Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎Just my answers, for fun!: further comments on connection to surface area of sphere
Line 269: Line 269:     
: 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)
 
: 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)
 +
 +
:: Upon further reflection on Jacob's superb contribution, I realized that the above argument that the exponent of ''r'' must be precisely 2 is defective.  It cannot be justified by the surface area of the sphere because ''Newtonian gravitation is not a wave theory''.  There is no meaningful connection between the increasing surface area of a sphere as a function of ''r'' and gravitation as a function of ''r''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 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