This is obviously a silly question but:

If you take the inverse square law (a = 1/b^2) to 0 (b -- 0) then a
seems to go to infinity. This doesn't really make sense for physical
systems like power attenuation (I = P / (4*pi*r^2)). What am I missing?


Selwyn-Lloyd

On 2008-03-03 21:15:42 -0800, Sam Wormley said:

Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson wrote:
This is obviously a silly question but:

If you take the inverse square law (a = 1/b^2) to 0 (b -- 0) then a
seems to go to infinity. This doesn't really make sense for physical
systems like power attenuation (I = P / (4*pi*r^2)). What am I missing?


Selwyn-Lloyd


b can't really go to zero.... that's a physical limitation for most
systems.

But very close to it?

"Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" wrote in message
...
On 2008-03-03 21:15:42 -0800, Sam Wormley said:

Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson wrote:
This is obviously a silly question but:

If you take the inverse square law (a = 1/b^2) to 0 (b -- 0) then a
seems to go to infinity. This doesn't really make sense for physical
systems like power attenuation (I = P / (4*pi*r^2)). What am I missing?


Selwyn-Lloyd


b can't really go to zero.... that's a physical limitation for most
systems.

But very close to it?


b is the distance between _centers_ (of mass, of charge) of two different
bodies so it is just about impossible to get them extremely close.

The universe is finite. Negative curved (like a saddle) and yet the
volume of the universe has to be unbounded Go figure Bert

On 2008-03-04 21:22:26 -0800, "Insipid Halogen Name"
said:


"Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" wrote in message
...
On 2008-03-03 21:15:42 -0800, Sam Wormley said:

Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson wrote:
This is obviously a silly question but:

If you take the inverse square law (a = 1/b^2) to 0 (b -- 0) then a
seems to go to infinity. This doesn't really make sense for physical
systems like power attenuation (I = P / (4*pi*r^2)). What am I missing?


Selwyn-Lloyd


b can't really go to zero.... that's a physical limitation for most
systems.

But very close to it?


b is the distance between _centers_ (of mass, of charge) of two different
bodies so it is just about impossible to get them extremely close.

My misunderstanding was that total whatever somehow goes to infinity
when in reality it is just that the quantity whatever / (dimension - 1)
goes to infinity, which is obvious.


Selwyn-Lloyd

"Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" wrote in message
...
If you take the inverse square law (a = 1/b^2) to 0 (b -- 0)
then a seems to go to infinity.

Sam Wormley said:
b can't really go to zero.... that's a physical limitation for most
systems.

"Insipid Halogen Name" said:
b is the distance between _centers_ (of mass, of charge) of two different
bodies so it is just about impossible to get them extremely close.

hanson wrote:
in Newton's F = G*m*M/r^2, of course, "r" can't go to zero, because
any "m" requires a positive "r"... There were very recently a bunch
of threads that dealt with the r-min conditions, including whether "G"
is really constant, since only the product of "G*m" can be measured
to great exactness, but NOT so the value of "G" alone. GR tried to
improve the situation, but as long as it uses Newton's "G" in all of its
solutions, this Einstein crock n'crap is not any better than Newton's.

It is equally funny to muse over F = G*m*M/r^2 with "r" going to infinity
where according to the equation F only becomes zero at infinity...
However currently accepted speculation says that this is wrong
because F is already zero when "r" reaches the distance to the light
wall, "R", the radius the observable universe, from beyond which we
cannot "feel" any force any more, F(R) = 0 .... ahahaha...

One can make the same spiel with the EM charge 1/r^2 law... and
show that the EM reach is not infinite, because it turns out that at a
separation distance of the cosmic "R" between 2 elementary electrical
charges they will neither attract nor repel each other any more, since
(amongst other reasons) the time required to "feel" each other will
exceed the time "t" that the observable universe allegedly has existed.
And to make matter seven more hilarious throw in the HUP, ~E=h*t,
and estimate the remaining energy & fore between 2 charges under
these theoretically but not practically observable conditions... ahahaha...

Enjoy all these mental bullsherations, dudes, but always remember
that only $4 with or without such knowledge will buy you a cup of coffee...
Thanks for the laughs.... ahahaha... ahahahanson

"hanson" wrote in message
news:ULCzj.15477$e_.6031@trnddc03...
| "Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" wrote in message
| ...
| If you take the inverse square law (a = 1/b^2) to 0 (b -- 0)
| then a seems to go to infinity.
|
| Sam Wormley said:
| b can't really go to zero.... that's a physical limitation for most
| systems.
|
| "Insipid Halogen Name" said:
| b is the distance between _centers_ (of mass, of charge) of two different
| bodies so it is just about impossible to get them extremely close.
|
| hanson wrote:
| in Newton's F = G*m*M/r^2, of course, "r" can't go to zero, because
| any "m" requires a positive "r"... There were very recently a bunch
| of threads that dealt with the r-min conditions, including whether "G"
| is really constant, since only the product of "G*m" can be measured
| to great exactness, but NOT so the value of "G" alone. GR tried to
| improve the situation, but as long as it uses Newton's "G" in all of its
| solutions, this Einstein crock n'crap is not any better than Newton's.
|
| It is equally funny to muse over F = G*m*M/r^2 with "r" going to infinity
| where according to the equation F only becomes zero at infinity...
| However currently accepted speculation says that this is wrong
| because F is already zero when "r" reaches the distance to the light
| wall, "R", the radius the observable universe, from beyond which we
| cannot "feel" any force any more, F(R) = 0 .... ahahaha...
|
| One can make the same spiel with the EM charge 1/r^2 law... and
| show that the EM reach is not infinite, because it turns out that at a
| separation distance of the cosmic "R" between 2 elementary electrical
| charges they will neither attract nor repel each other any more, since
| (amongst other reasons) the time required to "feel" each other will
| exceed the time "t" that the observable universe allegedly has existed.
| And to make matter seven more hilarious throw in the HUP, ~E=h*t,
| and estimate the remaining energy & fore between 2 charges under
| these theoretically but not practically observable conditions...
ahahaha...
|
| Enjoy all these mental bullsherations, dudes, but always remember
| that only $4 with or without such knowledge will buy you a cup of
coffee...
| Thanks for the laughs.... ahahaha... ahahahanson
|



I've asked long ago what the real function is but there were no takers:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...erseSquare.jpg

On the right is the standard inverse square.
Once below the surface the force diminishes rapidly to zero,
if you bore a hole to the centre you weigh nothing when
reach it.

Exactly at the surface, R / radius(M) = 1 by definition. All that means
is the radius R at the planet's surface is the radius of the larger body.

Hence we must have something like:
F = GMm/(R^2) for R radius(M)
F = GMm /(1^2) = GMm * (1^2) for R = radius(M)
F = GMm * R^2 for R radius(M)
When R = 0, F = 0.

But that isn't quite right, I've not included r = radius(m).

I leave it to the reader to state the actual equation that
includes r = radius(m).
Hint: (R+r)^2

On the left is a different but related problem that is beyond
the capabilities of this crowd.

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:32:29 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:




I've asked long ago what the real function is but there were no takers:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...erseSquare.jpg

Go and sue your elementary school teachers, for not having
been able to teach you the basic math skills, Androcles.
Private lessons & coaching have their price, and you forgot to
offer a reasonable fee plus compensatory hardship allowance
for instructing YOU 1 / x and 1 / x^2 equations.

ahhahahaha...

w.

(TOFU)

On the right is the standard inverse square.
Once below the surface the force diminishes rapidly to zero,
if you bore a hole to the centre you weigh nothing when
reach it.

Exactly at the surface, R / radius(M) = 1 by definition. All that means
is the radius R at the planet's surface is the radius of the larger body.

Hence we must have something like:
F = GMm/(R^2) for R radius(M)
F = GMm /(1^2) = GMm * (1^2) for R = radius(M)
F = GMm * R^2 for R radius(M)
When R = 0, F = 0.

But that isn't quite right, I've not included r = radius(m).

I leave it to the reader to state the actual equation that
includes r = radius(m).
Hint: (R+r)^2

On the left is a different but related problem that is beyond
the capabilities of this crowd.

On Mar 6, 9:01*am, Helmut Wabnig hwabnig@ .- --- -. DOT .- t wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:32:29 GMT, "Androcles"

wrote:

I've asked long ago what the real function is but there were no takers:
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...erseSquare.jpg

Go and sue your elementary school teachers, for not having
been able to teach you the basic math skills, Androcles.
Private lessons & coaching have their price, and you forgot to
offer a reasonable fee plus compensatory hardship allowance
for instructing *YOU * * 1 / x and 1 / x^2 *equations.

ahhahahaha...

w.

(TOFU)





On the right is the standard inverse square.
Once below the surface the force diminishes rapidly to zero,
if you bore a hole to the centre you weigh nothing when
reach it.

Exactly at the surface, R / radius(M) = 1 by definition. All that means
is the radius R at the planet's surface is the radius of the larger body.

Hence we must have something like:
F = GMm/(R^2) for R radius(M)
F = GMm /(1^2) *= *GMm * (1^2) *for R = radius(M)
F = GMm * R^2 for R radius(M)
When R = 0, F = 0.

But that isn't quite right, I've not included r = radius(m).

I leave it to the reader to state the actual equation that
includes r = radius(m).
Hint: (R+r)^2

On the left is a different but related problem that is beyond
the capabilities of this crowd.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-----------------
your basic school
didnt teach you
NOT TO BE A little PARROT !!
may be we will ! while you will grow a bit older (:-)

Y.P
-----------------------------------

On Mar 5, 9:45*pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Selwyn-Lloyd McPherson" wrote in message

...
If you take the inverse square law (a = 1/b^2) to 0 (b -- 0)
then a seems to go to infinity.

Sam Wormley said:
b can't really go to zero.... that's a physical limitation for most
systems.

"Insipid Halogen Name" said:
b is the distance between _centers_ (of mass, of charge) of two different
bodies so it is just about impossible to get them extremely close.

hanson wrote:

in Newton's F = G*m*M/r^2, of course, "r" can't go to zero, because
any "m" requires a positive "r"... There were very recently a bunch
of threads that dealt with the *r-min conditions, including whether "G"
is really constant, since only the product of "G*m" can be measured
to great exactness, but NOT so the value of "G" alone. *GR tried to
improve the situation, but as long as it uses Newton's "G" in all of its
solutions, this Einstein crock n'crap is not any better than Newton's.

It is equally funny to muse over F = G*m*M/r^2 with "r" going to infinity
where according to the equation F only becomes zero at infinity...
However currently accepted speculation says that this is wrong
because F is already zero when "r" reaches the distance to the light
wall, "R", the radius the observable universe, from beyond which we
cannot "feel" any force any more, F(R) = 0 .... ahahaha...

One can make the same spiel with the EM charge 1/r^2 law... and
show that the EM reach is not infinite, because it turns out that at a
separation distance of the cosmic "R" between 2 elementary electrical
charges they will neither attract nor repel each other any more, since
(amongst other reasons) the time required to "feel" each other will
exceed the time "t" that the observable universe allegedly has existed.
And to make matter seven more hilarious throw in the HUP, ~E=h*t,
and estimate the remaining energy & fore between 2 charges under
these theoretically but not practically observable conditions... ahahaha....

Enjoy all these mental bullsherations, dudes, but always remember
that only $4 with or without such knowledge will buy you a cup of coffee....
Thanks for the laughs.... ahahaha... ahahahanson

-----------
right !!

amthematiciance that call themselves physicists
donot know that
each physical mathematicalformula
HAS ITS LIMITS OF VALIDATION !!
iow
there is not all over overlap between the
mathematical formula and physical reality
2
i can explain what you saied about
a force becoming zero even before infinit distance:

just think about all attraction agents
*as not moving in straight lines*
*but moving **naturally** in a curved line!!!
pleae not that 'naturally' - no one is forcing it
to do it- it is just as it was 'born' to behave

once the force line is curved
it cant reach to infinity !!

iow it ends its action even much before infinity
because the curved line causes it to go back
(as sort of a fountain) muchj more before infinity

now just think about the
CIRCLON .... (:-)
as a force agent !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------