A community for students. Sign up today!
Here's the question you clicked on:
 0 viewing

This Question is Closed

TuringTest
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0In 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?

Mikael
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Hey @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 2nd 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 notfully understood by current physics to this very day, is WHY g is PROPORTIONAL in 1st degree to the planets 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.

Mikael
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1May I send you my question which is nonscientific but about this site ?

TuringTest
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Sure, 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 :)

Mikael
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1I have sent you the question as a privt. message  will be very much obliged for any guidance. Thank you in advance. Mikael
Ask your own question
Ask a QuestionFind more explanations on OpenStudy
Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.
spraguer
(Moderator)
5
→ View Detailed Profile
is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...
23
 Teamwork 19 Teammate
 Problem Solving 19 Hero
 Engagement 19 Mad Hatter
 You have blocked this person.
 ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...
Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.