Tides

Short and easy, I'm not 100% sure. Where did you get "only applies to objects with mass?" anyways? The Newton equations?

You said that F=Gm1m2/r^2 was also found in General Relativity.  So, like I said, that must mean that GR now states that gravity is a force and only applies to objects with mass, as otherwise, the 'force of gravity' is zero.

What part of RE states that Newtons gravity has to be followed?

I don't remember saying it did.

Quote from: L0gic on April 27, 2007, 08:37:08 AM

Short and easy, I'm not 100% sure. Where did you get "only applies to objects with mass?" anyways? The Newton equations?

You said that F=Gm1m2/r^2 was also found in General Relativity.  So, like I said, that must mean that GR now states that gravity is a force and only applies to objects with mass, as otherwise, the 'force of gravity' is zero.

Quote

What part of RE states that Newtons gravity has to be followed?

I don't remember saying it did.

1. I meant to say that F=Gm1m2/r^2 was modeled. Additional components may be involved and are simply not used. Other equations may be used for massless objects. Like I said, I'm unsure. What would be the problem with GR accepting that?

2. Here are the posts:

Quote from: L0gic on April 26, 2007, 06:30:07 PM

Holy Hell! It is irrelevant! Gravity does not have any impact on laws of motion. We have a theory of gravity that is completely compatible with all other assertions by RE.

Except Newton's gravity. 

This seems to state that Newtons gravity is an implication of RE..

1. I meant to say that F=Gm1m2/r^2 was modeled. Additional components may be involved and are simply not used. Other equations may be used for massless objects. Like I said, I'm unsure. What would be the problem with GR accepting that?

The part of GR that states that gravity is not a force and applies to objects, massless or otherwise.

Quote from: L0gic on April 27, 2007, 09:15:00 AM

1. I meant to say that F=Gm1m2/r^2 was modeled. Additional components may be involved and are simply not used. Other equations may be used for massless objects. Like I said, I'm unsure. What would be the problem with GR accepting that?

The part of GR that states that gravity is not a force and applies to objects, massless or otherwise.

Sooo, it's a definitional technicality of "force"? Call it whatever you like.

Anyways, the number 2 was a response to your response to an actual question. "What part of RE states that Newtons gravity has to be followed?"

Sooo, it's a definitional technicality of "force"? Call it whatever you like.

If you consider "Force" and "Not a force" a technicality, then yes.

Anyways, the number 2 was a response to your response to an actual question. "What part of RE states that Newtons gravity has to be followed?"

Once again, when did I say it must?

Aren't you two getting a little anal?

Aren't you two getting a little anal?

Ya think. They just keeping going over the same argument over and over again, and neither will give in because they are stubborn beasts so this arguement will never end.

the whole faster than light thing.

I love this. I just love this. We have a FEer telling us about the Theory of Relativitys implications, while a flat earth would be going at least twice the speed of light right now. Beautiful, right up there with kitchen floors and refraction.

And yes, they are, assuming I'm thinking of it in the same manner as you.

I love this. I just love this. We have a FEer telling us about the Theory of Relativitys implications, while a flat earth would be going at least twice the speed of light right now.

Care to explain?  'Cause Relativity says otherwise.

We have a FEer telling us about the Theory of Relativitys implications, while a flat earth would be going at least twice the speed of light right now.

Oh, bad statement.  Reletivity dissagrees with you.  Just some advice, when it comes to reletivity, don't even try to out-do Gayer(TheEngineer).  You'll just end up embarassing yourself.  And if we were past the speed of light in your terms, we would be going 2 008 843 200 000 000 000 m/s, which is closer to 6 700 779 644 times the speed of light. -hopes he calculated right-

Quote from: L0gic on April 27, 2007, 09:24:36 AM

Sooo, it's a definitional technicality of "force"? Call it whatever you like.

If you consider "Force" and "Not a force" a technicality, then yes.

If I called it a force, a meant of nature. Not applied force like pushing a box.

Anyways, the number 2 was a response to your response to an actual question. "What part of RE states that Newtons gravity has to be followed?"

Once again, when did I say it must?
[/quote]

Once again, I will answer your question. Your response right below indicates as much.

Quote from: L0gic on April 26, 2007, 06:30:07 PM

Holy Hell! It is irrelevant! Gravity does not have any impact on laws of motion. We have a theory of gravity that is completely compatible with the assertions by RE.

Except Newton's gravity. 

While Newton's gravity isn't completely compatible, it is not an assertion by RE. Posting it to be an exception declares it as one.