Re: [TeslaTurbine] Re:Force of Gravity
- understanding is great, but it seems that we humans at best are reverse engineering the universe... i.e. trying to figure out how it works by our observation and tinkering, not from blueprints or specs or being able to get it first hand from the project designer / engineer:-)like trying to learn English as a second language.... neat set of book rules except for those pesky exceptions...----- Original Message -----From: Shadow of the RedwoodSent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:09 PMSubject: Re: [TeslaTurbine] Re:Force of Gravitypersonally, I feel there is great value in stating the forumula in such a way that others will begin to understand the actual concept and what is going on, rather than make it a senseless rigamarole of numbers.
panamabob@... wrote:I think that it was just a practical issue... try different "guess" formulas and see which best mimics reality... you have a winner.:-))----- Original Message -----From: William CarrSent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 7:27 PMSubject: [TeslaTurbine] Re:Force of GravityOn Feb 7, 2006, at 5:17 PM, TeslaTurbine@yahoogroups.com wrote:Myself I can't tell you why it's the square and not the cube either. However I think that is was Sir Isaic Newton who came up with this ratio by calculating the rate at which objects accelerate on there path to the ground. But don't quote me on that.I think it may have something to do with the fact we have three physical dimensions.The dispersal of any point source would be n-1, with n being the number of physical dimensions.If we lived in a four dimensional space, no doubt point sources would fall off by the cube instead.
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "TeslaTurbine" on
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
- Visit your group "TeslaTurbine" on the web.