Gravitational field strength question ...

8

Use Nordstroms relation.

\nabla^2 \phi = \rho

Which defined precisely the density of mass, and so that which the field which generated it.

Reply 2

1

gs = GM / R^2

g = GM / (R + h)^2

=> GM = gs R^2

=> g = gs R^2 / (R+h)^2 = gs (R/(R+h))^2

Reply 3

8

I think my apporach is easier.

Reply 4

1

G. Lee

I think my apporach is easier.

Ok, to prove it, give a worked answer using your approach. Few words please, just logical, consistent equations.

Reply 5

Scipio90

G. Lee

I think my apporach is easier.

Could you provide a full solution using your approach?

Reply 6

OP

TableChair

gs = GM / R^2

g = GM / (R + h)^2

=> GM = gs R^2

=> g = gs R^2 / (R+h)^2 = gs (R/(R+h))^2

This helped thanks :smile:

Repped

G. Lee

Use Nordstroms relation.

\nabla^2 \phi = \rho

Which defined precisely the density of mass, and so that which the field which generated it.

This may be easier, however i am not familiar with that equation, but thanks nevertheless :smile:

Reply 7

8

peter-27

This helped thanks :smile:

Repped

This may be easier, however i am not familiar with that equation, but thanks nevertheless :smile:

Then let me help further.

\phi

refers to the gravitational field.

The

\nabla^2

is the d-Alembertian which measured this field in four dimensions.

So

\rho

is density of the field.

Reply 8

8

Repped... this always amused me at this place. Why should such remedial numbers matter anyway?

Reply 9

OP

G. Lee

Then let me help further.

\phi

refers to the gravitational field.

The

\nabla^2

is the d-Alembertian which measured this field in four dimensions.

So

\rho

is density of the field.

I think that's wayy past A-Level standard!

P.S "Rep" doesn't really matter, it's just interesting is all. Generally the more "rep" you have, the more helpful you are on these forums.

Reply 10

8

It is past A-level, but is taught very early on in college - the math isn't too hard to work out if you study the equation.

And to be quite frank, rep is hardly interesting - its a molestation of how others view others, and can be easily flouted with the highest of impunity, expecially when you can people convinced you are nothing but a waste of space.

Reply 11

8

Think of it as favouritism. It's pathetic.

Reply 12

1

G. Lee

It is past A-level, but is taught very early on in college - the math isn't too hard to work out if you study the equation.

And to be quite frank, rep is hardly interesting - its a molestation of how others view others, and can be easily flouted with the highest of impunity, expecially when you can people convinced you are nothing but a waste of space.

If it's not too hard, you'll answer my question and show how it's an easier method. :smile:

Really, you say that, and then you neg me. Interesting.

Reply 13

OP

G. Lee

Think of it as favouritism. It's pathetic.

By that logic everything is favoritism. Me choosing to message you back now is favoritism.

And if that is your point of view ... and you think favouritism is "pathetic" then you can't like life very much :confused:

Reply 14

8

Why should one... the world is declining, faster and faster... what is there left to hope for than the hidden hope of some change, which seems unlikely?

Reply 15

8

TableChair

If it's not too hard, you'll answer my question and show how it's an easier method. :smile:

Really, you say that, and then you neg me. Interesting.

It was written with less variables than the equation you did solve for him... how does this not make my equation more simpler?

In fact, this site is hungry for education, and i don't believe entire answers should be given without the shadow of some previous attempt at a solution, (not intended to be specific with the OP. I know him not at all).

Oh, and i would like an apology for the lies.... that is also why i gave you a negative.

Reply 16

1

G. Lee

It was written with less variables than the equation you did solve for him... how does this not make my equation more simpler?

In fact, this site is hungry for education, and i don't believe entire answers should be given without the shadow of some previous attempt at a solution, (not intended to be specific with the OP. I know him not at all).

Oh, and i would like an apology for the lies.... that is also why i gave you a negative.

Your equation might be, your solution isn't.

Well I know how I would get to the answer, but it's more complicated than my route. So if you'd like to show me a way simpler than my original, as you claimed you could, then please do.

I didn't lie, you made those claims on another forum.

Reply 17

OP

G. Lee

Why should one... the world is declining, faster and faster... what is there left to hope for than the hidden hope of some change, which seems unlikely?

That's a bit worrying, you should go see a psycologist (I mean that in the nicest possible way)

Reply 18

8

TableChair

Your equation might be, your solution isn't.

Well I know how I would get to the answer, but it's more complicated than my route. So if you'd like to show me a way simpler than my original, as you claimed you could, then please do.

I didn't lie, you made those claims on another forum.

Hit and miss. Whilstb the equation involved more variables, it is a simpler expresssion of an equation than your derivation, which is textbook stuff. And yes, thank you for correcting my grammer.... it isn't my equation at all, just one i presented. For that i apologize.

Reply 19