Please 🙏 anyone including Sir Professor Anderson, which books professor anderson follow? From which book he pick the problems? I am waiting? Book name, author name, edition?
We are lucky that there are 3 spatial dimensions, because in k spatial dimensions we would have r^(k-1) in the denominator, and in 2 or more than 3 spatial dimensions there are no stable closed orbits, as per Bertrand's theorem.
mohanreddy tetala, You're very welcome. Glad you're enjoying the videos. You might also like my new site: www.universityphysics.education Cheers, Dr. A
Lowercase g is gravitational field strength. Capital G is the universal constant of gravitation, first measured by Henry Cavendish. He puts the two concepts together in this lecture: ua-cam.com/video/NRnmMl0BfqE/v-deo.html Also, letters for representing variables and constants will get reused from time to time, and can stand for different concepts in different contexts. So don't be fixated on one symbol always meaning the same thing.
I understand that the force between two masses is attractive and that the minus sign is due to that, but why is it that in many books the minus sign is absent?
@@sshannon1948 The fact that it is a force of attraction is implied. The equation is simply giving you the relation of the magnitude of the force of gravity, if it omits the negative r unit vector term.
@@ashishkumarsharma1323 WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma; AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consistent WITH WHAT IS E=MC2, “mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED electroMAGNETIC/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! SO, what are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE !!! WHAT IS GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded (or blocked). Consider the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!! Now, consider what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky !!! (What is THE EARTH IS ALSO BLUE !!!) Again, consider WHAT IS E=MC2 !!! c squared CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Great. By Frank Martin DiMeglio In understanding SPACE, what is gravity, TIME, AND time dilation (ON BALANCE), it is important is it to understand what is a BALANCED displacement of what is SPACE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON/IN BALANCE. Consider what is E=MC2. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. (c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE.) Indeed, the stars are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Consider what is THE EYE, AND notice what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE. NOW, consider what is the BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE. CLEARLY, BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental (ON BALANCE). “Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ON BALANCE, consider what is the orange (AND setting) Sun. “Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE (ON BALANCE) consistent WITH E=MC2, F=ma, TIME, AND time dilation ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents, DESCRIBES, AND INVOLVES what is possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Notice what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Indeed, inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/AS) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). This CLEARLY explains what is E=MC2 AND F=ma ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !! (Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE.) Great. Indeed, consider WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground ON BALANCE. I have mathematically proven why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE; AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. (Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE.) I have mathematically proven what is the fourth dimension, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! I have explained why what are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
@@judf55 The students who watch his lecture in person, are seeing a live feed of the video on a screen to the side of him. He uses a mirror between the camera and his setup, to reverse the image so the text is legible.
@@prashantsharma2204 These lectures are introductory. This is probably the fist 11 minutes of a lecture that is at least 1 hour (my guess), where the remaining part of the lecture discusses example problems that would be solved with the material presented, and how to put it together with material from other lectures. Out of curiosity, what does JEE stand for? And which Indian equivalent of J is it (ज or झ)?
@@carultch JEE is a competitive exam for getting admission is IIT ( Indian Institute Of Technology) . For getting admission there you have to qualify for JEE mains and then JEE advance or u can give CET ( Common Entrance Exam ) and get admission in some engineering college
The Newtonian equation for the "force" of gravity is completely erroneous or wrong due to many reasons. The equation says that the "force" of gravity is inversely proportional to the square area between two objects. Also, multiplying the masses makes no sense to do in the real world too. Another reason why the masses should not be multiplied is due to occam's razor which is that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily". It's not necessary to multiple the masses to calculate the "force" of gravity.
You may not agree with the methods of determining this formula, but like it or not, it is consistent with experimental results, and has enabled humanity to have a successful space program, and discover new planets. Neptune for instance, was discovered by its gravity thanks to this equation, before humans discovered it visually. It isn't a complete picture of universal gravitation, because it has its limitations and when masses are large enough, relativistic effects come in to play and add their own complexity. But it is good enough for a first order calculation in most cases.
If you want some intuition on how to understand why this formula works, consider this. We know force of gravity is proportional to the first mass, because we can experimentally determine that weight is proportional to inertia. Examples of experiments that determine this: free fall rates being independent of mass; a pendulum's swing period being independent of mass; the rate at which an object rolls down a ramp is independent of mass. We also know that gravity must be a "two way street" to satisfy Newton's third law. Therefore, we must have a mathematical operation that is commutative, to combine the two masses. Two examples being addition and multiplication. Multiplication is what is necessary, in order to be consistent with the previous paragraph. If the force is proportional to m1, and it needs to be agnostic to which mass you define as m1 and which you define as m2, then it must also be proportional to m2. This establishes that m1*m2 is in the numerator of our equation. Due to the fact that we live in a 3-dimensional universe, many phenomena will "spread out" with distance according to an inverse square law. Such as spraypaint, sound, and light from a spherically symmetric source. The same "stuff" (more specifically, gravitational flux) is distributed over a spherical shell that surrounds the source of gravity. When that spherical shell increases in radius by a factor of k, its surface area increases by a factor of k^2. The "stuff" ends up being distributed over a greater area, and therefore having less of an influence on the target object. This is where the inverse square part of the equation comes from. This is also why in electrostatics, we call the leading constant "one over four pi epsilon zero", rather than just a big K (you could call it a big K if you want). The "four pi" comes from the surface area of a sphere. The universal constant G, is there to make the units work out. To translate from kg^2/m^2 into Newtons. Its value is measured experimentally, first by Henry Cavendish.
@@carultch It's not a matter of liking it or not, but rather a matter of whether or not it's correct and the fact is that the Newtonian equation representing the "force" of gravity is incorrect. It's not necessary to include the mass of the primary object nor the universal gravitational constant in the equation to represent its gravitational power which is why it's not necessary to multiply the masses. The equivalence principle is erroneous and free fall is not actually independent of the mass of a falling object. This is based ,of course, on the presumption that the gravitational power of an object depends on its mass. I'm currently writing a scientific paper showing indisputable proof that the acceleration of a falling object depends on its own gravitational power.
@@BTWPhysics Either you are trolling, or you are delusional. Do you have any evidence to challenge the current scientific consensus on what factors cause gravity? And what exactly does "its own gravitational power" even mean?
@@carultch You apparently know about the inverse-square law from what you're saying about gravitational flux with the spherical shell and you should know what I mean then with gravitational power. Gravity obeys the inverse-square law which means you have intensity of the gravitational field or acceleration of gravity and gravitational power which is the standard gravitational parameter or GM value. You're welcome to debate me on this and you would lose the debate like all the others have. The fact is that Newton's equation for the "force" of gravity more correctly would be interpreted to mean that the "force" of gravity is inversely proportional to square area. Does it make sense to you that the "force" of gravity between two objects is inversely proportional to the square area between their centers?
Big G is a universal constant, first measured by Henry Cavendish. Prior to Cavendish, we didn't have such a symbol in the formula for universal gravitation. Newton expressed this formula as a proportionality, rather than an equation. We could measure the GM product for various astronomical bodies, but we didn't know how many kilograms any given planet was...even our own Earth. Cavendish wanted to know the overall density of Earth, in the interest of geology. He produced a setup where he could "weigh" lead balls of known mass in each others' gravitational fields, in order to solve for the constant G, and use the known GM product of Earth to find the mass and correspondingly density of the Earth. Determining G was a biproduct of his experiment, when the primary purpose of his experiment was to "weigh" the Earth. Even today, we maintain the concept of the GM product (called the standard gravitational parameter) as astronomical data of planets, because you can know this product to a much greater precision than you can know G. We know Earth's GM product to 9 significant figures, but we only know G by itself to 4 significant figures.
Theres a fine line between upwards rising and downward falling motion. Upward rising motion is the result of MOLICULAR ENERGY FLOW, molecules in motion. Downward falling motion is the result of MOLICULAR ENERGY LOCK , which is trapped motionless gas molecules within solid objects . FACT of GAS BONDING totally destroys Einstein's Space Bending and Newton's Gravity/Black Holes . Including Newton's apple ! All downward falling motion begins when active rising gas molecules in motion becomes trapped and motionless within the process of GAS BONDING, the process of making solid objects. This is scientificly known as the mechanism of GAS BONDING, which take on a state of solid mass, blocking out its electrons motion, it's fire power, thus becomes ENERGY LOCK lifeless gas molecules, and falls downward in real time, fallowing it's Electrons Unlimited Potential Velocity, at the speed of light, connects with the earth ENERGY CONSERVATION SYSTEM, establishing a downward falling path, for trapped ENERGY LOCK lifeless gas molecules/ solid objects only . Equating the above FACT with the physical universe, same as Einstein's E = MC2 equates with the physical universe. E = ENERGY = MM = MOLECULE MOTION = Molecules in motion within star flames earth gases birds and balloons plains and rocket's, even us humans rise from molecules in motion, creating an ENERGY FLOW, the ruling force of the universe. M = MASS = GB = GAS BONDING = Gas Bonding creates a state of solid mass, blocking out its electrons motion, it's fire power, thus becomes ENERGY LOCK lifeless gas molecules, and falls downward in real time. C2 = LIGHT SPEED = E = ELECTRONS = Electrons Unlimited Potential Velocity, at the speed of light, connects with the earth ENERGY CONSERVATION SYSTEM, establishing a downward falling path, for trapped ENERGY LOCK lifeless gas molecules/solid objects only. Gravity is a mythical concept that's mentally applied by Newton, solely to guarantee needed results to it's point of origin, the BRAIN !
@@darkprince-xw6tt - I'm not aware of water hanging around in the upper levels of the atmosphere and not falling downward. If this is true it's because of some external support keeping it up there. Water is motionless with zero energy flow, and cannot support itself in anyway in the upper levels of the atmosphere without falling downward. Oxygen hydrogen Gas Bonding of making water take place at atomic molicular levels in real time, which is impossible to follow to pin point it's direction, but we know they fall downward relating to it's physical effects . Atmospheric conditions will always change the direction of falling objects, other than that I'm clueless .
@@rayagoldendropofsun397 i mean specifically when water bonds from liquid to solid; if gas bonding is what you are referring to as "gravity" and downward/falling motion, how come water rises when liquid water becomes solid water - your/the theory sounds good just saw this issue that may or may not be an inconsistency
@@darkprince-xw6tt - Maybe U should look at thermodynamics where temperature changes water from liquid to solids which is ice and why it rise as U said. All rising motion is the result of MOLICULAR ENERGY FLOW, and water/ice is made up of trapped gas molecules rendering it motionless and unable to rise. I'm not sure why solid ice floats on top of water. Thermodynamic says it could possibly be from lack of density, which is a good idea, because it would have trapped air within making the solid ice buoyant . Easy experiment to prove by throwing some Ice cubes into a container of water. The most dense ice cubes should sink below the less dense ice cubes .
great teaching i understood very well thanks
This lesson is very very clear. You are a good teacher.
navodya,
Thanks for the comment, I appreciate it.
You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education
Cheers,
Dr. A
Elegant explanation for Newtons theory Thank You!!
You're very welcome!
Cheers,
Dr. A
Wonderful! Really enjoyed it.
Anindya Roy,
Thanks for the comment, and keep up with the physics!
You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education
Cheers,
Dr. A
great video
Nice lecture. How do you do that with the glass pane? Do you Write from Right to left and mirrorwise?
Linus 6626 Feynstein,
The board is called Learning Glass. You can check it out at www.learning.glass
Cheers,
Dr. A
Please 🙏 anyone including Sir Professor Anderson, which books professor anderson follow? From which book he pick the problems? I am waiting? Book name, author name, edition?
We are lucky that there are 3 spatial dimensions, because in k spatial dimensions we would have r^(k-1) in the denominator, and in 2 or more than 3 spatial dimensions there are no stable closed orbits, as per Bertrand's theorem.
How on earth can you write in reverse so good?
Eric Suarez,
The board is called Learning Glass. You can check it out at www.learning.glass
Cheers,
Dr. A
These lectures are complete or not?
So nice and clear
Zemin Haokip,
Great comment, thanks.
You might also like my new website: www.universityphysics.education
Cheers,
Dr. A
Thank you sir
nice explanation sir
keep more videos of you in physics pls sir
mohanreddy tetala,
You're very welcome. Glad you're enjoying the videos.
You might also like my new site: www.universityphysics.education
Cheers,
Dr. A
My professor is also a professor but he is more like a high school teacher comparing to you. Only teaches the formulas and basics to solve problems.
i thought g reprsented gravitational field strenght and Newtons universal law of gravition was F=Gm1m2/rsquared
Lowercase g is gravitational field strength.
Capital G is the universal constant of gravitation, first measured by Henry Cavendish.
He puts the two concepts together in this lecture:
ua-cam.com/video/NRnmMl0BfqE/v-deo.html
Also, letters for representing variables and constants will get reused from time to time, and can stand for different concepts in different contexts. So don't be fixated on one symbol always meaning the same thing.
Helpfull
Glad to hear that
Cheers,
Dr. A
8:36 I thought the planet with bigger mass would have higher Fg ?
I understand that the force between two masses is attractive and that the minus sign is due to that, but why is it that in many books the minus sign is absent?
WA5CVI minus sign is the vector form. its equal to multiplying the magnitude by (-r unit vector)
@@ashishkumarsharma1323 Thank you
@@sshannon1948 The fact that it is a force of attraction is implied. The equation is simply giving you the relation of the magnitude of the force of gravity, if it omits the negative r unit vector term.
@@ashishkumarsharma1323 WHAT IS E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma; AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consistent WITH WHAT IS E=MC2, “mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED electroMAGNETIC/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! SO, what are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE !!! WHAT IS GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded (or blocked). Consider the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!! Now, consider what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky !!! (What is THE EARTH IS ALSO BLUE !!!) Again, consider WHAT IS E=MC2 !!! c squared CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Great.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
In understanding SPACE, what is gravity, TIME, AND time dilation (ON BALANCE), it is important is it to understand what is a BALANCED displacement of what is SPACE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON/IN BALANCE.
Consider what is E=MC2. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. (c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE.) Indeed, the stars are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Consider what is THE EYE, AND notice what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE. NOW, consider what is the BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE. CLEARLY, BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental (ON BALANCE). “Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ON BALANCE, consider what is the orange (AND setting) Sun. “Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE (ON BALANCE) consistent WITH E=MC2, F=ma, TIME, AND time dilation ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents, DESCRIBES, AND INVOLVES what is possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Notice what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Indeed, inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/AS) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). This CLEARLY explains what is E=MC2 AND F=ma ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !! (Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE.) Great. Indeed, consider WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground ON BALANCE. I have mathematically proven why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE; AS c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. (Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE.) I have mathematically proven what is the fourth dimension, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! I have explained why what are OBJECTS may fall at the SAME RATE.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
Thank you
Skor Pion,
You're very welcome. Glad you're enjoying the videos.
You might also like my new site: www.universityphysics.education
Cheers,
Dr. A
@@yoprofmatt i really liked your new site. Thank you so much.
Am I the only one who wonders how he writes on that magic board? He's not writing backwards that fast, is he?
The video is reversed
@@edbyrnes8378 Yeah. But there are students infront of him. How do they see it?
@@judf55 The students who watch his lecture in person, are seeing a live feed of the video on a screen to the side of him. He uses a mirror between the camera and his setup, to reverse the image so the text is legible.
1
Heyy guys, i m from india. I m preparing for JEE exam, i wanna know these lectures are complete or not.
Relying on youtube for jee!!!!!!!
@@tamilbiology5078 yes bro........
@@prashantsharma2204 These lectures are introductory. This is probably the fist 11 minutes of a lecture that is at least 1 hour (my guess), where the remaining part of the lecture discusses example problems that would be solved with the material presented, and how to put it together with material from other lectures.
Out of curiosity, what does JEE stand for? And which Indian equivalent of J is it (ज or झ)?
@@carultch It would be the first one but it doesn't make the 'jay' sound. It sounds more like 'juh'
@@carultch JEE is a competitive exam for getting admission is IIT ( Indian Institute Of Technology) . For getting admission there you have to qualify for JEE mains and then JEE advance or u can give CET ( Common Entrance Exam ) and get admission in some engineering college
The ball, hand and earth are already in motion; 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration . So no.
The Newtonian equation for the "force" of gravity is completely erroneous or wrong due to many reasons. The equation says that the "force" of gravity is inversely proportional to the square area between two objects. Also, multiplying the masses makes no sense to do in the real world too. Another reason why the masses should not be multiplied is due to occam's razor which is that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily". It's not necessary to multiple the masses to calculate the "force" of gravity.
You may not agree with the methods of determining this formula, but like it or not, it is consistent with experimental results, and has enabled humanity to have a successful space program, and discover new planets. Neptune for instance, was discovered by its gravity thanks to this equation, before humans discovered it visually.
It isn't a complete picture of universal gravitation, because it has its limitations and when masses are large enough, relativistic effects come in to play and add their own complexity. But it is good enough for a first order calculation in most cases.
If you want some intuition on how to understand why this formula works, consider this.
We know force of gravity is proportional to the first mass, because we can experimentally determine that weight is proportional to inertia. Examples of experiments that determine this: free fall rates being independent of mass; a pendulum's swing period being independent of mass; the rate at which an object rolls down a ramp is independent of mass.
We also know that gravity must be a "two way street" to satisfy Newton's third law. Therefore, we must have a mathematical operation that is commutative, to combine the two masses. Two examples being addition and multiplication. Multiplication is what is necessary, in order to be consistent with the previous paragraph. If the force is proportional to m1, and it needs to be agnostic to which mass you define as m1 and which you define as m2, then it must also be proportional to m2. This establishes that m1*m2 is in the numerator of our equation.
Due to the fact that we live in a 3-dimensional universe, many phenomena will "spread out" with distance according to an inverse square law. Such as spraypaint, sound, and light from a spherically symmetric source. The same "stuff" (more specifically, gravitational flux) is distributed over a spherical shell that surrounds the source of gravity. When that spherical shell increases in radius by a factor of k, its surface area increases by a factor of k^2. The "stuff" ends up being distributed over a greater area, and therefore having less of an influence on the target object. This is where the inverse square part of the equation comes from. This is also why in electrostatics, we call the leading constant "one over four pi epsilon zero", rather than just a big K (you could call it a big K if you want). The "four pi" comes from the surface area of a sphere.
The universal constant G, is there to make the units work out. To translate from kg^2/m^2 into Newtons. Its value is measured experimentally, first by Henry Cavendish.
@@carultch It's not a matter of liking it or not, but rather a matter of whether or not it's correct and the fact is that the Newtonian equation representing the "force" of gravity is incorrect. It's not necessary to include the mass of the primary object nor the universal gravitational constant in the equation to represent its gravitational power which is why it's not necessary to multiply the masses.
The equivalence principle is erroneous and free fall is not actually independent of the mass of a falling object. This is based ,of course, on the presumption that the gravitational power of an object depends on its mass. I'm currently writing a scientific paper showing indisputable proof that the acceleration of a falling object depends on its own gravitational power.
@@BTWPhysics Either you are trolling, or you are delusional. Do you have any evidence to challenge the current scientific consensus on what factors cause gravity? And what exactly does "its own gravitational power" even mean?
@@carultch You apparently know about the inverse-square law from what you're saying about gravitational flux with the spherical shell and you should know what I mean then with gravitational power. Gravity obeys the inverse-square law which means you have intensity of the gravitational field or acceleration of gravity and gravitational power which is the standard gravitational parameter or GM value.
You're welcome to debate me on this and you would lose the debate like all the others have. The fact is that Newton's equation for the "force" of gravity more correctly would be interpreted to mean that the "force" of gravity is inversely proportional to square area. Does it make sense to you that the "force" of gravity between two objects is inversely proportional to the square area between their centers?
Shocker, he never provides a definition for Big G.
7:05
Big G is a universal constant, first measured by Henry Cavendish. Prior to Cavendish, we didn't have such a symbol in the formula for universal gravitation. Newton expressed this formula as a proportionality, rather than an equation. We could measure the GM product for various astronomical bodies, but we didn't know how many kilograms any given planet was...even our own Earth.
Cavendish wanted to know the overall density of Earth, in the interest of geology. He produced a setup where he could "weigh" lead balls of known mass in each others' gravitational fields, in order to solve for the constant G, and use the known GM product of Earth to find the mass and correspondingly density of the Earth. Determining G was a biproduct of his experiment, when the primary purpose of his experiment was to "weigh" the Earth.
Even today, we maintain the concept of the GM product (called the standard gravitational parameter) as astronomical data of planets, because you can know this product to a much greater precision than you can know G. We know Earth's GM product to 9 significant figures, but we only know G by itself to 4 significant figures.
Theres a fine line between upwards rising and downward falling motion. Upward rising motion is the result of MOLICULAR ENERGY FLOW, molecules in motion.
Downward falling motion is the result of MOLICULAR ENERGY LOCK , which is trapped motionless gas molecules within solid objects .
FACT of GAS BONDING totally destroys Einstein's Space Bending and Newton's Gravity/Black Holes .
Including Newton's apple !
All downward falling motion begins when active rising gas molecules in motion becomes trapped and motionless within the process of GAS BONDING, the process of making solid objects.
This is scientificly known as the mechanism of GAS BONDING, which take on a state of solid mass, blocking out its electrons motion, it's fire power, thus becomes ENERGY LOCK lifeless gas molecules, and falls downward in real time, fallowing it's Electrons Unlimited Potential Velocity, at the speed of light, connects with the earth ENERGY CONSERVATION SYSTEM, establishing a downward falling path, for trapped ENERGY LOCK lifeless gas molecules/ solid objects only .
Equating the above FACT with the physical universe, same as Einstein's E = MC2 equates with the physical universe.
E = ENERGY = MM = MOLECULE MOTION = Molecules in motion within star flames earth gases birds and balloons plains and rocket's, even us humans rise from molecules in motion, creating an ENERGY FLOW, the ruling force of the universe.
M = MASS = GB = GAS BONDING = Gas Bonding creates a state of solid mass, blocking out its electrons motion, it's fire power, thus becomes ENERGY LOCK lifeless gas molecules, and falls downward in real time.
C2 = LIGHT SPEED = E = ELECTRONS = Electrons Unlimited Potential Velocity, at the speed of light, connects with the earth ENERGY CONSERVATION SYSTEM, establishing a downward falling path, for trapped ENERGY LOCK lifeless gas molecules/solid objects only.
Gravity is a mythical concept that's mentally applied by Newton, solely to guarantee needed results to it's point of origin, the BRAIN !
but what about water which doesn't necessarily "fall" when "gasses" bond
@@darkprince-xw6tt - I'm not aware of water hanging around in the upper levels of the atmosphere and not falling downward. If this is true it's because of some external support keeping it up there.
Water is motionless with zero energy flow, and cannot support itself in anyway in the upper levels of the atmosphere without falling downward.
Oxygen hydrogen Gas Bonding of making water take place at atomic molicular levels in real time, which is impossible to follow to pin point it's direction, but we know they fall downward relating to it's physical effects .
Atmospheric conditions will always change the direction of falling objects, other than that I'm clueless .
@@rayagoldendropofsun397 i mean specifically when water bonds from liquid to solid; if gas bonding is what you are referring to as "gravity" and downward/falling motion, how come water rises when liquid water becomes solid water - your/the theory sounds good just saw this issue that may or may not be an inconsistency
@@darkprince-xw6tt - Maybe U should look at thermodynamics where temperature changes water from liquid to solids which is ice and why it rise as U said.
All rising motion is the result of MOLICULAR ENERGY FLOW, and water/ice is made up of trapped gas molecules rendering it motionless and unable to rise.
I'm not sure why solid ice floats on top of water. Thermodynamic says it could possibly be from lack of density, which is a good idea, because it would have trapped air within making the solid ice buoyant .
Easy experiment to prove by throwing some Ice cubes into a container of water. The most dense ice cubes should sink below the less dense ice cubes .