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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372539 > unrolled thread

The Inverse Square Law explained

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#372914

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 12:11:51 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> yous people are missing a dimension here somewhere..
> 
> it is not a " Inverse Square Law "...
> 
> it is a cube, that means a square that has 3 dimensions...
> 
> isn't about time yous start calling it a
> 
> 
>        Inverse Cube Law   ?
Inverse Cube is Magnetism

1/r^3
http://i64.tinypic.com/14dlx6t.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372915

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 12:11:51 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> yous people are missing a dimension here somewhere..
> 
> it is not a " Inverse Square Law "...
> 
> it is a cube, that means a square that has 3 dimensions...
> 
> isn't about time yous start calling it a
> 
> 
>        Inverse Cube Law   ?

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/activity/l23.pdf

Inverse Cube is Magnetism 

1/r^3 
http://i64.tinypic.com/14dlx6t.jpg 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373012

W dniu środa, 30 grudnia 2015 02:16:28 UTC+1 użytkownik David Fuller napisał:
> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 12:11:51 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > yous people are missing a dimension here somewhere..
> > 
> > it is not a " Inverse Square Law "...
> > 
> > it is a cube, that means a square that has 3 dimensions...
> > 
> > isn't about time yous start calling it a
> > 
> > 
> >        Inverse Cube Law   ?
> 
> http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/activity/l23.pdf
> 
> Inverse Cube is Magnetism 
> 
> 1/r^3 
> http://i64.tinypic.com/14dlx6t.jpg

You cannot use directly an angular deflection
to measue the applied force... 
it's not a linear relation... simply?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373109

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 5:42:11 PM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> > On 12/22/2015 10:00 AM, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> >> Inverse Square Law Revealed
> >>
> >> "Where does the 1/R^2 come from for the inverse square laws of force and
> >> acceleration?"
> >>
> >> The answer...
> > 
> > Doesn't this come directly from Gauss' law?
> 
> It does not, indeed ;-)
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law>
> 
> Gauss’s law *for gravity* can be derived from Newton’s law instead.
> 
> However, it can be shown that Newton’s law follows from Gauss’s *theorem*, 
> also known as [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_theorem> when 
> *also* applying Gauss’s law to gravity.
> 
> Conversely, Newton’s law can be derived, *indirectly*, from Gauss’s law 
> *for gravity* *with additional assumptions*, using Gauss’s/the divergence 
> *theorem*:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_gravity#Deriving_Newton.27s_law_from_Gauss.27s_law_and_irrotationality>
> 
> But, of course, “[Gauss’s/the divergence] theorem was first discovered by 
> Lagrange in 1762,[9] then later independently rediscovered by Gauss in 1813,
> […]” [↑1].  Newton posited his law of universal gravitation *about 100 years
> earlier*, in Book 1, «De motu corporum» (“On the motions of bodies”), of 
> the «Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica» («Principia») of 1678:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica>
> 
> 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, but the 
> arguments in the «Principia» (Book Ⅰ, Section Ⅱ), suggest that it were 
> Kepler’s laws of planetary motion (in «Epitome astronomiae Copernicanae» 
> „Epitome of Copernican Astronomy”, 1617–1621) – this would not be too 
> surprising given Newton’s interest in astronomical matters, and that it was 
> Edmond Halley, later Astronomer Royal, whom he discussed his work with, and 
> who funded the publication of the «Principia».
> 
> Susskind (see below) argues:
> 
> “The acceleration of circular motion is described by ω² R, where ω is the 
> angular period of going round in an orbit of radius R.  Suppose Newton set 
> that equal to some unknown force law [that depends on the radius, F(R)],
> 
>   ω² R = F(R),
> 
> and divided by R:
> 
>     ω² = F(R)∕R.
> 
> For the real case, inverse square law,
> 
>     ω² = F(R)∕R = (X∕R²)∕R = X∕R³
> 
> and in that form it is Kepler’s third law: ‘The square of the orbital 
> period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major 
> axis of its orbit.’”
> 
> > That's covered in calculus-based intro physics books for scientists and
> > engineers, if I recall correctly.
> 
> It is also covered in physics lectures, such as lecture 1 of the series 
> “Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity” as taught by Leonard Susskind, 
> Ph.D., at Stanford University in 2008, from where I took most of the 
> equations and the argument above.  Highly recommended:
> 
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbmf0bB38h0>
> 
> 
> PointedEars
> -- 
> Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
> A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
>    I find myself very attracted to you.
> (from: WolframAlpha)

Quantify this, what is the relation of the quantity back to front?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373147

John Gogo wrote:

> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 5:42:11 PM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> --
>> Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
>> A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
>>    I find myself very attracted to you.
>> (from: WolframAlpha)
> 
> Quantify this, what is the relation of the quantity back to front?

One year later, and you still do not understand what a Usenet signature is.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
   when he went camping?  
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web