Message from @STLdaddy
Discord ID: 600826783331385354
@Human Sheeple do you remember george or joshy
Memeulous
-Sheeple
>>mute 338073635162161153
<:vSuccess:390202497827864597> Successfully muted **Psyclone**#0382
<:honkler:596885550238007336> @Czepa
yes?
"...Einstein created his GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY —which provides OUR MODERN UNDERSTANDING of gravity —with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics.
Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and NOT AN INVISIBLE FORCE , gives rise to gravitational attraction."
Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/
'gravity' IS NOT A FORCE !!!!! :
"Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity (1915), the prototype of all modern gravitational theories. Its crucial ingredient, involving a colossal intellectual jump, is the concept of gravitation,
NOT AS A FORCE , but as a manifestation of the curvature of space-time..."
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Bekenstein/bekenstein.html
Brian Cox: "There ISN'T Really A FORCE of gravity at all..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zas--VfFdmk&feature=youtu.be&t=1020
Georgy F##### Musser (2019):
"Gravity is NOT A FORCE but you can think of it 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..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
"In general relativity, gravity IS NOT A FORCE between masses".
https://www.universetoday.com/108740/how-we-know-gravity-is-not-just-a-force/
"Strictly speaking, gravity is NOT A "FORCE..."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564598119590002708/600824134150389771/PendulumMagnet.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564598119590002708/600824153821675531/PendulumCircuit.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564598119590002708/600824138663329878/15-foucaults_pendulum.pdf
wow pendulum ki
t
incoming
Here's at what I was attempting at getting at with the disregard to certain qualities work.
These days there's a popular trend when simulating things to simulate every possible mechanism we can imagine. Those who think that way would agree with you. Why would you ever make a flat Earth model when everything is eventually going to make its first flight on a real rotating spherical-ish Earth?
This approach works great until you come across real development or computational limits. The cited paper is from 1988. Computers were much weaker back then. For perspective, the Cray Y-MP was sold that year. Its peak performance was 333 megaflops. She cost $15 million dollars. Contrast that to today. A Geforce GTX 1070 is capable of 6,500,000 megaflops (6.5 teraflops) and has a price tag of around $400.
In those days, you didn't waste computational power on frivolities. It turns out that for a vast array of aeronautical problems, the effects of a flat earth vs. round are minimal (much less the effects of rotating vs. not). If you're shooting a shell 15km, and need it to land with pinpoint precision, you need all that extra complexity. However, many aero problems include a guidance unit which would address any error due to Coriolis effects or the spherical ground the same way it would handle any other errors. It'd simply see it wasn't on the right path and make a correction. The other sources of error here, such as winds, play a far larger effect in deviations from a flight plan, so all the rotating and spherical effects can just get lost in the noise.
Even today, we still make flat Earth models. The reason is not computation time, like it was in 1988, but development time. The more things you model, the more things you need to develop, verify, and maintain. If a particular problem does not call for advanced models, why waste budget developing and maintaining them?
A real life example of this shows up in geoids. Quite often we can do all the modeling we need with a spherical Earth. However, sometimes we find that we need to model the Earth with its proper oblate shape, so we them switch to the WGS84 geoid, or any one of its brethren. The price: all sorts of fun complexities. When I say I have a "forward/right/down" body rotation matrix, is the "down" vector towards the center of the earth, or is it perpendicular to the geoid? On a sphere, they're the same. On an oblate spheroid, I have to take the time to figure out which one was intended. If I don't take the time,
F = G*((m sub 1*m sub 2)/r^2), where F is the force of attraction between the two bodies, G is the universal gravitational constant, m sub 1 is the mass of the first object, m sub 2 is the mass of the second object and r is the distance between the centers of each object.
The formula you were looking for @mineyful
2(-)2=4
lol if the earth was scaled like that
14 miles is not that noticeable on that scale lmao
if the gif was somewhat accurate that bulge is more like a couple hundred miles
Mount Everest is ~5 miles high
4 Mount Everest's aren't going to show up as a a significant thing on that scale
What. You don’t like @Citizen Z ‘s gif? 😮
lol no if he scaled it right I might
but I shouldn't talk out against authority right
but i should be able to have constructive criticisms against a gif without fear of getting banned