หมวดหมู่ของบทความนี้จะเกี่ยวกับf gmm r 2 หากคุณกำลังมองหาเกี่ยวกับf gmm r 2มาสำรวจกันกับRadio Abiertaในหัวข้อf gmm r 2ในโพสต์Gravitational Constant: Explained!นี้.

Table of Contents

เอกสารที่เกี่ยวข้องf gmm r 2ที่สมบูรณ์ที่สุดในGravitational Constant: Explained!

ชมวิดีโอด้านล่างเลย

ที่เว็บไซต์radioabierta.netคุณสามารถเพิ่มเอกสารอื่น ๆ นอกเหนือจากf gmm r 2เพื่อความรู้ที่เป็นประโยชน์มากขึ้นสำหรับคุณ ในหน้าRadio Abierta เราอัปเดตข้อมูลใหม่และถูกต้องให้คุณทุกวัน, ด้วยความหวังที่จะมอบความคุ้มค่าสูงสุดให้กับผู้ใช้ ช่วยให้คุณอัพเดทข้อมูลทางอินเทอร์เน็ตได้อย่างละเอียดที่สุด.

SEE ALSO  ติววิทย์ ม.3 | การต่อตัวต้านทานเเบบอนุกรมเเละเเบบขนาน | ไฟฟ้า ม.3 | สูตร พลังงาน ไฟฟ้า ม 3เนื้อหาที่เกี่ยวข้องทั้งหมดที่สมบูรณ์ที่สุด

หัวข้อที่เกี่ยวข้องกับf gmm r 2

สนับสนุนฉันใน Patreon: ค่าคงที่แรงโน้มถ่วงคืออะไร? มันมาจากไหน? ฟิสิกส์มีความสำคัญอย่างไร? มันใช้ที่ไหนนอกเหนือจากกฎแห่งความโน้มถ่วงสากล? .

ภาพบางส่วนที่เกี่ยวข้องกับเอกสารเกี่ยวกับf gmm r 2

Gravitational Constant: Explained!
Gravitational Constant: Explained!

นอกจากการดูเนื้อหาของบทความนี้แล้ว Gravitational Constant: Explained! สามารถดูและอ่านข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมได้ที่ด้านล่าง

SEE ALSO  เฉลยข้อสอบ PAT1 ข้อ.23 - PAT1 ก.พ. 61 | สรุปเนื้อหาpat1 ก พ 62ล่าสุด

คลิกที่นี่เพื่อดูข้อมูลเพิ่มเติม

เนื้อหาที่เกี่ยวข้องกับf gmm r 2

#Gravitational #Constant #Explained.

physics,math,gravitational constant,Newton,Einstein,Planck,General Relativity,Big G.

Gravitational Constant: Explained!.

f gmm r 2.

เราหวังว่าเนื้อหาบางส่วนที่เราให้ไว้จะเป็นประโยชน์กับคุณ ขอบคุณมากสำหรับการดูบทความของเราเกี่ยวกับf gmm r 2

37 thoughts on “Gravitational Constant: Explained! | ข้อมูลทั้งหมดเกี่ยวกับf gmm r 2ล่าสุด

  1. eenayeah says:

    Been searching for a good gravitational constant video and I've found my winner! Ultimately I was looking for one that showed the exact calculations that led to 6.67×10^(-11) but it seems no one really wants to do that calculation. This video was great anyway!

  2. complexity says:

    Good mathematical explanation. In science|[scientific method], an explanation requires a experiment. This video never showed the experiment to get G. It used mathematics to profess a value (and not a observation experiment). Sometimes we have to remind mathematical guys that math is not a scientific proof alone.

  3. Meep to the Max says:

    I have been trying to calculate gravity using newton's equation but I could not find g, google adds some unnecessary stuff and is indirect. This is such a useful video.

  4. FreeFire Gaming says:

    Einstein’s e=mc^2 says that mass is not different than energy so mass is just the concentration of energy but according to the laws of thermodynamics energy tends to spread outward. But in gravity the concentration of energy just become more concentrated so gravity must be a repulsive force but it’s an attractive force but energy tends to spread outward

  5. BRIAC ROA says:

    Do you know that G can be defined and calculated with a corpuscolar model developed by a france physicist contemporary to Newton and that Newton knew this corpuscolar model ?

  6. Doppy Do says:

    why are newtons and kg/m not equivalent. when you said that i felt like i skipped over a very important part of the lesson that wasnt there. where do i go to learn about this?

  7. Robert Montague says:

    My rationale for why the value of G is because it is a quantum value for gravitational force in units of m2/kg2–a value of action constrained by Planck's length (lp) and Planck time (tp). Notice that time is not a factor because force can't be exerted within a Planck sec (there is no time within a Planck second).

    Put another way it is the quanta of gravitational force (independent of time) constrained by a Planck volume of space-time.

  8. John Nicholson says:

    @1:25 You show EFE with the constant normally written with k for kappa as 8*n*G*c^-4, the n = pi = 3.14159…, but it looks like n (that is a visible error not math error), so G = k*c^4*(8*pi)^-1. If we change c from being the speed of light in a vacuum to just v = speed constant of gravity, then we get a reasonable value of v. I am thinking this is related to the gravitational red/blue shift cause by light leaving/coming from a planet or star. Am I wrong? Other places show the power put to c as c^-2, can you be clear as to which power should be used and why?

  9. tobsmonster2 says:

    Thank you so much for this brilliant explanation. I spent years in school plugging G into equations without a care for how or why it was that value and now I know :). You've also given me something new to dig my teeth into – Planck Time! Thanks again.

  10. Frank DiMeglio says:

    The ultimate unification and understanding of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY manifest as F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Here's the proof. This also explains why objects (including WHAT IS THE FALLING MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=MC2 IS CLEARLY F=MA ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that E=MC2 IS clearly and necessarily F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE.

    ON THE CLEAR, EXTENSIVE, SENSIBLE, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, AND UNIVERSAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS clearly PROVEN TO BE F=MA ON BALANCE:

    Balanced inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Indeed, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma IN BALANCE !!! Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma IN BALANCE. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, it makes perfect sense that THE PLANETS (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) will move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY, as this balances gravity AND inertia; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GREAT. I have explained the cosmological redshift AND the supergiant stars. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma IN BALANCE !!! 

    By Frank DiMeglio

ใส่ความเห็น

อีเมลของคุณจะไม่แสดงให้คนอื่นเห็น ช่องข้อมูลจำเป็นถูกทำเครื่องหมาย *