Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 267: Line 267:     
But the former possibility is somewhat possible, that G is in fact G(r) - it's just that if this was the case, it would be far better described by saying that "the gravitational constant is a function of distance" rather than "the exponent is slightly different than 2." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:42, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
 
But the former possibility is somewhat possible, that G is in fact G(r) - it's just that if this was the case, it would be far better described by saying that "the gravitational constant is a function of distance" rather than "the exponent is slightly different than 2." [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:42, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
 +
 +
: That is a fascinating analysis that I want to digest further.  But my initial reaction is that the obstacle to acceptance of an exponent of 2.000001 is due to an insistence that the overall gravity field remains precisely equal over the surface of the sphere.  The basic assumption of mathematics driving physics remains as the underlying fallacy.  The physical world is not necessarily mathematically pure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
    
==Test Answers==
 
==Test Answers==
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,219

edits

Navigation menu