Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372826

Re: The Inverse Square Law explained

Show all headers | View raw

alsor@interia.pl wrote:

> W dniu niedziela, 27 grudnia 2015 20:12:35 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
>> alsor@interia.pl wrote:
>> > W dniu niedziela, 27 grudnia 2015 00:42:11 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas
>> >> So neither Gauss’s theorem nor law could have been Newton’s
>> >> foundation. It is not known how Newton got the idea of the inverse
>> >> square law
>> > You talk nonsense...
>> > after all it's just a surface of a sphere... S = 4pir^2.
>> > thus the force must be in the form: f = k/S.
>> > 
>> > actualy it's: f = GM/r^2;
>> > so, the G const is incorrectly choosen..
>> > it should be rather: G' = G/4pi = 5.3e-12 ...
>> As usual, utter nonsense from you.
> 
> another orangutan which pretend to be..

No, it’s the same fool who is still thinks they speak English…
 
> See the Coulomb relation:
> f = q1q2/4pieps0r^2
> 
> so, there is the 4pi explicitly!

That there is a factor of 4π with the surface of a sphere was never doubted 
since the surface of the sphere is 4πr² if r is the sphere’s radius.

That has very little to do with the fact that the gravitational acceleration 
falls off with the square of the distance, and does not prove in the 
slightest any of your nonsensical layman assertions above, especially not 
that “the G const is incorrectly chosen”.

Coulomb’s law (1784), that which you call “Coulomb relation”, to which 
Gauss’s law (1836) is essentially equivalent, was not known when Newton 
published the «Principia» (1678).  So that, too, could not have been 
Newton’s foundation.  It is a historian’s fallacy to assume otherwise.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?  
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

The Inverse Square Law explained Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 08:00 -0800
  Re: The Inverse Square Law explained David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-22 10:13 -0800
    Re: The Inverse Square Law explained David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-22 10:17 -0800
    Re: The Inverse Square Law explained David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-22 10:19 -0800
  Re: The Inverse Square Law explained Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-22 12:50 -0600
    Re: The Inverse Square Law explained alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-22 12:14 -0800
      Re: The Inverse Square Law explained JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 21:11 -0800
        Re: The Inverse Square Law explained alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-29 09:18 -0800
  Re: The Inverse Square Law explained Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 16:06 -0600
    Re: The Inverse Square Law explained Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-27 00:42 +0100
      Re: The Inverse Square Law explained alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-27 07:50 -0800
        Re: The Inverse Square Law explained Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-27 20:12 +0100
          Re: The Inverse Square Law explained alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-27 14:30 -0800
            Re: The Inverse Square Law explained Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-28 00:23 +0100
              Re: The Inverse Square Law explained alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-27 15:58 -0800
                Re: The Inverse Square Law explained Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-28 11:59 +0100
                Re: The Inverse Square Law explained Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-28 11:18 +0000
                Re: The Inverse Square Law explained The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-29 10:11 -0800
                Re: The Inverse Square Law explained Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 13:08 -0800
                Re: The Inverse Square Law explained alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-29 15:19 -0800
                Re: The Inverse Square Law explained David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:13 -0800
                Re: The Inverse Square Law explained David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:16 -0800
                Re: The Inverse Square Law explained alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-31 05:31 -0800
      Re: The Inverse Square Law explained John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 18:28 -0800
        Re: The Inverse Square Law explained Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-01-02 23:48 +0100

csiph-web