/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10587093
>Is this 1. even accurate
No. Gravity isn't felt instantaneously at a distance.

>>10587101
See what I mean?

Then why is this even an equation?

Fucking equations are dumb and not even correct half the time

>>10587093
>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?
When’s the last time you saw an equation with an explaination included with it? Are you too mentally defective to google something?
The distance is squared because of the inverse-square law, the same reason that a light source appears fours times as dim when you double its distance from you

>>10587106
>Fucking equations are dumb and not even correct half the time
If I could say that about you, it would be an improvement

>>10587111
>the equation is an inverse square law because of the inverse square law

>>10587117
>I don’t understand the inverse square law

>>10587093
>A lot of equations aren't even true.
[citation needed]

>Why do they need to use symbols for this?
I don't even know where to start with that. What do you think we should use instead of symbols?
The equation says that the forces two objects feel due to the gravitational force is proportional to the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the distance squared.

The r^2 shows up because there is spherical symmetry in the gravitational field, which is why gravity is 9.81 everywhere on the surface of the earth, and the surface area of a sphere is proportional to r^2. This means as you move farther away, the increase in area you have to work with is proportional to r^2.

>>10587093
>1
It's reasonably accurate. Accurate enough for spaceflight. Accurate enough to be useful.

>2
What do you even mean? The symbols either represent variables (which don't have a value until you use the equation) or constants (which writing one symbol is more convenient than writing out the whole number).
G isn't used for unit conversion. It's used to properly scale the force much like how pi is used to scale a diameter to a circumference.

>3
r is squared because gravity is taken to act spherically. At a certain radius away from an object, the area that the object's gravity has to work with is greater than the area if the radius is smaller. A consequence of this is that gravity becomes weaker at a distance and stronger when closer. The area is proportional to the square of the radius.

>Do they even want to preach their "truth" to the public? Should the public have a right to know what they are doing? No?
What are you even on about? Newtonian gravity isn't considered how gravity really works, its taken as a convenient model that makes good predictions within useful bounds.

>If they can't even do a good job simplifying the simple things, what are they doing with the complicated things?
Newtonian gravity is incredibly simple compared to Einsteinian gravity.

>>10587093
Oh hey, we've got a genius over there. How about you just read about how each equation gets derived? You can even mathematically proof them, isn't that great? Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean its stupid, it means you are stupid

>>10587093
> 1. even accurate?
Good enough to put objects in orbit.
But not as precise as the geodesic equation in general realtivity:
[math] {d^2 x^\mu \over ds^2}+\Gamma^\mu {}_{\alpha \beta}{d x^\alpha \over ds}{d x^\beta \over ds}=0 [/math].

> 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?
No, G is not necessary. It's just there so the units work out consistanly.

> Are you gonna say why the distance is squared?

The reason why the force in porpoptional to units of one over distance squared is because it's solves the orbitt eqauation....which stays consistance with Kepler's laws of planatry motion.

>>10587125
>>10587093
Equatrions aren't "true", much the same way your hand drawn map to the pizza place isn't true, it's just works well enough to make predictions with.

>>10587159
Read through my replies ITT again, nimrod.

Next.

>>10587093
the ultimate goal of science is the formalization and intellectualization of the real world.

>>10587164
^This

Some people seem to have the idea that science needs to find absolute truths and that anything less is unacceptable. This idea is wrong, science aims to explain things as good as possible.

For example, in aerospace engineering alot of modeling flows is just "we have no idea how this flow acts nor we have any way of finding out, but lets assume that it acts in some arbitrary way and work out how that arbitrary flow should behave" and then they compare it to empirical data. The arbitrary choice that's closest to the data is then chosen as the standard model. And this is all perfectly acceptable.

>>10587106
>Then why is this even an equation?
Because it's an extremely good approximation and its utility in engineering justifies it.

>>10587106
>Fucking equations are dumb and not even correct half the time
Its accurate enough to send probes across the solar system. You're just being obtuse. Stop that.

>>10587175
Well maybe to you engicucks it is, but for physishits getting the equation exactly correct is absolutely paramount.

>>10587201
You're a retard and you really shouldn't be in physics if you can't grasp what I've just said.

>>10587201

>>10587201
Confirmed for not knowing physics. Reminder that guess and check empiricism is a logically rigorous approach to science.

>>10587115
Anything is an improvement over you however.
>>10587111
>>10587117
Once again, you're not smart.
>>10587125
E = mc^2 is not true
>>10587134
English
>>10587148
The equation should mention those things.
>>10587159
I invented math, I don't need to know it, I'm telling you your equation is dumb and not equivalent to the math I invented.

>>10587220
>The equation should mention those things.
What do you mean?

>>10587231
A bunch of symbols does not convey knowledge.

This equation is not stating anything that can't be fully fundamentally explained in a few sentences in English.

I've already done all this math stuff before and my current purpose doesn't require me to know how to do it now, but I know that you're all doing it wrong at least.

>>10587201
How does it feel to have no clue about physics?

>>10587236
>A bunch of symbols does not convey knowledge.
They do. How do you think written language works?

>This equation is not stating anything that can't be fully fundamentally explained in a few sentences in English
A bunch of variable symbols is much easier to write and read than writing out full sentences. Sure, its inconvenient if you don't know what those symbols mean, but for an equation like Newton's model of gravity you can just look it up. Was using wikipedia too hard for you?

>>10587264
>A bunch of variable symbols is much easier to write and read than writing out full sentences. Sure, its inconvenient if you don't know what those symbols mean, but for an equation like Newton's model of gravity you can just look it up. Was using wikipedia too hard for you?

You just don't get it do you?

>>10587093
Great, another "retard who knows literally nothing about physics is going to PWN physicists" post. Fuck off and read a book harder than Winnie the Pooh.

>>10587273
You just don't get it do you?

>>10587093
I want to punch you in the fucking face

>>10587277
Then you are a monkey and you aren't smart. Congrats for reading work that other people did before you. You should feel accomplished for worshiping a dumb incorrect equation

OP wants to write math like Euclid i suppose.

Anybody who hates this thread has negative iq points. None of you were involved in making these equations and they were just given to you.

They aren't good and can be improved. What's wrong with stating that?

Fuck off losers.

>>10587267
Actually you don't get it. If you actually read your textbook, you'd know what all those symbols mean at first glance. Same goes for Maxwell's equations, and a million other physical laws. You are essentially complaining about vocabulary.

>>10587288
How would you improve them (we aren't assuming general relativity)?

>>10587291
I do know what the equation means, and I still believe it can be improved.

>>10587299
How?

>>10587282
Now I want to skin you alive you brainlet Mongrel.

This is why we need to teach kids the history behind equations instead of simplifying them too much that they start posting shit like this

>>10587308
You weren't involved in the history of the equation yet you take offense to it like you were involved. All you represent is not the equations but rather some asshole on the internet that's what you are. And you hate people who you think are ungrateful but you are the ungrateful one.

If it wasn't for opposition to the paradigm then science wouldn't exist you fucking hypocritical 0 IQ wild ANIMAL. You sound more like a serial killer than an intellectual FUCK YOU!

>>10587291
Only retards say "actually"

>>10587093
The actual equations is [math]\mathbf{F}_{g,12}=-G\frac{m_1m_2}{r_{12}^2}\mathbf{\hat{r}}_{12}[/math]. Btw, you're a retard OP.

>>10587318
You sound like you came form reddit, how about you go read a book and shove that arrogance up your asshole, cunt

>>10587321
Only retards don't answer the fucking question
>>10587302
>>10587298

>>10587298
>>10587299
How can they be "improved"? The only issues you've brought up were either limitations of the medium of which equations are written on ("why use all these symbols???") or blatantly misunderstanding of the equation ("Is G a conversion factor?").

>>10587308
You're the insult to science here not me.
>>10587302

Teach it to people exactly like this:

"The center of mass of an object is the main gravitational factor of the object. We take the distance between the two centers of the objects and call that distance r. The gravitational attraction is the same for both objects and it is relative to their respective masses. Force = mass of object 1 times mass of object 2, the force is then divided by the distance from object 1 to object 2 times the distance from object 2 to object 1. The units are corrected with G"

That is what I meant with this thread.

Happy now?

>they do teach it like that already

Know they DONT

screw you if you think otherwise

>>10587338
In addition to this, I wouldn't use the metric system for G unless you were actually applying it to something.

I am OP. This is what I meant by this thread.

>>10587338
Do you think that physics students aren't taught in this way or something?

>>10587321
Only retards say 'Only retards say "actually"'

>>10587338
If you can't read math, you should consider other line of work.

>>10587350
Yes, that's why I mentioned it in the post.
I think it should be taught roughly to how I said it just now.

Okay listen to me very carefully:

What I am about to say is RIGHT:

The r^2 is not an accurate depiction of what the equation is referring to.

The r^2 should be d1*d2.

Distance 1 is the distance from m1 to m2 and Distance 2 is the distance from m2 to m1.

Saying r^2 is NOT correct even though it evaluates to the same number.

I invented math and I don't like seeing math being done wrong.

>>10587338
>"The center of mass of an object is the main gravitational factor of the object. We take the distance between the two centers of the objects and call that distance r. The gravitational attraction is the same for both objects and it is relative to their respective masses. Force = mass of object 1 times mass of object 2, the force is then divided by the distance from object 1 to object 2 times the distance from object 2 to object 1. The units are corrected with G"
I've had two spaceflight mechanics classes and apart from "units are corrected with G" this is pretty much exactly how it was taught. This is also how Wikipedia explains it.

You're complaining about a non-issue.
Using Wikipedia is apparently too hard for you, again.

>>10587364
I have a similar issue with G.

I prefer things in their CORRECT and FUNDAMENTAL form.

You all are skipping past what I'm saying and it's flying over your conceded, violent, heads.

>>10587367
No, no, no, the equation uses r^2 not d1 and d2.

And the equation uses metric system units, which I don't like either.

I'm not disrespecting math or science or history either, I invented math. I think this equation is disrespecting math.

I'm RIGHT just accept it.

>>10587093

1. Is it even accurate?

Yes. It is literally the universal law of gravitation. This equation has accurately described the force of gravity between two objects since its derivation hundreds of years ago. It is an instrumental component of understanding Newtonian mechanics, which have led to innumerable scientific and technological advancements.

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

Because it's a mathematical expression? What sort of a question is this? If you're curious what force of gravity between two objects is, you're going to need to use this equation. You cannot just describe every instance of gravitation in the universe qualitatively. That is grossly inaccurate.

The constant "G" is Newton's Gravitational constant and is completely necessary unless you want to get an inaccurate answer. It's a proportionality constant that linked the relationship between the force and the masses/distances of the objects in question. Read the Wikipedia page on the constant if you want to know more. You have no excuse not to have done that already, honestly.

No, you cannot just "Change the units." That's not how reality functions.

3. Are you gonna say why the distance is squared?

Because the fucking strength of the force follows an inverse square law? Double the distance but keep everything else the same, and the force drops by a factor of four. Triple the distance, drops by a factor of nine. Quadruple, sixteen, etc.

The reason there is a radius squared here is because that is literally how this force operates. It's not some arbitrary nonsense, it is part of the literal foundation describing the force of gravitation between two masses.

This is possibly the stupidest thread I've ever seen on this terrible board and furthers my belief that if any of you are genuinely curious about the sciences, this is potentially the least appropriate place to discuss the topic. This is a board where people unironically discuss the idea that the Earth is flat.

>>10587381
I said "is it even accurate" because I already knew it wasn't. Gravity is more complex, it is only accurate in Newtonian physics.

>Why do they need to use symbols for this?
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not insulting their way of doing things, but I don't believe that an equation this simple should be written in the messy way that it is.

>G is necessary but they use it in metric for some reason, it's not fundamental enough for me.

>inverse square law

I already know what the inverse square law is but you are so reluctant to just speak normally and explain things correctly.

>>10587220
>E = mc^2 is not true

Yes it is, you absolute loon.

It's not the full equation (You can look it up if you need to see it), but it is the consequence of quantifying the energy contained within an object that is stationary with respect to some observer. If you use the full equation that describes the relationship between mass and energy, you'll see that there is additional energy carried within the object as a consequence of motion. If you set the velocity of an object to zero, and solve for E in the equation, then E = mc^2 pops out.

Get over yourself, dipshit.

You simply cannot refute me (OP).

good bait, OP. you sure trolled those 4channers epic style!!

>>10587374
>No, no, no, the equation uses r^2 not d1 and d2
The magnitudes of d1 and d2 are the same so theres no point to make the distinction unless you're using vectors.

>And the equation uses metric system units, which I don't like either.
No. Newton's model of gravity isn't tied to any system of units. As long as your units are consistent, you can use any system with the equation. Sure, there is a preference in the aerospace industry to use metric for orbital mechanics, but that's just an arbitrary standard.

>I'm not disrespecting math or science or history either, I invented math. I think this equation is disrespecting math.
How is the equation disrespecting math?

>I'm RIGHT just accept it.
I disagree and don't accept it.

>>10587392
I'm not a dipshit and I don't need to get over myself because I am smarter than you. I know that E = mc^2 is not the full equation and that's what I was referring to when I said it is not true.

Because it's NOT true, the full equation results in E = mc^2 when an object is stationary but there are no stationary objects in practice anyways. Why do you feel the need to debate so hard against me instead of trying to take my side? I AM right afterall.

>>10587396
Yes, there is a point in making a distinction. Because the equation is saying the wrong thing if you say r^2.

>>10587389
>I said "is it even accurate" because I already knew it wasn't. Gravity is more complex, it is only accurate in Newtonian physics.

What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you bitching because you can't immediately see that gravity is not truly a "Force" but rather depressions in the fabric of space-time? Regardless, its behavior is accurately described by the equation you have some pathetically vitriolic bitterness towards. The equation does not "Tell the full story," but if your question is literally "What is the force of gravity exerted between two objects of known masses?" This is LITERALLY what you use to answer that question.

>Don't get me wrong here, I'm not insulting their way of doing things, but I don't believe that an equation this simple should be written in the messy way that it is.

How the fuck else do you want this law represented other than this equation?

>I already know what the inverse square law is but you are so reluctant to just speak normally and explain things correctly.

This has to be bait.

It has to be.

>>10587405
>Because the equation is saying the wrong thing if you say r^2.
How so?

But even if we stopped using the metric system, G would still be necessary. From Newton's second law, [math]\sum\mathbf{F}=m\mathbf{a}[/math] we can see that force has the dimensions [math]\frac{\text{mass}\times\text{length}}{\text{time}^2}[/math]. Note this has nothing to do with our choice of units. Newton and Kepler noticed that gravitational force is proportional to the product of the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is way too fucking long to say so we say [math]F_g\propto\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}[/math]. Notice the right side of this proportionality statement (NOT an equation) doesn't have the correct dimensions. Thus there MUST be a constant of proportionality with dimensions [math][G]=\frac{\text{force}\times\text{time}^2}{\text{mass}\times\text{length}}[/math]. Which is exactly the system we have and how it was taught to me. Notice none of this was dependent on whether we used metric or british units or anything.

tl;dr you're wrong

>>10587288
What do you think the equation is trying to convey if you had to put it in your own words? Like why do you think anyone cares about it to begin with? I'm not sure you even understand that much.

>>10587409

But even if we stopped using the metric system, G would still be necessary. From Newton's second law, [math]\sum\mathbf{F}=m\mathbf{a}[/math] we can see that force has the dimensions [math]\frac{\text{mass}\times\text{length}}{\text{time}^2}[/math]. Note this has nothing to do with our choice of units. Newton and Kepler noticed that gravitational force is proportional to the product of the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is way too fucking long to say so we say [math]F_g\propto\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}{/math}. Notice the right side of this proportionality statement (NOT an equation) doesn't have the correct dimensions. Thus there MUST be a constant of proportionality with dimensions [math][G]=\frac{\text{force}\times\text{time}^2}{\text{mass}\times\text{length}}[/math]. Which is exactly the system we have and how it was taught to me. Notice none of this was dependent on whether we used metric or british units or anything.

tl;dr you're wrong so stop embarrassing yourself. the equation is fine.

>>10587125
This thread is amateur tier bait. The amount of replies goes to show how stupid and naive most of /sci/ really is. I came for a quick visit, now back to /pol/

>>10587411
Because r^2 = d1*d2 only when they are equal. They ARE equal but that doesn't mean that you can ignore the step...
>>10587413
>>10587421
see
>>10587420

>>10587420
This equation is just more fundamentally correct than the other one.

What's wrong with being right?

>>10587399
>I'm not a dipshit and I don't need to get over myself because I am smarter than you.

This isn't a contest, but if it was, you'd be behind the starting line. Don't kid yourself, your scientific literacy is abysmal and I can already tell that from the three bodies of text I've read from you. Plus of the two of us, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who is actually in the process of earning a physics degree. If you're also doing that, I'd be shocked, impressed, and honestly pretty worried all at the same time. At least maybe then you could realize how poorly you understand this content.

>but there are no stationary objects in practice anyways.

This is literally one of the fundamental principles of relativity. Yes, stationary objects DO exist, it's a matter of frames of reference. There is no universal "Zero point" by which all relative velocities can be measured. That does not mean in a frame of reference that two objects cannot be stationary with respect to one another.

Example: You are stationary with respect to the chair your probably sitting in. If you disagree with me, you have mental health issues.

>>10587432
There ARE no stationary objects. I DO disagree with you.

But even if we stopped using the metric system, G would still be necessary. From Newton's second law,
[math]\sum\mathbf{F}=m\mathbf{a}[/math]
we can see that force has the dimensions
[math]\frac{\text{mass}\times\text{length}}{\text{time}^2}[/math].
Note this has nothing to do with our choice of units. Newton and Kepler noticed that gravitational force is proportional to the product of the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is way too fucking long to say so we say
[math]F_g\propto\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}[/math].
Notice the right side of this proportionality statement (NOT an equation) doesn't have the correct dimensions. Thus there MUST be a constant of proportionality with dimensions
[math][G]=\frac{\text{force}\times\text{time}^2}{\text{mass}\times\text{length}}[/math]
Which is exactly the system we have and how it was taught to me. Notice none of this was dependent on whether we used metric or british units or anything.

tl;dr you're wrong so stop embarrassing yourself. the equation is fine.
>third time is the charm

>>10587439
>"stop embarrassing yourself"
This is a quote from the guy who posted the same thing three times because he can't figure out how to used math tags.

>>10587439
i give up. hey OP: G is necessary regardless of your choice of units. Fuck off.

>>10587426
>Because r^2 = d1*d2 only when they are equal. They ARE equal but that doesn't mean that you can ignore the step...
You have point. When using vectors d1 =/= d2 (if d1 and d2 are vectors). However, mutliplying them together is the same as the squared of the absolute distance between the two objects (i.e. a scalar) so the simplification is acceptable as long as you take into account the vectors in another way. For simple gravitational systems, r^2 is acceptable.

>>10587446
Ok smart guy

>>10587426
>Because r^2 = d1*d2 only when they are equal
>what is metric space?

>>10587438

I literally just agreed with you, then explained a critical caveat in the idea that you are ignoring for some inexplicable reason.

What do you do for a living? Are you in school?

>>10587447
>For simple gravitational systems, r^2 is acceptable.

I still disagree, I think that you are teaching people the wrong thing and then flaunting about it...

>>10587448
Ok guy confused by freshman physics

>>10587449
The equation is still wrong, there needs to be an asterisk in front of it then that says "only true for metric space" if you want to say that.

>>10587450
I invented math, I am trillions of years old.

>>10587454
Ok guy confused by 4D chess.

>>10587456

Now I know you're fucking with me, but I'll clarify one last thing for any poor soul reading this mess of an argument.

You do realize that the distance from me to you is the same distance from you to me, correct? You can't seem to wrap your head around this squared distance business.

>>10587459
You do realize that even though the values are the same, you are saying two different things correct? Are you just going to ignore the distinction?

>>10587456
apparently that is how we measure our reality; using axioms of real analysis and topology

>>10587093
equations in science aren't "true" or "false" retard

>>10587558
what are they then?

>>10587882
all models are wrong

>>10588027
>all models are wrong
Lol that's more like it.
So what do you consider a model's use then? It's "accuracy?"

Do you think it's impossible to figure out the Truth via science? (Science is cheating by the way.)

You think that's bad? This equation serves as the definition of Force, AND mass

>>10588047
Acceleration relative to what?

>>10587093
stop making the same kind of posts, they arent entertaining and nothing of value is said.

>>10588032
a model is useful if it helps us understand the universe better, explain observed phenomena, or is useful for applications. obviously accuracy is part of that, but all models breakdown at some point or have something missing. newtons law is useful and very accurate on certain scales. then general relativity is useful and accurate on larger scales, but still needs to be reconciled with quantum physics. even then that theory of quantum gravity wont be "true".

i think we could only determine absolute "truth" in science if we become some godlike beings.

>>10588077
Your obsession with man gaining power is the problem. There are already celestial entities and One God. They already know the answers.

Lol.

>>10588062
Me

>>10588027
>all models are wrong
Not the climate models which correctly predict catastrophic global warming unless we take dramatic action now.

>>10588062
It's worse, because if you observe an acceleration a force is "assumed". So any acceleration we observe, we then use F=ma to catalog the force that must exist on that object.

This is used in relativity to transfer forces between frames, and it's also used to justify things like OP's equation. Any acceleration is defined to have a force associated, the definition of acceleration itself is a force

>>10588116
That makes sense.

>>10588126
But remember also that "mass" is defined as what acceleration an object undergoes when under a certain "force"

So F=ma defines both Mass, and Force. It's basically defining itself to be true.

>>10587299
Your problem is a lack of education, not a lack of proper documentation. The world doesn't revolve around you, and there's no obligation for people to sacrifice brevity and rigor in order to spoonfeed you something that can be obtained through going to school.

OP's terminal degree is a GED. And he's also a faggot.

>>10587459
>You do realize that the distance from me to you is the same distance from you to me, correct?

t. brainlet who thinks space is warped isotropically by gravity

>>10587093
what a retarded post

>>10587274
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KoKWf6pLs8

>>10587106

>>10587236
>A bunch of symbols does not convey knowledge.
Seems like you have never read a book, since this is the exact reason there are EXPLAINATIONS and INTRODUCTIONS before and after all formulas
>This equation is not stating anything that can't be fully fundamentally explained in a few sentences in English.
First of all, THIS equation MIGHT be easily explainable in English; this doesn't mean that the majority of other equations can. If you really want to understand how retarded you truly are I suggest you reading old maths or physics books before the usage of variables and formulas was common. You will find difficult even understanding besic trigonometry theorems and proofs.

Nice troll btw

> this thread

>>10587338
That’s how I was taught it when I did my physics unit. You’re just an idiot, or you went to a shit school/college (or both).

You also got the radius portion of your explanation completely wrong. r is just the distance between them, direction doesn’t matter, and it’s only taken once. This is because of the spherical symmetry of the force, as has been stated above. It’s the same reason light intensity and electrical charge, among many other things, are also inversely proportional to distance squared.

>>10587338
>"The center of mass of an object is the main gravitational factor of the object. We take the distance between the two centers of the objects and call that distance r. The gravitational attraction is the same for both objects and it is relative to their respective masses. Force = mass of object 1 times mass of object 2, the force is then divided by the distance from object 1 to object 2 times the distance from object 2 to object 1. The units are corrected with G"
That's a horrible way of explaining it

>>10587093
We could Just move G to the other side to make it
[math]\frac{F}{G} = \frac{m_1m_2}{r^{2}}[/math]

And then make the new unit for force that [math]\frac{F}{G}[/math] and remove the G from the equation altogether.
But then for every other equation we would have to adjust for that by multiplying the end result by G.

You'd get retarded shit like [math]F = Gma[/math].

The point is that its better to "adjust" one equation than every other equation, there just isn't a system of units that'll account for everything.

>>10589195
[math] c = \hbar = k_{B} = G = e = 1 [/math]

Now what, bitch

>>10587164
>Equatrions
what-everrr

>>10587399
>I'm not a dipshit
>I'm not, I'm not,I'm not
Yes you are.