Comments by "RiteMo LawBks" (@ritemolawbks8012) on "Destiny" channel.

  1. Hey! I'm 24 hours in the future. I hope you had a great day.
    4
  2. I believe there is a God and that He created the universe, but there is a high enough probability that there is a similar planet existing somewhere and at sometime that is nearly identical to present-day Earth.
    2
  3. Some of us know that and have already accepted Christ.
    2
  4. 👍🏾
    1
  5. The "apparent acceleration" relative to a distance observer would see more curvature; i.e., gravitational acceleration of the body closer to the gravitational mass.
    1
  6. I like the renewed focus on civilian and military space technology (Thanks, CCP) and the and ambitious goals to return humans to the moon. I'm worried that it could be a bad omen to announce the sex, demographic, or profession of the mission astronauts. They'll become somewhat famous public figures, and we could have a repeat of the Challenger disaster.
    1
  7. Nothing the high school-varsity football team hasn't already done.
    1
  8. "Force" as described by Newton's Laws of Mechanics and Universal Law of Gravity.
    1
  9.  @SamKGrove  It's not derived from anything more fundamental than NetF=ma. It's from classical physics and Isaac Newton and seems deceptively simple, but it's a powerful theory that can explain all motions of objects with mass. It can be measured in Newtons (Unit of Force). In the simplest form, a body with no forces applied to it that has mass will maintain un-accelerated motion indefinitely. When a force is applied, the action changes the motion an accelerates according to F=ma. Using the force, the past, present, and future state of an object calculated. There are methods and alternatives to Newtonian mechanics and situations when it's invalid, but the classical definition of "force" is from Newton. Rather than using a force, problems can be solved using energy, spacetime curvature, action principle, and other easier and more efficient methods.
    1
  10. @ [2:08] The year is slightly off. Einstein didn't present his theory of gravitation and spacetime curvature until about ten-years later. The mathematic and geometry required to model relativistic gravity is atrocious.
    1
  11. 👎🏾No. We need an atmosphere, ozone, and 1g of gravity.
    1
  12. Are you sure that you have a pretty good grasp of Newtonian mechanics and classical physics? Gravity can't be a physical force and only has a relevant existence as a pseudo-force according to Newton's Laws of Mechanics. In order to make Newtonian gravity consistent with special relativity (4D and not propagated instantaneously) and the other law of physics, gravity as curvature instead of a force is the result.
    1
  13.  @jimbo2629  If you've never heard of "pseudo force," "fictional force," or "inertial force," should you really be lecturing about classical mechanics, spacetime, and gravity? Relativity from Galileo, Newton, and Einstein are all proven scientific theories, there's nothing to be "duped" about. You either understand them or not; and the models and predictions are either right, wrong, or incomplete. I'm a humble guy, and despite having modern technology and the benefit of hindsight, I believe it's better to fully comprehend the theories of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein before trying to disprove them.
    1
  14. For most gravitational observations, with orbital velocities much less that light, and with energy/mass density similar to the solar system and planetary systems; i.e., weak gravitation fields with little spacetime curvature, then General relativity will give you nearly identical predictions as Newtonian mechanics and gravity. If you're modelling gas clouds attracting and collapsing to become a star, then the description will be nearly identical to the Newtonian model with a gravitational potential, force, acceleration, and energy being used instead of curvature.
    1
  15. Are we sure that's the correct name @ [ 0:05 ] ?
    1
  16. We are men, and we go back into quarantine.
    1