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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#372539 — The Inverse Square Law explained

Inverse Square Law Revealed

"Where does the 1/R^2 come from for the inverse square laws of force and acceleration?"

The answer...

There are two steps to get the inverse square law. First write a momentum equation for the Law. Second, use the area of a sphere, which is 4 pi R^2 in the momentum equation. Solving for acceleration moves the R^2 into the denominator on the other side of the equation.

Example:

p1 = p2 for momentum conservation

For example, in a gravity theory, one momentum is in the protons and neutrons:

p2 = NV/tau

where

N is number of baryons in planet

V is proton volume

tau = 5.13ns

The second momentum is for falling space during gravity:

p2 = zA

z = height fallen in 1 second

A = Area of planet = 4 pi R^2

z = 1/2 a t^2

P1 = 1/2 a t^2 * 4 pi R^2

There is the R^2

p1 = p2

(1/2 a (1 second)^2 * 4 pi R^2 ) =  NV/tau

for Earth gravity 1/2 a = 4.9 meters

(4.9 meters (1 second)^2 * 4 pi R^2 ) =  NV/tau

take time derivative of both sides

2a pi R^2 = MV / mC

Solve for a

a = MV / (2 pi R^2 m (tau*second))

The R^2 is inverted, finishing this essay.

a is proportional to 1/R^2

The inverse square law is understood for gravity.

Take a momentum equation and solve for a, acceleration and that R^2 is always a multiplier of a. The R2 for area multiplies a height fallen, z. That area times z is a volume for a momentum on one side of the equation. After a derivative, the z/(1 second) becomes z/(second^2). So the acceleration and R^2 are always multiplied on one side of an equation, so when solving for a, the R^2 must divide both sides. That isolates the desired "a" on the left while sending 1/R^2 to the other side. That is why the inverse square law happens: spherical geometry and a momentum conservation theory where the volume of baryons equals a volume of a fallen shell. Each of those volumes are divided by a time to get momentum. Momentum is now including volume per time in addition to the mass times velocity as momentum. The conservation of continuum is conservation of momentum.

4z pi R^2 per second = NV/tau

p1 = p2 momentum

http://fcgravity.blogspot.com/p/factoring-force-of-gravuty.html

Alan Folmsbee, December 22, 2015, Wailuku

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#372548

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 10:00:58 AM UTC-6, 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...
> 
> There are two steps to get the inverse square law. First write a momentum equation for the Law. Second, use the area of a sphere, which is 4 pi R^2 in the momentum equation. Solving for acceleration moves the R^2 into the denominator on the other side of the equation.
> 
> Example:
> 
> p1 = p2 for momentum conservation
> 
> For example, in a gravity theory, one momentum is in the protons and neutrons:
> 
> p2 = NV/tau
> 
> where
> 
> N is number of baryons in planet
> 
> V is proton volume
> 
> tau = 5.13ns
> 
> The second momentum is for falling space during gravity:
> 
> p2 = zA
> 
> z = height fallen in 1 second
> 
> A = Area of planet = 4 pi R^2
> 
> z = 1/2 a t^2
> 
> P1 = 1/2 a t^2 * 4 pi R^2
> 
> There is the R^2
> 
> p1 = p2
> 
> (1/2 a (1 second)^2 * 4 pi R^2 ) =  NV/tau
> 
> for Earth gravity 1/2 a = 4.9 meters
> 
> (4.9 meters (1 second)^2 * 4 pi R^2 ) =  NV/tau
> 
> take time derivative of both sides
> 
> 2a pi R^2 = MV / mC
> 
> Solve for a
> 
> a = MV / (2 pi R^2 m (tau*second))
> 
> The R^2 is inverted, finishing this essay.
> 
> a is proportional to 1/R^2
> 
> The inverse square law is understood for gravity.
> 
> Take a momentum equation and solve for a, acceleration and that R^2 is always a multiplier of a. The R2 for area multiplies a height fallen, z. That area times z is a volume for a momentum on one side of the equation. After a derivative, the z/(1 second) becomes z/(second^2). So the acceleration and R^2 are always multiplied on one side of an equation, so when solving for a, the R^2 must divide both sides. That isolates the desired "a" on the left while sending 1/R^2 to the other side. That is why the inverse square law happens: spherical geometry and a momentum conservation theory where the volume of baryons equals a volume of a fallen shell. Each of those volumes are divided by a time to get momentum. Momentum is now including volume per time in addition to the mass times velocity as momentum. The conservation of continuum is conservation of momentum.
> 
> 4z pi R^2 per second = NV/tau
> 
> p1 = p2 momentum
> 
> http://fcgravity.blogspot.com/p/factoring-force-of-gravuty.html
> 
> Alan Folmsbee, December 22, 2015, Wailuku

http://i59.tinypic.com/2lauf5i.jpg

http://i57.tinypic.com/10p6pva.jpg

http://i64.tinypic.com/14dlx6t.jpg

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

#372550

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 12:13:28 PM UTC-6, David Fuller wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 10:00:58 AM UTC-6, 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...
> > 
> > There are two steps to get the inverse square law. First write a momentum equation for the Law. Second, use the area of a sphere, which is 4 pi R^2 in the momentum equation. Solving for acceleration moves the R^2 into the denominator on the other side of the equation.
> > 
> > Example:
> > 
> > p1 = p2 for momentum conservation
> > 
> > For example, in a gravity theory, one momentum is in the protons and neutrons:
> > 
> > p2 = NV/tau
> > 
> > where
> > 
> > N is number of baryons in planet
> > 
> > V is proton volume
> > 
> > tau = 5.13ns
> > 
> > The second momentum is for falling space during gravity:
> > 
> > p2 = zA
> > 
> > z = height fallen in 1 second
> > 
> > A = Area of planet = 4 pi R^2
> > 
> > z = 1/2 a t^2
> > 
> > P1 = 1/2 a t^2 * 4 pi R^2
> > 
> > There is the R^2
> > 
> > p1 = p2
> > 
> > (1/2 a (1 second)^2 * 4 pi R^2 ) =  NV/tau
> > 
> > for Earth gravity 1/2 a = 4.9 meters
> > 
> > (4.9 meters (1 second)^2 * 4 pi R^2 ) =  NV/tau
> > 
> > take time derivative of both sides
> > 
> > 2a pi R^2 = MV / mC
> > 
> > Solve for a
> > 
> > a = MV / (2 pi R^2 m (tau*second))
> > 
> > The R^2 is inverted, finishing this essay.
> > 
> > a is proportional to 1/R^2
> > 
> > The inverse square law is understood for gravity.
> > 
> > Take a momentum equation and solve for a, acceleration and that R^2 is always a multiplier of a. The R2 for area multiplies a height fallen, z. That area times z is a volume for a momentum on one side of the equation. After a derivative, the z/(1 second) becomes z/(second^2). So the acceleration and R^2 are always multiplied on one side of an equation, so when solving for a, the R^2 must divide both sides. That isolates the desired "a" on the left while sending 1/R^2 to the other side. That is why the inverse square law happens: spherical geometry and a momentum conservation theory where the volume of baryons equals a volume of a fallen shell. Each of those volumes are divided by a time to get momentum. Momentum is now including volume per time in addition to the mass times velocity as momentum. The conservation of continuum is conservation of momentum.
> > 
> > 4z pi R^2 per second = NV/tau
> > 
> > p1 = p2 momentum
> > 
> > http://fcgravity.blogspot.com/p/factoring-force-of-gravuty.html
> > 
> > Alan Folmsbee, December 22, 2015, Wailuku
> 
> http://i59.tinypic.com/2lauf5i.jpg
> 
> http://i57.tinypic.com/10p6pva.jpg
> 
> http://i64.tinypic.com/14dlx6t.jpg

http://oi62.tinypic.com/2ag3f47.jpg

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

#372551

http://i59.tinypic.com/2lauf5i.jpg 
http://i57.tinypic.com/10p6pva.jpg
http://i64.tinypic.com/14dlx6t.jpg
http://i60.tinypic.com/okmna0.jpg

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

#372552

On 12/22/15 12/22/15 - 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... [lots of undefined nonsense]

How silly.

In theories based on Euclidean geometry, 1/r^2 comes from the GEOMETRY, plus the 
assumption that the force is generated by a conserved (divergence-free) flux.

In theories without Euclidean geometry, such as GR, there is no 1/r^2. Only in 
regions where gravity is weak and Euclidean geometry applies APPROXIMATELY, is 
there an APPROXIMATE 1/r^2 dependence; such as in the solar system.


It is HOPELESS to assume that approximate properties are exact, and then basing 
an entire "theory" on that assumption.


Tom Roberts

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

#372557

W dniu wtorek, 22 grudnia 2015 19:50:33 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> In theories based on Euclidean geometry, 1/r^2 comes from the GEOMETRY, plus the 
> assumption that the force is generated by a conserved (divergence-free) flux.
> 
> In theories without Euclidean geometry, such as GR, there is no 1/r^2. Only in 
> regions where gravity is weak and Euclidean geometry applies APPROXIMATELY, is 
> there an APPROXIMATE 1/r^2 dependence; such as in the solar system.
> 
> It is HOPELESS to assume that approximate properties are exact, and then basing 
> an entire "theory" on that assumption.
> 
> Tom Roberts

You just use the curved coordinates in the GR,
therefore the result must be other than the 1/r^2,
because adequate to the used coordinates. :)

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

#372874

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 12:14:36 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 22 grudnia 2015 19:50:33 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> 
> > In theories based on Euclidean geometry, 1/r^2 comes from the GEOMETRY, plus the 
> > assumption that the force is generated by a conserved (divergence-free) flux.
> > 
> > In theories without Euclidean geometry, such as GR, there is no 1/r^2. Only in 
> > regions where gravity is weak and Euclidean geometry applies APPROXIMATELY, is 
> > there an APPROXIMATE 1/r^2 dependence; such as in the solar system.
> > 
> > It is HOPELESS to assume that approximate properties are exact, and then basing 
> > an entire "theory" on that assumption.
> > 
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> You just use the curved coordinates in the GR,
> therefore the result must be other than the 1/r^2,
> because adequate to the used coordinates. :)

No, that's not how it works. You confuse coordinate distances with arc length.

--
Jan

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

#372886

W dniu wtorek, 29 grudnia 2015 06:11:14 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 12:14:36 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 22 grudnia 2015 19:50:33 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > 
> > > In theories based on Euclidean geometry, 1/r^2 comes from the GEOMETRY, plus the 
> > > assumption that the force is generated by a conserved (divergence-free) flux.
> > > 
> > > In theories without Euclidean geometry, such as GR, there is no 1/r^2. Only in 
> > > regions where gravity is weak and Euclidean geometry applies APPROXIMATELY, is 
> > > there an APPROXIMATE 1/r^2 dependence; such as in the solar system.
> > > 
> > > It is HOPELESS to assume that approximate properties are exact, and then basing 
> > > an entire "theory" on that assumption.
> > > 
> > > Tom Roberts
> > 
> > You just use the curved coordinates in the GR,
> > therefore the result must be other than the 1/r^2,
> > because adequate to the used coordinates. :)
> 
> No, that's not how it works. You confuse coordinate distances with arc length.
> 
> --
> Jan

GR is just about coordinates fallacy.
simply: in that model has been assumed - in the fly, at hoc!,
some special coordinates, which reproduce the same motion,
namely the newton's:

g = m/r^2, ect., but in the other space: the GR-space...

therefore there are curved everything, without any force - the gravity... hihi!

Further: the same fallacy has been applied in the cosmology,
hance the claim about the escapement of distant galaxies without any motion..
it's just idiocy because there the coord. change in time..
so, the galaxies can still stay in place,

and the result is... similar to like they really escape...
but the whole idea is still the same: totally unrealistic, fantastic - idiotic!

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

#372562

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?

That's covered in calculus-based intro physics books for scientists and 
engineers, if I recall correctly.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#372806

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)

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

#372812

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 ...

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

#372818

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.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?  
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#372822

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.. 

See the Coulomb relation:
f = q1q2/4pieps0r^2

so, there is the 4pi explicitly!

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

#372826

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)

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

#372827

W dniu poniedziałek, 28 grudnia 2015 00:23:10 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> 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.


Very impressive... unusually!
My congratulations - you are now the leader on my list of idiots. :)

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

#372836

alsor@interia.pl wrote:

> My congratulations - you are now the leader on my list of idiots. :)

Thank you.  It is an honor to be on a “list of idiots” compiled by an idiot.


PointedEars
-- 
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#372837

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> 
>> My congratulations - you are now the leader on my list of idiots. :)
> 
> Thank you.  It is an honor to be on a “list of idiots” compiled by an
> idiot.

Enjoyable to see both of you being correct.

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

#372891

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   ?




The Starmaker 




Get with the program!


i don't have time to be conducting physics classes here...

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

#372902

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 11:11:51 AM UTC-7, 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   ?

:-))))

> The Starmaker 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get with the program!
> 
> 
> i don't have time to be conducting physics classes here...

And we're all certainly thankful for that! :-)

Gary

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

#372911

W dniu wtorek, 29 grudnia 2015 19:11:51 UTC+1 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> 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   ?


there is an example of the inverse cube law:

a = h^2/r^3 - k/r^2;

:)

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web