Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
One Distance Cubed

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Greg Luton on January 25, 2003 17:32:41 UTC

I found your reply very humorous yanniru, I did not realize you were such a jokester. I suppose I should rebut your arguments though, just in case someone else reads this and thinks you were serious.

"Two of the distances in the formulas are distances between masses. The other distance is actually a change in the distance, not an actual distance."

Reply: Of course the distance that is changing is the distance between masses. If you look at the solution for mass that I derived you would know that. Are you trying to fool someone else or just yourself?

"The mass that gets canceled out is the one being accelerated."

Reply: You entirely miss the point, I am saying the mass not canceled out in the analysis is accelerating in volume. More than that, I prooved it.

"The constant of proportionality also has units. When doing dimensional analysis, which is the name of what you have done, you have to include all units, even when they are in the constants."

Reply: That is why I used proportional to rather than equals in my analysis. That is why it is called a constant of proportionality.

"...that is not mathematically correct as you must always have the same units on both sides of an equation. Otherwise you cannot use the equal sign."

Reply: I did not use an equals sign. I take it you are making things up for the sake of this joke, right? Even if I had used an equals sign your argument would be invalid because the units are equivalent on both sides. If you went back and replaced all the masses with d^3/t^2 you would still get equivalent units on both sides.

What you should have criticized me for: I ascribed F=Gmm/d^2 as Newton's third law which is incorrect. What I should have said is that when Newton III is applied to Galileo's conclusion that a=F/m "we arrive at the universal law of gravitation: F=Gm1m2/d^2.

"You will learn this when you get to college."

This is pretty funny coming from someone who would have been made mud of by the junior high debate team. I had asked two questions. Do you understand? Do you understand what this means? I take it from your answer that you are absolutely clueless.

Love and Kisses,

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins