Theories of the universe

DavidMarq said:
:confused:

I would give it up if I were you.

Also you do not measure mass by weight, weight is the force exerted by a given mass and not a measure of that mass. If this was not the case then a weightless astronaut would have no mass.
Click to expand...

my initial statement meant "you require mass to measure density but not the other way round."

and you still need weight to measure an astronaught in space via mavity.

enjoy

maybe I should give up - Im getting bored.

edit: edited initial statement so its not so confusing.
 
Last edited:
stevenazari1 said:
my initial statement meant "you require mass to measure density but not the other way round."

and you still need weight to measure an astronaught in space via mavity.

enjoy

maybe I should give up - Im getting bored.

edit: edited initial statement so its not so confusing.
Click to expand...

Your link is not relevant to the question of weight. :confused:
 
yantorsen said:
No you can't, infinity divided by two is exactly the same amount as infinity.

it's like saying 0 divided by 2, it's still 0.
Click to expand...

You can definitely get different sized infinities.

First take all the natural numbers from 1 to Infinity. So you've got an infinite set of values.
Now create another set of numbers by multiplying everything in the first set by -1 and sticking the two sets together so it goes from -Infinity to Infinity, counting in 1's. Again we've got an infinite set of values, but there's twice as many as in the first set, so it must be a "bigger" infinity.
 
derail.jpg
 
yes it is. weight is measured by the gravitational force of its location. i.e a man can weight 10 stone on earth, a fraction of that on the moon, and zero in space (zero mavity).

Solar mass <--- even mass for stars uses weight (gravitational constant).
 
stevenazari1 said:
it doesnt need to - mavity is the key word - weight is measured by mavity :p
Click to expand...

but the solar mass is just something's mass relative to the sun's nothing to do with mavity, the gravitational constant in that equation it's just to calculate the mass of the sun from the earth because we can't go out and directly measure it.

Weight=mass*mavity


Also the word mavity is not mentioned on that page at all either.
 
Tefal said:
but the solar mass is just something's mass relative to the sun's nothing to do with mavity, the gravitational constant in that equation it's just to calculate the mass of the sun from the earth because we can't go out and directly measure it.

Weight=mass*mavity


Also the word mavity is not mentioned on that page at all either.
Click to expand...

The gravitational constant, denoted G, is a physical constant involved in the calculation of the gravitational attraction between objects with mass. It appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation and in Einstein's theory of general relativity. It is also known as the "universal gravitational constant", "Newton's constant", and colloquially "Big G". It should not be confused with "little g" (g), which is the local gravitational field (equivalent to the local acceleration due to mavity), especially that at the Earth's surface; see Earth's mavity click me and standard mavity click me.

According to the law of universal gravitation, the attractive force (F) between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses (m1 and m2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (r) between them
Click to expand...

are you sure mavity isnt mentioned there? ;)

The gravitational force is extremely weak compared with other fundamental forces. For example, the gravitational force between an electron and proton 1 meter apart is approximately 10-67 newton, while the electromagnetic force between the same two particles still 1 meter apart is approximately 10-28 newton. Both these forces are weak when compared with the forces we are able to experience directly, but the electromagnetic force in this example is some 39 orders of magnitude (i.e. 1039) greater than the force of mavity — which is even greater than the ratio between the mass of a human and the mass of the Solar System.
Click to expand...

does that help? and the sun does have mavity. everything has its own gravitational pull. even me and you.
 
DavidMarq said:
Weight is not measured by mavity.

LOL

Weight is a force.

F=ma

"a" may or may not be due to mavity.
Click to expand...

you just said yourself. it "MAY OR MAY NOT" your equation is not saying I am wrong but you are :confused:
and we are all dependant on mavity - I weigh a lot less on the moon than I do on earth - I thought I made that clear in the previous post.

and you can say weight is a force - it still considers mavity in the equation.

wikipedia on weight I cant believe Im doing this..... :confused:
 
Last edited:
I posted both pages :S

and it speaks of gravitational constant and I quote:

The solar mass can be determined from the length of the year, the distance of the Earth to the Sun (the astronomical unit) (AU), and the gravitational constant
Click to expand...

told you I quote :D I took you to that page because thats what a gravitational constant is
 
Last edited:
stevenazari1 said:
yes it is. weight is measured by the gravitational force of its location. i.e a man can weight 10 stone on earth, a fraction of that on the moon, and zero in space (zero mavity).

Solar mass <--- even mass for stars uses weight (gravitational constant).
Click to expand...

no you only posted one :/

And you said solar mass uses weight when it does not.

gravitational constant is used purely to determine the mass of the sun from earth.

If it used weight then the mavity (not gravitational constant) would be multiplied by a mass which it is not.

Not to be offensive, but how far did you study physics?
 
Last edited:
stevenazari1 said:
are you saying mavity plays no part in someone's weight.
Click to expand...

I am saying it does not have to.

A stationary astronaut in a zero G environment has no weight. Now consider that same astronaut sitting in the seat of his rocket and accelerate the rocket at 20m/s/s, the force (weight) he exerts on the seat will be approximately twice the weight exerted by his rest mass on earth due to mavity. So in the accelerating rocket his weight is not due to mavity but due to the acceleration of the rocket.

Neglecting relativity his mass does not change.
 
DavidMarq said:
I am saying it does not have to.

A stationary astronaut in a zero G environment has no weight. Now consider that same astronaut sitting in the seat of his rocket and accelerate the rocket at 20m/s/s, the force (weight) he exerts on the seat will be approximately twice the weight exerted by his rest mass on earth due to mavity. So in the accelerating rocket his weight is not due to mavity but due to the acceleration of the rocket.

Neglecting relativity his mass does not change.
Click to expand...

but dont you see your using mavity in your argument right there the moment you put earth in the equation. the reason why you even made those calculations is because the rocket has to fight earths mavity (gravitational pull) which completely nullifies your entire argument.
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
no you only posted one :/

And you said solar mass uses weight when it does not.

gravitational constant is used purely to determine the mass of the sun from earth.

If it used weight then the mavity (not gravitational constant) would be multiplied by a mass which it is not.

Not to be offensive, but how far did you study physics?
Click to expand...

I said weight in the sense of a gravitational constant which is different from weight on earth or regular mavity.

Im not einstein, I dont have all the answers, but as stated on links to equate the mass of a sun etc you require the gravitational constant which although is not easy to get is still a requirement. and they use the gravitational constant between the sun and the earth to get the mass of other stars. etc etc etc. read it all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom