/sci/ - Science & Math

I can't makes no sense

Is not an equally opposing reaction to anything

Doesn't follow newton's own rules

Why the moon doesn't fall onto the earth?

>>15897051
No.

>>15897051
gravity is just the basic observational fact that massive objects very clearly appear to exert a force on each other that decreases with the square of the distance
we know this experimentally both from objects at varying distances from Earth (like satellites), and observationally from e.g. the orbits of the planets
>>15897053
>makes no sense
makes perfect sense
>Is not an equally opposing reaction to anything
>Doesn't follow newton's own rules
blatantly false, the force is indeed exerted on both objects
but the entire point, and the genius of the formulation of the law, is that a given force will accelerate more massive objects less (F = ma), and as such a massive object will hardly be affected by the force exerted upon it by an object with very little mass in comparison
this is why we simply use gravitational acceleration to describe the acceleration massive objects will experience under the influence of the gravitational field of a planet, because varying the mass of the objects won't matter at all due to them both being negligible relative to the mass of the planet itself
and that is also why feathers and bowling balls in vacuum chambers fall to the ground at the exact same rate
>Why the moon doesn't fall onto the earth?
why would it?
same reason the planets don't fall into the Sun: the tangential speed of their orbits is in equilibrium with the gravitational acceleration to cause nearly circular motion (with varying eccentricity)
the Moon does however, as per what I explained above, exert the same force on Earth as Earth does on it, and in the case of the Moon this force is not negligible since the Moon is within a couple of magnitudes in terms of mass
this causes the Earth-Moon barycenter to be located near the outer parts of Earth, so someone with a cosmic perspective of the Solar System would see Earth wobble back and forth in its orbit around the Sun as it orbits around that Earth-Moon barycenter simultaneously
pic related illustrates this

>>15897051
Things orbiting one another is because of gravity. Otherwise they'd just fly right by each other and keep on going
>>15897053
Newtons stuff was just an estimation. And he thought gravity was a force like magnetism or something and its magnitude was based on the mass of the objects. But Einstein said no. And he also said that gravity is the curvature of space which is caused by the mass of the objects, so newton was partially right. So mass compresses space locally around the mass and this causes things to move toward each other. If one of the masses is going too fast it will still fly right by the other, maybe changing trajectory a bit. But if that mass is travelling slow enough, but not too slow, it's trajectory will be changed enough so that it's basically stuck going around the other mass forever. Satellites orbiting earth work this way, they're petty much constantly falling towards earth. But they're going a certain speed that's not too slow that they do fall to earth, and not too fast that they fly off into space. The moon works the same way too

>>15897106
You didn't prove anything. So much text for nothing.

>>15897106
>>Doesn't follow newton's own rules
>blatantly false, the force is indeed exerted on both objects
It kind of does follow newtons rules, but it also doesn't. Newtonian gravity is more of an estimation
>gravity is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which describes gravity as a force
>Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915), which describes gravity not as a force, but as the curvature of spacetime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Note that they avoid calling gravity a force in the introduction of the article, instead calling it an interaction. But they do call electromagnetism a force in the same paragraph

>>15897137
can't cure willful ignorance, there's no way to pull people's heads out of the sand if they don't want to see
I explained perfectly well what it means that gravity is an obvious observational and experimental fact of reality
>>15897141
relativity theory is total nonsense with zero basis in reality

>>15897051
Gravity is an apparent phenomena with no true definitive proof as of yet. The theoretical quanta of gravity, the graviton, has yet to be measured. And may never be because they are so miniscule that one would theoretically need Planck Length level sensor resolution

anyway, leaving this thread now, enough stupid for me for today
one retard who doesn't want to acknowledge the existence of gravity, and another who thinks Einsteinian relativity cultism has any bearing on reality whatsoever
what a sad state of affairs
closing this tab now, bye

^midwit mad

>>15897146
You seem kinda retarded

>>15897149
>what is gravitational lensing

>>15897148
>apparently phenomenon*

>>15897149
You must be at least 18 to use this website

>>15897051
Why don't you throw yourself off a building? You'll find the proof then

Take pen, drop pen, pen falls down.

>>15897106
So the earth/moon moves and no amount of extra pull be the sun be the others planets can distort the moon's orbit?

Cause any orbital change would send it spiriling into and no mount of relative mass will change the fact the earth is just bigger

>>15897121
Makes more sense relative speed keeps inertia still weird that a planetary allignment can't speed it up

>>15897051
Question! Question!
If gravity can exert its force over infinite long distances over all angles in space! How can we test quantum phenomenons without violating the "observed" condition since gravitational force would be considered an observation from their definition.
How do they even test things while eliminating all "observations"

>>15897268
Don't quantum and gravity and you will do fine

>>15897272
But they are always knitted together in every equation ever, and I have yet to receive a satisfying answer thus far.

>>15897277
B4 they don't mix well

One Newton wasn't thinking beyond atoms if it even and quantum theorists don't wanna deal with cause effect

Their theories will never match

>>15897268
Gravity doesn't actually exert forces like how something like magnetism does. Gravity is the curvature of space. The more mass there is at some point in space the more space becomes curved. Things flying around in space are affected by this curvature and it alters their trajectory and velocity. The old analogy is like putting a bowling ball and a tennis ball on a mattress together. The bowling ball would curve the mattress downward around itself and the tennis ball will be affected by this and start rolling towards the bowling ball. It kind of looks like the bowling ball is attracting the tennis ball but it's not, it's only affecting the curvature of the mattress. That explains the situation for a 2D plane, but in space this is happening in 3D. The earth for example isn't swishing space like a mattress, but instead it's kind of compressing the space around itself all at once, like in picrel

>>15897146
You didn't explain shit, faggot.

>>15897333
Space also exists within earth tho.

>>15897333
>Gravity is the curvature of space
But space isn't made of anything, what is curving?

Gravity is the mediating force between quantum and consciousness. Gravity causes the wave function to collapse after the entanglement between external and mental world has been established. Without gravity you wouldn't experience qualia.

>>15897744
I'm not even mad because it's not a full wall of text. you said literally everything that is stupid but very concise. I can respect that

>>15897723

The curvature, the Difference, precedes what it differentiates.

>>15897191
>So the earth/moon moves and no amount of extra pull be the sun be the others planets can distort the moon's orbit?
I don't think you understand the situation. Earth and Luna are both orbiting Sol, there's no "extra pull", and the influence of the other planets is negligible short-term, but long-term they do cause fluctuations in various parameters, such as axial tilt, rotational speed, orbital inclination, and eccentricity.
>Cause any orbital change would send it spiriling into
I have no idea why you think this, but that's not true at all. There's a ton of "wiggle room" for the parameters to change without any catastrophic spiraling of Luna into Earth, or flying away from Earth either for that matter. Technically Luna is moving away from Earth, but only at such a slow rate that it would take 10 billion years for the orbital distance to double (assuming a constant rate, which would of course not be the case, but just to illustrate how slowly we're talking).

>>15897829
Ok now explain that "room" to not fall in equation form using gravity

>>15897829
>Earth and Luna are both orbiting Sol
>Earth
I mean, Luna and Sol roll so beautifully, but you have that english shit word which sounds like a literal retard making weird sounds. sounds so fucking bad.

>>15897885
He should of said Gaia.

>>15897051
notice how you're mom attracts so many dicks because she's so fat. her pussy is literally a black hole

>>15897892
>Gaia
beauty
listen burgers, you came with all that latinx bullshit, the rest of the world cancels your shit word, it is now called Gaia you piece of shit sexist racist. none of that retarded sounds you kept making so far. GAIA

>>15897885
I agree, personally I prefer to call our planet Tellus, but that's typically when most people start getting too confused.
>>15897892
>>15897908
No, that's Greek. In Latin it would be Tellus. That's the same problem that led Bode to erroneously call the planet Uranus despite all the other planet names being in Greek. Personally I prefer to call that planet Caelus to rectify that mistake.
>>15897879
There's no simple equation to describe that, you have to understand what all the different factors at play are and how they self-regulate to create an equilibrium in the first place. Think about how if you throw a buoy into the sea it will at first bob up and down and back and forth sideways and so on until it finally comes to rest in its equilibrium position, and then will have some variation due to its movement due to the energy of the sea, but it will never sink or start flying into the air of its own, because the deeper it sinks the more buoyant it becomes, and the higher it's thrown into the air the less buoyant it becomes so that it falls back down. The exact same principle applies here, because all the gravitational interactions in the Solar System are constantly offsetting each other in various ways. Even the movement of Luna away from Tellus occurs only within the confines of tidal acceleration, and would stop occurring once Earth were to tidally lock to Luna as well, but this won't happen until in ~50 billion years, long after Sol engulfs the entire Solar System. It would take a catastrophic event that broke the equilibrium beyond the point of self-regulation to throw all of this into chaos.

>>15897909
I would have taken atmosphere, things physical gas liquid and plasma between the earth and the moon keep the moon in orbit due to density

But go ahead gravity and movement

>>15897892
>>15897908
>Gaia
That's greek, retards. Luna and Sol are latin so it should be Terra

>>15897908
>>15897909
I will say though that I'm not inherently opposed to naming the planets in Greek, but if that's really your preference you should at least be consistent, i.e. the planets should then be called (from closest to the center of the Solar System to the furthest out) Hermes, Aphrodite, Gaia, Ares, Zeus, Kronos, Ouranos, and Poseidon
and of course Sol should then be called Helios, and Luna would be Selene.
>>15897913
While it's a common misconception among people who don't really understand buoyancy, the idea that density explains anything about gravity is incorrect, it's the other way around, buoyancy only exists due to gravity in the first place, that's why you get a gradient from most dense to least dense to begin with.
>>15897915
Tellus, not Terra. Terra would be very insulting in this context, because it refer to any part of the crust, including lifeless dirt, whereas Tellus specifically refers to life-bearing soil, and is what Romans originally called their conception of Tellus as a goddess.

>>15897915
yeah like latinx makes more sense. it's at least as retarded so stop complaining.
>Tellus
that reeks of opressive patriarchy. don't think you can do much with that
>Terra
yeah, maybe
>Gaia
now that oozes girl cock.

>>15897922
>Tellus, not Terra
I stand corrected

>>15897922
So density and gravity are related

And we have problems determining the density of celestial objects, including space itself

>>15897051
Jump off a building
See what happens

>>15897931
>So density and gravity are related
Not directly, but density refers to the amount of mass per unit of volume, and gravity depends on mass, so naturally there are relationships between them. Buoyancy is one such example, as it is calculated from both gravitational acceleration and density of the fluid in question.
>And we have problems determining the density of celestial objects, including space itself
We have very good measurements of both of those for objects inside the Solar System and the interplanetary medium they occupy.

>>15897941
So you dug a hole to the center of the earth to see how dense it was?

Otherwise is not meassuring just an aproximation based on calculations that were aproximations to begin with

>>15897960
>So you dug a hole to the center of the earth to see how dense it was?
You don't have to measure every cubic centimeter of the planet. Trying to argue that just leaves you in a situation where you can't gain any scientific knowledge whatsoever, since you can't measure everything in the universe all at once. In reality you combine a ton of different measurements of different types and piece together a large picture based on that. You can call that an "approximation" if you're desperate to take the position of ignorance, but all models are ultimately "approximations" (as the adage goes, "all models are wrong, but some are useful"), so it's pointless to bring that up as if that's somehow a point against it.

>>15897723
Is basically reality that's curving

>>15897971
Lasers.

We couldn't accurately meassure the distance between earth and moon the someone invented lasers

And presto we can, stop dodging reality is cool to work around the problem of not accurate meassuring but perfecting meassuring is better

>>15897106
>Earth wobble back and forth in its orbit around the Sun as it orbits around that Earth-Moon barycenter simultaneously
Never thought about this, what are the effects on the weather?

>>15897991
>Lasers.
>We couldn't accurately meassure the distance between earth and moon the someone invented lasers
You're just repeating the exact same fallacious nonsense that I just pointed out. Again: you don't need to have an accurate measurement of absolutely everything to have a reasonably accurate model.
>>15897992
Negligible, as the distance is several orders of magnitude smaller than even the difference between perihelion and aphelion (~5 million km difference between the latter vs. just ~9000 km of difference between the latter). The difference between perihelion and aphelion does have some effect though (makes Northern Hemisphere winters and summer noticeably milder and cooler respectively, and conversely Southern Hemisphere winters and summer even colder and even hotter respectively), but that's of course unrelated to exactly what you're asking. Somewhat more related is the gravitational effects of all the other bodies that cause slight changes in the parameters I mentioned previously over time, which causes the Milankovitch cycles that play a larger role over long periods of time, having various periods ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years long, pic related.

>>15897148
Reminder there’s literally 0 evidence a graviton exists besides "well the other 3 fundamental forces have a particle associated with them so there for gravity must as well!"

>>15897051
Define gravity