So, How Do You Explain Inverse Square Then? - an Astronomy Net God & Science Forum Message

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


Home \| Discussion Forums \| God and Science \| Post	Login

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

So, How Do You Explain Inverse Square Then?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alexander on November 26, 2001 20:37:24 UTC

If we are immersed in higher dimensions, then how to explain inverse square laws (for gravity, e/m and nukes)?

Follow Ups:

Because our 3D space is a manifold - pmartin - November 26, 2001 - 21:50 UTC
- So, why do we need them (large dimensions) then? - alexander - November 26, 2001 - 23:25 UTC
  - In order to bend space-time - pmartin - November 27, 2001 - 00:52 UTC
    - Extra large dimensions are being pursued - yanniru - November 27, 2001 - 15:42 UTC
      - In addition - yanniru - November 27, 2001 - 15:50 UTC
        
        I hope they are. - pmartin - November 27, 2001 - 17:49 UTC
        
        So, how to explain inverse square law then? - alexander - November 28, 2001 - 00:19 UTC
        
        Two answers - yanniru - November 28, 2001 - 15:12 UTC
        
        Richard, I peronally contributed in dismissal of - alexander - November 28, 2001 - 20:42 UTC
        
        Reference please to your publication - yanniru - November 29, 2001 - 15:20 UTC
        
        For Richard (about gravity on mm scale). - alexander - December 1, 2001 - 02:27 UTC
        
        Casmuir effect - yanniru - December 1, 2001 - 19:10 UTC
        
        Way far. Casimir is 10^-6 or so. nt - alexander - December 3, 2001 - 22:39 UTC
        
        Alex = Priest! - luis_hamburgh - November 30, 2001 - 01:00 UTC
        
        Luis, stupidity continues? - alexander - November 30, 2001 - 18:47 UTC
        
        Alex = 1st non-religious person on my ignore list. :( - luis_hamburgh - December 2, 2001 - 21:15 UTC
        
        - luis_hamburgh - December 3, 2001 - 18:26 UTC
        
        Luis, if we have inverse square, space is 3-D (for gravity). - alexander - December 3, 2001 - 22:42 UTC
        
        The explanation of Inverse Square Law - pmartin - November 30, 2001 - 18:43 UTC
        
        Paul, don't you see the obvious? - alexander - November 30, 2001 - 19:01 UTC
        
        No. At least it is not obvious to me. - pmartin - December 1, 2001 - 01:28 UTC
        
        If our space were "imbedded" inverse square would fail. - alexander - December 1, 2001 - 02:07 UTC
        
        Not necessarily - pmartin - December 1, 2001 - 05:01 UTC
        
        I think, mathematicians did that 100 years ago or so. - alexander - December 3, 2001 - 22:48 UTC
    - Right analysis. Wrong persuasion. - luis_hamburgh - November 28, 2001 - 16:36 UTC
      - So, Luis, where is 1/r^3 law then? (If 4th dimension is there). - alexander - November 28, 2001 - 20:47 UTC
        
        I answered this yesterday, but - luis_hamburgh - November 30, 2001 - 14:30 UTC
        
        Luis, either 4d or inverse square, they do not mix. - alexander - November 30, 2001 - 21:17 UTC
      - accuse Hawking et al of "crackpottery." - yanniru - November 29, 2001 - 15:23 UTC
      - Depends on what I'm trying to persuade whom to do. - pmartin - November 30, 2001 - 18:51 UTC

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