The "gravitational constant" is a myth, and if your physics courses still teach it as immutable truth then you need to switch schools.
>>7699095
>I'm mad that physics 1 for freshmen makes simplifications
Gee you must be very popular
>>7699104
There's "simplification" and then there's just flat out wrong.
An equivalent would be like if in biology, you learned Biblical creationism and Lamarckian evolution for the first couple semesters before "graduating" to actual biology.
>>7699095
I love that picture, it perfectly communicates the difference between knowing a factoid and actually understanding something
You know what to do.
>>7699095
Was Dirac right?
>>7699095
Do you mean the "gravitational acceleration constant" or the actual gravitational constant?
>>7699113
It should be obvious from context which one he's talking about.
This is why nobody likes STEM majors. It's irritating to communicate with you when everything has to be super-specific and technically correct.
>>7699105
No, it's a very good approximation when considering the setting of several small objects around one big object. Do you have an issue with the floor being perfectly flat? Frictionless surface? You're being autistic for no reason.
>>7699116
>talking about STEM majors as if you aren't one
>posting on /sci
you really need to get the fuck out.
>>7699109
>learn a new fact in class
>run back to your room to post on /sci/ that anyone who doesn't know it is a RETARD
Why do people do this?
>>7699121
he's right, and that's why you're hurting inside
>>7699131
autism
>>7699134
No, you're not write, the reason STEM needs to be precise is because it's a precise subject, stupid people are incapable of being precise when they need to hence why they aren't STEM majors. >>7699113 is a valid question because there is actually controversy about both and no way of knowing what OP meant unless you assume he is a complete retard like >>7699116 (You).
>>7699162
You're right, he is in no way write.
>implying something witty using "left" in the punchline
>>7699194
Aaaand who's the autist obsessed with technicalities now? Annoying isn't it?
>Getting hooked by collosal bait that obvious.
Guess you aren't a STEM major after all.
>>7699162
Do you mean "right" as in correct, or "write" as in, the act of recording data?
You need to be more precise :^)
>>7699185
It's because of how politicized American science "education" has gotten, particularly at the lower levels (high school, etc.)
Liberal educators try to push this narrative that poor helpless Galileo was oppressed by the big mean pope. Which of course, means you're not supposed to know Galileo was a fraud and a crappy scientist, because that's inconvenient to the narrative.
>>7699267
Are you even in the right thread? What the fuck are you talking about?
>>7699294
Its not his fault, he is from /pol/.
>>7699299
He is right about Galileo at least. I'll be honest I also thought he "burned for having new ideas" before I actually read up about it.
>>7699307
Common knowledge everyone should have learned by the 8th grade can only be used in braggery by fools.
>>7699095
It is a great approximation for every day life
>>7699095
You still fall at the same rate retard. Just instead of g you use GM/r^2
Under what circumstances does the gravitational constant change?
>>7699340
Passing of time.
>>7699340
What do you mean by gravitational constant?
>>7699294
Constant Acceleration is a theory originally proposed by Galileo. And schools still teach this (incorrect) theory, because they like the idea of Galileo and what he represents.
>>7699334
>You still fall at the same rate, except when you don't
>>7699095
All that's being ignored is the "gravitational constant" of the falling objects, by virtue of the fact that the effect of their mass on the object they're falling towards is being ignored. Number wise that's pretty insignificant.
>>7699267
>complaining about people using convenient narratives
>while defending the church
top kek anon
but really, I heard little to nothing about galileo in highschool
>>7699334
What he's getting at is that, if nothing is given aside from the falling objects and the planet they're falling towards, the more massive object would pull the planet towards itself slightly faster than the lighter object, causing it to fall faster by virtue of the fact that
A) it's going to hit first, so using the planet as a reference frame will mean it's falling the fastest
and B) if it's closer to the planet, the planet will have a stronger gravitational effect on it (and vice versa) meaning it will be accelerating more even if you're using the planet's original position as a reference frame.
>This thread
Time to leave /sci/ forever. Goodbye.
>>7699497
This thread is not about "constant acceleration." At least I hope it's not, since that would be fucking stupid. Please go enjoy your redpill euphoria elsewhere.
>>7699162
>it's a precise subject
No, law is a precise subject. A criminal investigation needs precision. Science doesn't require precision, it just requires paper-shuffling aspie losers who know their place and do what they're told. When we want precision, we'll tell you.
>>7699605
bantz
>>7699499
The rate of change doesn't have to be constant moron 8/10 im autistic.
Jupiter still accelerates towards earth the same rate any other object would if it had the same distance to earth as Jupiter. I don't know what your probel is.
>>7699523
Nigger stop talking you are saying nonsense. Look up gravitational field.
>>7699639
you seem to have missed the point of "gravitational constant" being in quotes
>>7699676
But in what sense what yoy are saying doesn't mena they fall at the same rate? Remember "falling " only makes senses if you are being pulled by one either of the planets.
Are you talking about G or g? If it's the latter, you're a retaaahd
>>7699679
>But in what sense what yoy are saying doesn't mena they fall at the same rate?
In the sense that I literally fucking said they don't fall at the same rate.
>"falling" only makes senses if you are being pulled by one either of the planets.
For what reason? I mean, if I pull something towards me with a rope, is it "falling" towards me? That hasn't a thing to do with what the word means.
>>7699727
You're not >>7699679, right?
It's not the same, as the earth would also be moving in those problems, far more in the Jupiter scenario. Since it's being pulled towards jupiter, there's less distance between them. That's less distance to fall and more "force of attraction" since things which are closer are going to have a greater effect on one another.
>>7699738
Not him but yea I get it now. Thanks
>>7699095
The autism is real. Learn the difference between G and g.
>>7699684
Are you autistic? It should be obvious through context clues which ones OP means.
FYI if you're one of the people sperging over the misuse of the phrase "gravitational constant", then you're one of the people this comic is making fun of.
Okay, but which falls faster?
An Earth-sized planet?
Or two pieces of an Earth-sized planet?
>>7699955
Same, assuming perfect split etc. (An imperfect split would result in one part approaching Jupiter faster than the other.)
That doesn't mean an individual piece would fall at the same rate as well, it's as simple as 2+2 still equaling 4 whereas 2 alone does not.
>>7699980
How far apart do the two pieces have to be before they become "independent"?
>>7699104
Yeah, first year physics would make even me sweat if my professor followed each sentence with "But not really".
9.8 + 24.5
>>7699991
>Yeah, first year physics would make even me sweat if my professor followed each sentence with "But not really".
True, but in this case that wouldn't even be necessary. Physics scenarios are not arbitrarily precise - the precision of your answer is limited by the precision of your measurements (i.e., what sig figs are all about). So the difference in the ACCELERATION OF THE EARTH between a 100 kg falling mass and a 200 kg falling mass is many many orders of magnitude below measurabilility. So there aren't even any adjustments to be made.
>>7700002
Physics is only about measuring. But people do not ask themselves what if there are inmeasurable variables? We can't understand the physics of physics. We have a limit. And we may have hit that limit, we never reach the end but we keep going towards that limit.
>>7699131
don't have cell phone
im a hs senior ina physics class without calculus and everyone here understands that
>>7699993
The quads of truth
>>7699095
The answer is 9.8+24.5 meters per second squared because you can't pick earth or jupiter as your frame of reference. The origin in a frame of reference must be moving with 0 acceleration for you to apply newton's laws.
>>7700046
>But people do not ask themselves what if there are inmeasurable variables?
Have you never read a book or something? People ask that kind of question ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
>>7700358
>>7699993
Am I being trolled? I'm probably being trolled, but fuck it. I'm gonna do the calculations explicitly by machine, for clarity:
>>> rj = 71492000
>>> re = 6378000
>>> mj = 1.8986e27
>>> me = 5.97237e24
>>> G = 6.674e-11
>>> F = (G * mj * me) / (rj + re)**2
>>> F / me # approx. acceleration of earth toward jupiter
20.89677802478534
>>> F / mj # approx. acceleration of jupiter toward earth
0.06573437805324303
Figures come from Wikipedia, radii at the equators in metres, mass in kg. This is when the surface of the Earth meets the surface of Jupiter, assuming their atmospheres, oceans, etc. are irremovable parts of their masses.
Might have wasted my time, but if even one person genuinely thought that Jupiter could be pulled toward the Earth at 1 g then it was worth it.
