lot of equations aren't even true.

2. Why do they need to use symbols for this?

It says that the "force" of gravity is equal to a constant times the two masses of the objects divided by the square of the distance between the objects.

First off, is the "G" constant actually necessary here? Or is that just because they are using incorrect units (ie the metric system) and they need to add the constant to adjust for their shitty units?

Or is the constant absolutely necessary and you cant just change the units instead?

3. Are you gonna say why the distance is squared? What information does this stupid shit convey if you can't just explain it like you understand it?

Scientists are so fucking stupid I swear.

Is r^2 even distance here?

Do they even want to preach their "truth" to the public? Should the public have a right to know what they are doing? No?

If they can't even do a good job simplifying the simple things, what are they doing with the complicated things?

>> No.9784935 [View]
File: 9 KB, 479x225, gravityCalculator.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9784935

>>9784917
pick a weight to calculate

>> No.9388197 [View]
File: 9 KB, 479x225, 3-list-equations-gravitation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9388197

Where's the graviton fags?

Where is it. Where in the equation is it?

It's not there because it's not real.

>> No.7197690 [View]
File: 9 KB, 479x225, gravitylaw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7197690

How much do we really know about gravity?

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]