Why do you believe in the theory of Gravity?

You know since, as it seems to me, most of you people here are deluded to the idea that the Earth is round. Yet your on a Flat Earth Forum...... How stupid... Might as well call this "The Round Earth Society".... Anyways...

So why do you believe in Gravity?
The most magical of bullshit.

Considering:

- its elementary particle, a graviton, has never been found.

- We cannot measure gravity. (My favorite part is when Round Earther's believe it has been because their faith is hella strong.)


SHOW PHYSICAL PROOF OF GRAVITY I don't want your theory or equations, they mean shit.


Even CERN omits it from the Standard Model: explaining how the basic building blocks of matter interact, governed by four fundamental forces.

"So far so good, but...

...it is not time for physicists to call it a day just yet. Even though the Standard Model is currently the best description there is of the subatomic world, it does not explain the complete picture. The theory incorporates only three out of the four fundamental forces, omitting gravity."

Source: http://home.cern/about/physics/standard-model

I wonder why... and I'm sure most of the responses for this will be "Despite its name, the weak force is much stronger than gravity but it is indeed the weakest of the other three." Copied and pasted from the same link. Because that's surely a sound rebuttal.

You know since, as it seems to me, most of you people here are deluded to the idea that the Earth is round. Yet your on a Flat Earth Forum...... How stupid... Might as well call this "The Round Earth Society".... Anyways...

So why do you believe in Gravity?
The most magical of bullshit.

Considering:

- its elementary particle, a graviton, has never been found.

- We cannot measure gravity. (My favorite part is when Round Earther's believe it has been because their faith is hella strong.)




Even CERN omits it from the Standard Model: explaining how the basic building blocks of matter interact, governed by four fundamental forces.

"So far so good, but...

...it is not time for physicists to call it a day just yet. Even though the Standard Model is currently the best description there is of the subatomic world, it does not explain the complete picture. The theory incorporates only three out of the four fundamental forces, omitting gravity."

Source: http://home.cern/about/physics/standard-model

I wonder why... and I'm sure most of the responses for this will be "Despite its name, the weak force is much stronger than gravity but it is indeed the weakest of the other three." Copied and pasted from the same link. Because that's surely a sound rebuttal.

Haha a mew guy Welcome !

First of all the only reason that we know about these peculiarities in atomic physics is because of those scientists reporting it,

So how exactly we should decide what parts of their narrative can be accepted as true ? Or why should we even cherry pick ?

Why don't we just listen to them how they explain general gravity, as we listen to the subatomic physics part ?

I'm looking for an answer not more questions, sorry. Nor am I cherry picking, guess your a round earther... What a surprise! Not..

Your contribution to the debate: 0

Go somewhere else.

I'm looking for an answer not more questions, sorry. Nor am I cherry picking, guess your a round earther... What a surprise! Not..

Your contribution to the debate: 0

Go somewhere else.

Don't be such inpatient snowflake, we have very knowledgeable guys here with lots of patient and since you  started the hurling stereotypic insults thing like in first comment I say that you will going to just deny their explanation without even looking

So you don't believe that if you hopping on your ass you will approach the ground with 1 g ?

You dont even have to call it gravity, you can call it weight force, and take a clue from there gravity something to do with mass, so in the atomic world which consist mainly of empty spaces between nucleuses, a mas derived force is not really a player.

and yes that's a rebuttal and you cherry picking

" "Despite its name, the weak force is much stronger than gravity but it is indeed the weakest of the other three." Copied and pasted from the same link. Because that's surely a sound rebuttal."

Uhm maybe thats why ? gravity is Not just weaker, its several orders of magnitude weaker, there is a difference


"Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions of nature. The gravitational attraction is approximately 10^38 times weaker than the strong force, 10^36 times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 10^29 times weaker than the weak force. As a consequence, gravity has a negligible influence on the behavior of subatomic particles, and plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter "


Also Who needs gravitons ? Not me, thats for sure :

"Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy. The most extreme example of this curvature of spacetime is a black hole, from which nothing can escape once past its event horizon, not even light"

"However, the most familiar force in our everyday lives, gravity, is not part of the Standard Model, as fitting gravity comfortably into this framework has proved to be a difficult challenge."

Believe it or not, humans are not omniscient. We are still trying to wrap our heads around this weird and mysterious universe.

To answer your first question:
Because it has the most evidence. Do you have a better explanation? Feel free to explain how you are smarter than the centuries of scientists who have formulated the standard explanations...... go ahead.

You know since, as it seems to me, most of you people here are deluded to the idea that the Earth is round. Yet your on a Flat Earth Forum...... How stupid... Might as well call this "The Round Earth Society".... Anyways...

That is because all it takes for bullshit to triumph is for smart people to say nothing.

Regardless, this is set up as a debate forum, for debating FE.
You can't have a debate if you only have one side.

Also, we aren't the deluded ones.

So why do you believe in Gravity?
The most magical of bullshit.

Because that is what all the evidence shows.
There is nothing magical about it.
FE is the one with all the magic.

- We cannot measure gravity. (My favorite part is when Round Earther's believe it has been because their faith is hella strong.)

We have measured gravity.
There are numerous experiments which have measured it, including the value of the gravitational constant.

What makes you think we can't?

Even CERN omits it from the Standard Model: explaining how the basic building blocks of matter interact, governed by four fundamental forces.

Because unlike FEers, they are honest and will admit when they don't have a complete understanding.
Their standard model does not explain everything.

That doesn't change the fact that all the evidence (that is relevant to the discussion at hand) shows that gravity is real.

Why don't you accept gravity?
Do you have anything to take its place?

You know since, as it seems to me, most of you people here are deluded to the idea that the Earth is round. Yet your on a Flat Earth Forum...... How stupid... Might as well call this "The Round Earth Society"....

If you can't stand debating your rubbish with others with contrary views, you might limit yourself to:
Surely the best ways for flat earthers to find weaknesses in their model, and they are numerous, is to debate them with "non-believers", but:

Anyways...
So why do you believe in Gravity?

Because it works and explains the way objects "fall down".
At least in regions without extremely large mass/energy densities it behaves in exactly the way

The most magical of bullshit.[/b]
Considering:
- its elementary particle, a graviton, has never been found.

Your statement would also imply that:

Discovery of Photon
The photon is known as the quantum of electromagnetic radiation. In physics, a quantum is a basic indivisible unit or state that may be present or absent but never stronger or weaker.

In 1905, Albert Einstein published a paper describing his discovery of the photoelectric effect where a photon acts like a particle.

- We cannot measure gravity. (My favorite part is when Round Earther's believe it has been because their faith is hella strong.)

Completely untrue! Gravitation has been directly measured numerous times, the first being in 1798/99.
The number of if simply a reflection of the difficulties involved and the fact the nobody denies that out knowledge of gravitation in incomplete.
I have a list of the results of 61 such experiments done up until the year 2000.
You might take a peek at Would the Cavendish Experiment disprove FE? « Reply #3 on: April 26, 2017, 01:19:41 PM »

Even CERN omits it from the Standard Model: explaining how the basic building blocks of matter interact, governed by four fundamental forces.

And the "four fundamental forces" are:

Fundamental Forces




From: Hyperphysics, Fundamental Forces

Yes, number 4 is "Gravity". Gravitation is not omitted! It does not yet fit into the standard modej, but so what?
Nobody is claiming that our knowledge of the universe is complete.
Even Albert Einstein is reported to have said
“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”
                   ― Albert Einstein
From Goodreads

"So far so good, but...

...it is not time for physicists to call it a day just yet. Even though the Standard Model is currently the best description there is of the subatomic world, it does not explain the complete picture. The theory incorporates only three out of the four fundamental forces, omitting gravity."
Source: http://home.cern/about/physics/standard-model

OK, the "Standard Model . . . .  does not explain the complete picture." So what?
Our knowledge is incomplete - who claims otherwise?

Your model of the flat earth is so incomplete that you don't have:

• a workable map, not even any agreement on the layout of the continents!
• a reasonable explanation of "why things fall down" -  gravity!
• and innumerable other minor things like sunsets, lunar phases and eclipses or even solar eclipses.

About all flat earthers can agree on is "EARTH if FLAT!".

I wonder why... and I'm sure most of the responses for this will be "Despite its name, the weak force is much stronger than gravity but it is indeed the weakest of the other three." Copied and pasted from the same link. Because that's surely a sound rebuttal.

Sure "the weak force is much stronger than gravity" but only over a very short range!
Gravitation is much stronger than the "weak force" over larger distances. Only gravitation and electromagnetic forces are significant over distances much greater that the atomic scale.

Over very large distances, gravitation dominates because astronomical objects are close to electrically neutral.

It is true that the "graviton" may not have been discovered, but you could also say that the photon was not "discovered" until 1905, though others, including Isaac Newton, hypothesised the existence of "light corpuscles" centuries earlier.

This is only speculation, but hypothesising about gravitons

Energy and wavelength
The report on the discovery of gravitational waves specified, in regard to gravitons, that "assuming a modified dispersion relation for gravitational waves, our observations constrain the Compton wavelength of the graviton to be λ_g > 10¹³ km, which could be interpreted as a bound on the graviton mass mg < 1.2 × 10⁻²² eV/c²." This relation between wavelength and energy is calculated with the Planck-Einstein relation, the same formula which relates electromagnetic wavelength to photon energy.

Incomplete, more in Graviton, Energy and wavelength

In other words, gravitons would have such a low energy that they may never be individually detected as photons can.

Now you explain your "better" theory of "why things fall down", taking care to explain the measured variation of " the acceleration rate of things falling down " with latitude and elevation!

Uhm maybe thats why ? gravity is Not just weaker, its several orders of magnitude weaker, there is a difference


"Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions of nature. The gravitational attraction is approximately 10^38 times weaker than the strong force, 10^36 times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 10^29 times weaker than the weak force. As a consequence, gravity has a negligible influence on the behavior of subatomic particles, and plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter "

Yep throw it outside of the realm for normal people to measure it so you have to rely on "experts". That's pretty much everything RE relies on. Fucking retards, sorry I'm not passive aggressive like you yuppies.

To answer your first question:
Because it has the most evidence. Do you have a better explanation? Feel free to explain how you are smarter than the centuries of scientists who have formulated the standard explanations...... go ahead.

MOST EVIDENCE? LOL, such as? I doubt you can name more than 1 example that involves more than numbers and words, but rather physical proof.

We have measured gravity.
There are numerous experiments which have measured it, including the value of the gravitational constant.

What makes you think we can't?

Your referring to the Cavendish Experiment? Seriously? That shit is a joke. CERN would not be omitting gravity from the standard model if it was so easy, you people are so daft.

Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.

Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.

Haha, sorry i can't play this scene with straight face for a thousands time    Every Time the same character marches in self absorbed, full confident, with the endorphin rush of suspected discovery and a supposed irrefutable argument he thinks he have.

Then comes a brief refutation,which deals the first blow on elementary school level.

then the shrieking and shitposting starts.

DENSITY?

Ok, what makes a force vector out of density ? density gradients are all over the place, and also how come that things fall with a same rate regardless of density ?


And this is what happens with density towers in zero g....

I believe in gravity because when you were dropped down the stairs as an infant, you hit the floor at the bottom, which is also why you're retarded.

Quote from: aisantaros on May 30, 2017, 03:02:05 PM

Uhm maybe thats why ? gravity is Not just weaker, its several orders of magnitude weaker, there is a difference


"Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions of nature. The gravitational attraction is approximately 10^38 times weaker than the strong force, 10^36 times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 10^29 times weaker than the weak force. As a consequence, gravity has a negligible influence on the behavior of subatomic particles, and plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter "

Yep throw it outside of the realm for normal people to measure it so you have to rely on "experts". That's pretty much everything RE relies on. Fucking retards, sorry I'm not passive aggressive like you yuppies.

Quote from: Dog on May 30, 2017, 03:14:10 PM

To answer your first question:
Because it has the most evidence. Do you have a better explanation? Feel free to explain how you are smarter than the centuries of scientists who have formulated the standard explanations...... go ahead.

MOST EVIDENCE? LOL, such as? I doubt you can name more than 1 example that involves more than numbers and words, but rather physical proof.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 30, 2017, 03:27:51 PM

We have measured gravity.
There are numerous experiments which have measured it, including the value of the gravitational constant.

What makes you think we can't?

Your referring to the Cavendish Experiment? Seriously? That shit is a joke. CERN would not be omitting gravity from the standard model if it was so easy, you people are so daft.

So you want to play this smart ? Ok

Since you called me a retard lets start with some shit that even retards can understand, hope you qualify at least one

I challange you to debunk the Law of gravitation, or accept it, then we move on :

f = G x m1 x m2 / d2

Show how it fails to predict real life observations, use bees, water, moons whatever.

Oh, and with actual values please------->

Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.

Care to elaborate?  What is the mechanism behind it?

Quote from: Third3ye on May 30, 2017, 04:09:38 PM

Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.

Haha, sorry i can't play this scene with straight face for a thousands time    Every Time the same character marches in self absorbed, full confident, with the endorphin rush of suspected discovery and a supposed irrefutable argument he thinks he have.

Then comes a brief refutation,which deals the first blow on elementary school level.

then the shrieking and shitposting starts.

DENSITY?

Ok, what makes a force vector out of density ? density gradients are all over the place, and also how come that things fall with a same rate regardless of density ?


And this is what happens with density towers in zero g....

Nah fuck your dumb ass equation. That's all you got for magical gravity, an equation and theory, but no physical proof. Time to move on.

Lol things do not fall at the same rate in a vacuum, it's not hard to slow down these vacuum chamber tests and see often times that one object indeed falls faster. Even in this



 experiment with a close eye you can see feather's lagging behind. Go ahead and instead source NASA's obvious scripted and non-constant streaming (doctored) video of it. Not to mention the vacuum tests suck, they can't really hope to simulate space considering its infinitely expanding and has no container, or so they say.

Why does density behave like that in "zero-g"? Really? Can you not observe anything? Why does the guy start floating amidst the less dense air against his own will? The answer is already there in the video. Again go away. Where are all these more intelligent and patient people you spoke of?

Quote from: aisantaros on May 30, 2017, 04:51:49 PM

Quote from: Third3ye on May 30, 2017, 04:09:38 PM

Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.

Haha, sorry i can't play this scene with straight face for a thousands time    Every Time the same character marches in self absorbed, full confident, with the endorphin rush of suspected discovery and a supposed irrefutable argument he thinks he have.

Then comes a brief refutation,which deals the first blow on elementary school level.

then the shrieking and shitposting starts.

DENSITY?

Ok, what makes a force vector out of density ? density gradients are all over the place, and also how come that things fall with a same rate regardless of density ?


And this is what happens with density towers in zero g....

Nah fuck your dumb ass equation. That's all you got for magical gravity, an equation and theory, but no physical proof. Time to move on.

Lol things do not fall at the same rate in a vacuum, it's not hard to slow down these vacuum chamber tests and see often times that one object indeed falls faster. Even in this



 experiment with a close eye you can see feather's lagging behind. Go ahead and instead source NASA's obvious scripted and non-constant streaming (doctored) video of it. Not to mention the vacuum tests suck, they can't really hope to simulate space considering its infinitely expanding and has no container, or so they say.

Why does density behave like that in "zero-g"? Really? Can you not observe anything? Why does the guy start floating amidst the less dense air against his own will? The answer is already there in the video. Again go away. Where are all these more intelligent and patient people you spoke of?

Your bully tactics dont work here sorry

If this is false you can refute it

f = G x m1 x m2 / d2


then do it.

Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.

How doe's Density work in a vacuum chamber, the bowling ball feather drop, in question?
And properties given to ether don't work.

Quote from: Third3ye on May 30, 2017, 04:09:38 PM

Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.

How doe's Density work in a vacuum chamber, the bowling ball feather drop, in question?
And properties given to ether don't work.

How do we know they didn't switch out the bowling ball for a lighter copy? We don't because it wasn't a constant streamed video. It was scripted nonsense.

Quote from: aisantaros on May 30, 2017, 04:51:49 PM

Quote from: Third3ye on May 30, 2017, 04:09:38 PM

Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.

Haha, sorry i can't play this scene with straight face for a thousands time    Every Time the same character marches in self absorbed, full confident, with the endorphin rush of suspected discovery and a supposed irrefutable argument he thinks he have.

Then comes a brief refutation,which deals the first blow on elementary school level.

then the shrieking and shitposting starts.

DENSITY?

Ok, what makes a force vector out of density ? density gradients are all over the place, and also how come that things fall with a same rate regardless of density ?


And this is what happens with density towers in zero g....

Nah fuck your dumb ass equation. That's all you got for magical gravity, an equation and theory, but no physical proof. Time to move on.

Lol things do not fall at the same rate in a vacuum, it's not hard to slow down these vacuum chamber tests and see often times that one object indeed falls faster. Even in this



 experiment with a close eye you can see feather's lagging behind. Go ahead and instead source NASA's obvious scripted and non-constant streaming (doctored) video of it. Not to mention the vacuum tests suck, they can't really hope to simulate space considering its infinitely expanding and has no container, or so they say.

Why does density behave like that in "zero-g"? Really? Can you not observe anything? Why does the guy start floating amidst the less dense air against his own will? The answer is already there in the video. Again go away. Where are all these more intelligent and patient people you spoke of?

You said things fall in a different rate, then how come the plane can generate weightlessness for every object no matter their density just by canceling ONE rate ?

Oh and you forget that on that video even when SOME of the feathers seems to lag behind their rate of fall is the same as the coins, they started later in the the turning process or whatever, just measure the rate pixel traveled by time, and you will see. 

Your bully tactics dont work here sorry

If this is false you can refute it

f = G x m1 x m2 / d2


then do it.

I don't need an equation to refute this nonsense. If an equation is all you have to verify the authenticity of your glorious gravity then your defense sucks ass. I'm asking for physical proof only, sorry to bully your inability to show it.

Quote from: MouseWalker on May 30, 2017, 05:39:12 PM

Quote from: Third3ye on May 30, 2017, 04:09:38 PM

Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.

How doe's Density work in a vacuum chamber, the bowling ball feather drop, in question?
And properties given to ether don't work.

How do we know they didn't switch out the bowling ball for a lighter copy? We don't because it wasn't a constant streamed video. It was scripted nonsense.

Then you perform the fucking experiment, ignorant prick. You flatheads always assume everything is faked because it is a logical explanation against your argument.

You said things fall in a different rate, then how come the plane can generate weightlessness for every object no matter their density just by canceling ONE rate ?

Oh and you forget that on that video even when SOME of the feathers seems to lag behind their rate of fall is the same as the coins, they started later in the the turning process or whatever, just measure the rate pixel traveled by time, and you will see.

The feathers lagging behind is clearly slower, who are you kidding?

Also I don't know, considering gravity is fake and you've yet to prove it, the variables are unknown. It's not cancelling gravity like you hope to claim that's for sure.

Quote from: Third3ye on May 30, 2017, 05:48:26 PM

Quote from: MouseWalker on May 30, 2017, 05:39:12 PM

Quote from: Third3ye on May 30, 2017, 04:09:38 PM

Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.

How doe's Density work in a vacuum chamber, the bowling ball feather drop, in question?
And properties given to ether don't work.

How do we know they didn't switch out the bowling ball for a lighter copy? We don't because it wasn't a constant streamed video. It was scripted nonsense.

Then you perform the fucking experiment, ignorant prick. You flatheads always assume everything is faked because it is a logical explanation against your argument.

Sorry your bullying won't work here, why don't you provide irrefutable physical proof of gravity or GTFO c:

Keep eating those Yellow 5,6, and Red 40 chips you ignorant prick. Bet you go to the doctors for your own health just like all these other sheep that rely on everyone else that are deemed "experts'.

Quote from: MouseWalker on May 30, 2017, 05:39:12 PM

Quote from: Third3ye on May 30, 2017, 04:09:38 PM

Density is why things fall, wow that was hard.

How doe's Density work in a vacuum chamber, the bowling ball feather drop, in question?
And properties given to ether don't work.

How do we know they didn't switch out the bowling ball for a lighter copy? We don't because it wasn't a constant streamed video. It was scripted nonsense.

You don't need vacuum and feathers, golf ball and basketball in air do the trick.



Metal hammer and a rubber hammer



Hammer and soft ball

@aisantaros

God your rebuttal's are ass. I guess I'll just wait for one of those people you mentioned.

Lets be fair here

On one hand they say that gravity is a weak force. The weakest even

Then they give me this formula F=ma and basically say that my matter is attracted to all matter within the universe. THE UNIVERSE.

Somewhere out there, be it the Andromeda galaxy or another galaxy billions of light years outside of the observable universe, there is a hot alien babe that is attracting myself (my mass) and I am attracting her (mass). Not just her but EVERYTHING that makes up the universe. There are estimated to be 10^82 in just the observable universe alone!

Seems pretty strong to me! I think I would notice.

So are you saying things on Earth get lighter in a vacuum chamber?

And are you saying that pressure acts in a certain direction (I'm other words, a vector)?

Quote from: aisantaros on May 30, 2017, 05:49:07 PM

You said things fall in a different rate, then how come the plane can generate weightlessness for every object no matter their density just by canceling ONE rate ?

Oh and you forget that on that video even when SOME of the feathers seems to lag behind their rate of fall is the same as the coins, they started later in the the turning process or whatever, just measure the rate pixel traveled by time, and you will see.

The feathers lagging behind is clearly slower, who are you kidding?

Also I don't know, considering gravity is fake and you've yet to prove it, the variables are unknown. It's not cancelling gravity like you hope to claim that's for sure.

Its canceling the rate of "downward" acceleration which cause free fall and determines the weight of the objects, hence the weightlessness, so if things really fall with different rates, they will need VASTLY different upward acceleration to become weightless. Dont you agree ?

"Gravity is fake, variables unknown"

Uhm its a bit embarrassing, but if you drop a marble it will accelerate towards earth, Variables are:

 mass of  the marble m: 0.01 kg , mass of the earth Me: 5.98 x 10^24 kg, gravitational constant G G = 6.673 x 10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2 , distance between the center of the earth and the marble d =  6,378.1370 m , distance to the ground 1m .

Lets see the forceof gravity acting on the marbe

F = G x m1 x m2 / d^2

 =(6.67*10^-11)*0.01*(5.98*10^24)]/( 63781370)^2

F= 0.098 Newton that's the force by a 0.01 kg object should push its foundation on earth, so we calculated right,

ok Time to determine the free fall acceleration

 Newton’s Second Law of Motion, F = ma. Newton’s second law of motion states that any object will accelerate when acted upon by a net or unbalanced force.

0.098 kg·m/s^2 =0.01kg *a

a= 9.8 m/s^2

Good we know the free fall acceleration rate, which is same as g what a coincidence....
 And that means a 0.45 fall time.

But is that work in real life ?

I'll find g myself. Here's the setup:


I roll a marble off of the edge of the table, and record the time it takes to hit the bottom.

To record the time, I use Audacity and locate the exact times the sound of the ball rolling stops, and the exact time when the sound of the ball hitting the floor starts. I subtract these times to get the total time in freefall.

I will then substitute the height and time into this formula:

Δh=½gt²

and solve for g.

Results:

Trial 1 time: .507

Trial 2 time: .508

Trial 3 time: .508

Trial 4 time: .508

Trial 5 time: .507

Average time: .5076

Substitution: 1.263=½g(.5076)² g=9.8037m/s^2

Accepted value of g: 9.81

Error: .064% (really low)

There you go! I found g. Now you guys can do it yourself if you want to.

looks like it does


 

No it looks like all you did was give what I didn't ask for, stupid equations that seem to work for your stupid theory. This isn't proving gravity because again, if it was that easy CERN would not omit gravity, it would be much easier to prove physically, thus there would be 1,000's of experiments proving gravity, but all we get are fail examples like this, bullshit experiments like the vacuum chamber ones or that one piss poor Cavendish one where they assume the motion was caused by gravity and disregarded the other large bodies of mass around the test.

How many times do I have to tell you to go away? Your not helping.

So are you saying things on Earth get lighter in a vacuum chamber?

And are you saying that pressure acts in a certain direction (I'm other words, a vector)?

Hi. I have some questions to run by you. These are my first.