SkipCaptcha
710
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 232:
Line 232: + +
Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness (view source)
Revision as of 03:58, October 2, 2009
, 03:58, October 2, 2009no edit summary
That formula for the area is geometric; the exponent couldn't possibly be anything other than 2.
That formula for the area is geometric; the exponent couldn't possibly be anything other than 2.
ON THE OTHER HAND, this is all in Newtonian gravity. In GR, a derivation of the exponents works similarly, but the possibility of them being slightly off 2 is equally remote, that is, 0, but even then, GR is not an ultimate formulation of gravity. Who knows how the world really works. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:53, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
ON THE OTHER HAND, this is all in Newtonian gravity. In GR, a derivation of the exponents works similarly, but the possibility of them being slightly off 2 is equally remote, that is, 0, but even then, GR is not an ultimate formulation of gravity. Who knows how the world really works. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:53, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::Ah, that's a better way to picture it, no need for calculus. Thanks for sharing. If only I were as smart as Newton! --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:58, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
::: This question is a very interesting one, but I think you'll agree after pondering it further that there is no logical obstacle to observing a gravitational force that proportional to the inverse of, say, 2.0000001. Math is fine for what it does, but mathematical elegance does not dictate physical laws.
::: This question is a very interesting one, but I think you'll agree after pondering it further that there is no logical obstacle to observing a gravitational force that proportional to the inverse of, say, 2.0000001. Math is fine for what it does, but mathematical elegance does not dictate physical laws.
::: Invariably math/physics types initially insist that it must be precisely 2 in order to make the integrals work nicely. But physical observation is what counts, and there is no logical obstacle to mathematical inelegance. Thanks for discussing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
::: Invariably math/physics types initially insist that it must be precisely 2 in order to make the integrals work nicely. But physical observation is what counts, and there is no logical obstacle to mathematical inelegance. Thanks for discussing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 1 October 2009 (EDT)