jajrussel

And Actually, I think I’m getting it, but I searched the number of times the word pull and push showed up in just one volume of a University Text and the score was 226 for pull, and 187 for push. Note, this was entirely in interest of their being anthropomorphic terms of little use in physics, yet still extremely useful unless they are used as terms of physics. Which isn’t exactly what you said I misunderstood the application, you wrote push (versus) pull is not useful. I could have saved myself a lot of mental exercise had I read and understood correctly the first time. Sorry, and thanks.

You forced me to Google, thank you . I will disagree until I find a reason to ag🤣ree . I looked up Ubi materia ibi geometria also , in the description the statement is made that nature and mathematics are intimately connected. There is a PDF I intend to read to see if it allows me to continue to disagree. 👍

No. I don’t think it would have made a difference then, but I don’t know. There was a tumor I was living with unknowingly. A few years ago they took it out. Background wise unless you consider YouTube and or SFN post secondary education the answer is no

So there is a distinction there is F=ma push then there is F=GMm/R2 pull F =ma seems incomplete as a formula because it only accounts for how m is affected by acceleration, but what it seems to me doesn’t matter, because then, who? I think it is credited to Einstein, says acceleration is the same as gravity. So if F= ma then gravity can not be a force because you have to multiply acceleration which is the same as gravity times mass to get what is called force, so gravity and force can not be the same thing. Is this why it is said that gravity is not a force?

This is where I got the word lift. Not arguing just saying. Not certain if I added this picture correctly? Guess I have to hit submit to find out… note it is not a link, just part of a screenshot.

Okay, I was thinking for the first question that if both ma and GMm/R2 equaled force I could write it F=ma=GMm/R2 . Which is not exactly how I wrote it the first time but I borrowed the shorthand from swansont for the latter portion. What I thought I was writing is force equals mass time acceleration ,and force equals G times mass one times mass two divided by the radius squared. Since force is described as equal to both expressions. I assumed it would be okay to write F=ma=Gmm/R2 since the expression on each side of the equal signs I presumed to be equal. As for the second question. Are you saying that by canceling mass out, force and acceleration are shown to be the same?

Thanks , I don’t write or think fast enough. I’ll read and think on this a while.

Doesn’t F=GM1M2/R2 apply to me and the earth? At a spin of 28,437 km per hour we lift off. My assumption is that in order for that to happen the acceleration due to spin would have to exceed the forces connecting us.

Okay… I’m nearly 70 years old, and not in school. I’m pretty sure the rules of the forum will allow you to elaborate.

I read that Earth would have to spin at 28,437 km per hour to cause us to lift off the surface. I’m assuming at that point we would effectively be weightless. Seemingly throwing a wrench into F=GM1M2/R2 , so what effect would it have on the moon?

I merged two formulas for Force I saw in a video. First - Did I do it right? F = ma= (G*M1*M2)/R2 1. F = ma 2. F = G M1M2/ R2 Second- If it is right does G/R2 represent the acceleration part of F= ma ?

I remember reading that the root of the word pagan was essentially equal to peasant/not of the city. Apparently, now it is said to be the term that Christian Romans etc. used to allude to anyone not of the Abrahamic religions generally as a slur. My observation is that pagans seem to prefer the peasant/not of the city referral. Was it the video thumbnail that prompted the question. 😂 I didn’t understand what was written in Wikipedia any more than I did the comment. I assume by being an influence on those who grew up run the Navy? I remember hearing that most Hippies grew up to be Bankers, Doctors, Lawyer's, and such. I don’t know that George got that memo, but he was a good influence on some until the end.

SFN may not approve of video's, but upon hearing about the naked girls, hmm. Oh yes, why is Paganism rising? Having once followed a major religion I found that my peers were more accepting of those called pagan. It’s kind of an oddity to me, but I could never quite get it right when asked what I believed. Apparently, it’s conditional that you absolutely agree, and rarely did I meet someone who would agree to disagree. Maybe it was just me, but I feel more comfortable around people more open to differences. Paganism is generally accepted as eclectic. It’s definition not written in stone to the extent that major religions are, or for that matter to the point where followers of Heathenism, or Wicca seem to be staking out their territories within what the major religions call the pagan community. I remember when the Geraldines would issue challenge to name the god and goddess as writ of proof. Which, I never really understood because everyone supposedly knew that aside from being sacred those names were secret. But, why is Paganism rising, most simply the access and somewhat anonymity of the internet . Yes I know the perceived anonymity is pretty much a smokescreen, but if you watch the videos those claiming to be Pagan mostly cling to eclecticism. At least that is my perception, and my belief is, that is what makes it more appealing as a label one would feel comfortable wearing. In their videos Pagan personalities are almost always esthetically pleasing in both appearance and personality, so I would be surprised if belief in Paganism wasn’t rising. I didn’t watch the video so I don’t know if the question was actually about the video, but when it comes to matters of religion sometimes the question only presents to create a perception that doesn’t actually exist, which in the right atmosphere would definitely lead to a challenge for data. Often that is the case, but personally I would like to think that an interest in Paganism is rising, because I perceive it as eclectic, and I like that some people that are more open to differences do actually exist as a community that I can be a part of. 🤔 so long as they don’t ask for money…

Apparently I’ve misunderstood what they meant by stationary, but still as I read about it, it is still confusing. It says ( the ether has to be remaining stationary with respect to the star as the earth moved through it. ) looking at their picture I can only assume this means what? I don’t know, because all my guesses say why would they think they could recreate a situation that seems implied by that statement?

Aether, I know it doesn’t exist. My question is about why we know it doesn’t exist. The Michelson-Morley experiment. Which actually as I read about it doesn’t really make sense to me because if c is c invariant what exactly were they looking for? But, Einstein’s c invariant was after M&M, okay that lines up. Hmm, but what other proofs were being looked for? why was Aether assumed stationary? If they expected it to be stationary, why were they assuming a variation of c would be found? I would assume that a stationary system would have to be non-reactive. the reason I ask is because I was watching a video about dark matter, and dark energy and the reasons they are believed to exist and the reasons why they are called dark. So, we can see the reasons we think they do exist. Then I’m wondering, why did they think Aether existed, originally? What were they looking for to prove Aether existed? What would be the difference between an Aether that doesn’t react with light and matter, accept gravitationally, and dark matter? Was the M&M experiment based solely on an expected variable c? Thank you.

Every bolded word is of your own doing. I simply read them and assumed that they were bolded with intent. I especially like this part Where you say please don't be, then embolden the word scared. Though it is annoying that you would imply that my being afraid was inspired by your desire to help certain people. My actual fear is that you might be in a position to teach, and it is based on my belief of religious freedom, and the realities that wrote it into the Constitution. From my perspective the sense of having to keep my mouth shut in order to belong is not limited to acceptance within a religious order. I can understand ones heart being filled with anger and hatred, but nothing justifies it being taught, and when you write and embolden specific words it does come across that your intent is to teach those who don't know any better, that they are wrong. You are right initially it was Spock, but I think Data was programmed to personify Spock, and it seems I remember Data with a slight tilt of the head, with an expression of perfect wonder, saying; "fascinating!" However, I could be wrong. 🤔🧐

You were preaching friend with so much enthusiasm that it presented with every fear you spoke of. I don't mean to go all Star Trek Data on you but it was, fascinating. A perfect example of how anti-theism to extreme becomes the example most perfect of religion gone bad. It was scary, because I began to feel the fears you spoke of as if your intent was to teach by example. It was so, so real, and so unexpected. It is amazing if you cannot see what I speak of in your own arguments, and recognize that you were indeed preaching, using with absolute perfection every skill that most preachers can only imagine they own. Though I would imagine that in this forum it could be argued that nothing is absolute, and that the closest thing to perfection in science that can be achieved can only be presented to the smallest degree of uncertainty.

So far I have come away from this conversation thinking that if religionist are not allowed to preach then atheist definitely should not be allowed to preach.

Here is a link to a somewhat lengthy report put out on March 17. I know that there are a lot of brilliant people in the world who are capable of producing such a report in a very short order, but I have my own reasons for wondering if this novel virus isn’t so novel it’s little things like certain attentions paid to detail, and one annoying detail listed on my chart that I couldn’t seem to get anyone to pay attention to when I would ask why the reference was there. Specifically a reference linking me to Diabetes Mellitus on my chart which was news to me. Now the reference is gone, but I should have a hard copy somewhere. It was almost like some were looking for something, and expecting to find it. I think of it as somewhat of a novel mystery. Not a conspiracy. It is a pdf link... https://www.tnmgrmu.ac.in/images/2020/doe/COVID19_Report_24March2020.pdf

The potential vaccine candidate reported on April 23 in several articles? if I manage to get the link right this being one of them? https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/coronavirus-mgr-medical-university-develops-vaccine-candidate/article31410701.ece

A failing of the Economic System, or of Humanity? There used to be a chant that was made that went “No child left behind.” One would think that to accept that philosophy a human being might recognize that you don’t just hand out t-shirts then assume that the child is not starving. It is dangerous to ignore any possibility that could contribute to a dangerous state.

It is all a little confusing. We may or may not develop a vaccine. There seems to be differences of opinions as to whether or not it is the virus that kills, or it is the underlying conditions that kill.. Hmm, I had angina, they placed three stints in me, and the plan was to send me home that day, but I rapidly developed a cough while in the recovery phase of the procedure. I don’t know why I developed the cough, but the result was they did not send me home. Instead they admitted me and presumably treated the cough. I’m glad they did I got better. This may not seem related but I wonder had they sent me home and had I died what exactly would have been the reason written on my death certificate? This was in early November so, I highly doubt coved 19. Even so, I don’t know what they would have written but I am sure they would have had to write something. However, they admitted me and treated me until I was well enough to go home. Maybe it has effected my view? I don’t want to read that anyone has died from coved 19, but if I have to read it I would rather read that the patient was receiving treatment in a hospital were they could deal with underlying conditions. I don’t want to read that the patient was treated then released, then died days later of an underlying condition. Which, I have read was initially generally being recorded, until someone said no, count the virus as the cause. Apparently for reasons I don’t understand the difference is of importance. It should be clear by now. Yes we need a vaccine, but we also need to get a whole lot better at dealing with underlying conditions, and damn the monetary cost of either. Honestly though, after spending the last six months trying not to die, for my life, I cannot understand why anyone likely to get the virus because of susceptibility would volunteer to test the vaccine.

I just faced one of those of course you have a a right to choose speeches. I did not say no, exactly.what I said is that I want to wait and think about it. Their response I assume was a standard legal response. They changed the wording from chose to refused so I felt pressured to change this apparently foolish choice I had made immediately. They also, started citing policy that prevented me from participating in a program I was already participating in. They talk a good game, but there is only a similitude of free will designed to please the masses. Which can,so will be manipulated to control the individual. There is no free will in that manner. You can make choices. A teacher once taught me that. You might not have control of the choices,but you can choose.

The question and answer may hinge on weather you have a choice. I recently faced an event where I willed an outcome knowing full well that consciously l had no choice I would liken it to a coin toss I didn't care for it either. Post theory is that I had plenty of choices but made all the wrong ones, so maybe it wasn't as simple as a coin toss? Maybe it never really is? Now I presumably have free will again, but they keep underscoring that at any second now, maybe not! Hmm...

You resisted? Isn’t that in itself evidence of free will? You used the word convinced presumably against an overwhelming compulsion. Isn’t that in itself evidence of free will? I’m sorry if I’m being redundant? I thought of the Borg. Resistance is futile. Maybe not the most scientific approach? An imaginary species that states you have no free will, don’t resist, yet what is resistance if not free will? The compulsion was no longer controlling, the moment you convinced yourself to act in a manner that showed Free will.