OT: I'm confused about gravity

I remember taking g as 10 (pre-calculator days) at school . This allowed for very easy multiplication but showed if you had applied it correctly. Knew it was 32 ft/sec/sec but even away back then we used SI units of metres/sec/sec (also newtons ,kilograms, litres etc)

Reply to
soup
Loading thread data ...

formatting link

suggest such smart arsery is ill founded ...

From the "Longer answer"

The gravitational force exerted by the Sun on the Moon is more twice that exerted by the Earth on the Moon. So why do we say the Moon orbits the Earth?

Reply to
Jethro_uk

Good question. Michelson-Morley and shrinking instruments spring to mind.

But now we know gravity waves exist - what effect do they have on time ?

Reply to
Jethro_uk

No, he's thinking of Vernes 'Journey to the centre of the earth'

There's layer upon layer of bad physics there: not

Differnet ball game

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

We know no such thing.

They are, like gravity itself, hypothetical postulates

Artefacts of a worldview we currently hold to repsrent the world exactly, but of course does not.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

You fail to appreciate the subtlety.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

That IS doing calculus.

and the

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

You may as well say you can model the trajectory using string theory and therefore you are doing quantum field string theory. Same for higher dimensional tensors or Riemann space geometry. Where does it end?

Simple algebra is quite sufficient.

Reply to
Pamela

Er, did I say algebra? I meant geometry.

Reply to
Pamela

Well, if history is anything to go by.....

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

Sounds about as plausible as Pratchet's stack of giant turtles.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

Taking g = pi^2

was an allowable exam approximation in the pre calculator era. In many physics equations there is a pi somewhere else too.

Reply to
Martin Brown

No, there's only one, the Great A'Tuin.

Don't you know any physics?

Reply to
Norman Wells

All of science and maths is implicit in our view of the world

We just unpick it.

No.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

I tend to agree. We discover maths not invent it.

I meant geometry but the same parabolic can be modelled in cartesian algebra without calculus.

Reply to
Pamela

'Simple' is in the eye of the beholder.

Reply to
soup

We don't, they both orbit their common centre of mass. It just happens to be inside the Earth (well mostly).

Reply to
dennis

That explains a lot. A quotation from my games teacher: He has no ball control.

Bill

Reply to
Bill Wright

I certainly don't believe in it.

Bill

Reply to
Bill Wright

Because it does according to the definition: Noun: orbit The (usually elliptical) path described by one celestial body in its revolution about another.

Reply to
Fredxx

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.