Open study

is now brainly

With Brainly you can:

  • Get homework help from millions of students and moderators
  • Learn how to solve problems with step-by-step explanations
  • Share your knowledge and earn points by helping other students
  • Learn anywhere, anytime with the Brainly app!

A community for students.

dimensional analysis question...

Physics
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this and thousands of other questions

In the first lecture of OCW's physics 1 Lewin derives the time for a falling object as \[t\propto\sqrt{\frac hg}\]from the assumption that time is proportional to the height of falling h, mass of the object m, and the acceleration of gravity g\[t\propto h^\alpha m^\beta g^\gamma\]He then goes on to show how, though seemingly a reasonable starting point, that assuming proportionality to the mass of the earth instead of gravitational acceleration as such:\[t\propto h^\alpha m^\beta M^\gamma\]leaves you unable to draw a meaningful conclusion. The main reason I can think that is is that my assuming time is proportional to the mass of the earth M and not acceleration is that none of the variables contain units of time, and therefore it is impossible to get a meaningful expression from it. Is there more to this that I am missing, or is that essentially the main problem with the second analysis?
Hey @TuringTest , Your point is certainly half the way to the complete reasoning. The technical half is that - as you pointed, there is no time in the 2-nd product, and since time is a FUNDAMENTAL, IRREDUCIBLE UNIT it cannot be "combined" of other units. But the missing half - which is much deeper, and in fact even not-fully understood by current physics to this very day, is WHY g is PROPORTIONAL in 1-st degree to the planet-s mass. Or , in Einstein's language WHY IS THE GRAVITATIONAL MASS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE INERTIAL MASS . Einstein states this AS A POSTULATE. However neither Einstein nor anybody since that time has not given a FUNDAMENTAL REASON to this equality of the two properties of mass. The property of resisting acceleration, and the property of attracting other masses.
May I send you my question which is non-scientific but about this site ?

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

Sure, and thank you very much for the clear and enlightening explanation. I had an intuition that there was a deeper issue that made the assumption problematic that I was missing, and you explained it artfully :)
I have sent you the question as a privt. message - will be very much obliged for any guidance. Thank you in advance. Mikael

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question