spikerz66

gravity pulls in a straight line between the 2 objects. -whether or not it orbits another object before hitting it has to do with the fact that they were going in slightly different paths then. a really good example of this is to take 2 magnetic ball berings and roll them to each other in a flat surface. roll it so that there paths are parallel to each other. they will roll twards each other then hit each other than rotate. anything that has mass has gravity by definition, the fact that an object is makes it have gravity. black holes are an object so they have gravity so they are affected by gravity. again the fact that they are means they are affected by gravity. google video search and see if you cant find a computer simulated video of 2 black holes or galaxies colliding.

What happened!!!!????? call in the witch hunt!!! No really i can think of a few possiblities. -it was tipping from the beginning, just slowly -wind -animals -you bumped it -sudden change in the earths gravity (i couldnt help but put it there)

welcome! This problem if im not mistaken has puzzled many early physicists. Pretty much, that because of the fact that you and the earth were going at the rotational speed in the beginning (you are on the earth, and the earth is moving 493.8m/s, you are on the earth, you thus go the same speed) when you jump up you actually have traveled 493.8 meters (given you jump for one second) you just dont experience the horizontal movement because by the time you moved 493.8 meters the earth has also moved that far. your not moving because of your relative position, which is that of someone on the earth. Now if an astronaut was looking at you he would of seen you travel that far. Bc of his relative placement to the earth. Get it?

ok cool i get it now, i just saw some AMAZING show in the science channel about the evolution of stars so i get it now thanks for all the help guys

like the title said is our sun loosing its mass due to it converting its mass into energy? is this how a star "burns out?"

but i dont understand how this could happen. ill set up a really bad analogy. you are a little kid ridind a tricycle (you in this analogy is the speed of light) your dad for some reason ties a long rope around you while your riding the bike and starts pulling you in (the gravity pulling in the light) i dont understand how if you have no mass, lets just say you and the bike disapear suddenly (understanding that light is a photon) and "you" being the photon are gone, your mass is gone therefore to your dads amazement he pulls just an empty rope how can gravity pull on something that has no mass? something that is atomiclly "not there"

thanks swansont! that helped me understand it better i have been confused about this for the longest time. hmmmmm.... how then can light not escape from a black hole? what is the gravity of the black hole pulling on that prevents light from escaping it then?

sry i shoulf of posted this in my above post but i just rembered something that i find partially relevant to this post. i was wondering why doesent light have a mass? doesent everything have a mass even though it might be irmesuable?

hey actually i asked my teacher this exact same question last week. Bad News he didnt know why- So, i turned to my old firend Carl Sagan. well not actually. i watched his segment in the COSMOS mini series on light travel and to my amazement he brought up a WONDERFULL analogy about light travel and why you cant add your veloxcity to the speed of light. basically to sum it up into layman's terms it has to do with the fact that if your going at the speed of light then time will actually of slowed down i cant exactly remember why but its this speeding up of time, in this case you traveling at light speed, your speed up in time will be negated by the slowing of time, in the light waves that are around you. i believe this is called "time dilation?" correct me if im wrong i highly suggest you watching the segment about time travel in the COSMOS series, i believe its disc 5 if you have the DVD collection

Today in my phisics class my teacher was talking about gravity and he said that noone knows where gravity comes from. Im thinking- isnt gravity a direct relation derived from an objects mass? -why is this such a hard concept then, why cant noone find out where it comes from?

End effect: You collide with the wall. could you explain in more detail what tangential velocity and how you get it please? its a new word to me

hey ive been thinking about this for a long while and i cant think of what would happen? heres the scenario: your at a carnival on a gravitron ride (for those of you that dont know its the thing that you get inside and it spins pushing you to the inside wall) you somehow unrestrain yourself and manage to get on your knees and jump twards the center of the ring. once your in the air what would happen would you be pulled back twards the ring? or would you hit the ground then be pulled twards the outside of the ring. if so couldnt you simulate gravity in space by making a big ring and spinning it?

thank you 5614 for the diagrams i did not know what they were at all and now i have a pretty good idea about the casimir effect also. (im trying to catch up on these things )

call of duty big red one? or 2 for the 360?

evolution V. creationism "inteligent design" pretty much anything that involves ethics and free will is deemed as a "scientific boogeyman"

hello im new her this is only my second post so i dont know if i put this in the correct place or not but yeah... my problem is that on a test today my teaches asked us to factor: 2(x)squared+13(x)+15 i factored it out and got (2x+10)(x+1.5) my reasoning is as follows 2(x squared+6.5x+7.5) i divided by 2 2(x+5)(x+1.5) factored the terms (2x+10)(x+1.5) if you F.O.I.L. out the terms you get the original equasion (which i thought was "factoring" but however my teacher got a different answer) after thinking over this for a while i came to the conclusion that the term "factor" should have been replaced with "find the simplest factor" because what i had was a factor. the only thing why i can think of my problem being wrong is that if you take any whole number, ill say 5 and divide it by a decimal, ill say 3.125432 you get another infinite number 1.59977884657............ so with that said you could in theory have an infiniter number of solutions to a single "factor" problem here are some other problems that were on the test: 3x squared+21x i got (x+0)(3x+21) which again checks out 2x squared-32x i got (x+16)(x-16) again checking out could someone please explain to me why my original problem isnt correct? (by the way if anyone can tell me how to make "squared" that would also be helpfull) -BLK

im spikerz66 and ive got crabs. no really i do i got 2 there hermit crabs

By far in my opinion the Astronomer that contributed most to the field of Astronomy was Nicolaus Copernicus. Copernicus was the man that proposed the heliocentric theory. He sparked the Copernican revolution which would change how the world viewed the universe. Copernicus' major theory was published in the book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) Before him the most widley viewed theory was the geocentric theory. Some more important Astronomers: Galeleio Tycho Brahe (known for his amazingly accurate observations) Johannes Kepler (established the most exact astronomical tables then known; established the three laws of planetary motion) Edmond Halley (used his theory of cometary orbits to predict that the comet of 1682 (later named ``Halley's comet'') was periodic) Hope this helps you.