I just love philosophy. So if you (and the mentors) never mind for this occasion...
I guess I can't deny my existence. Cause the moment I deny it is actually the moment I accept it for proving the existence of my denial. So I exist. ["I think, therefore I am." - Rene Dascartes]
Okey I admit this...
Thanks.
So I conclude - dimensional analysis works for equations; but it will work for proportionality only if the constant is unit less. (The book was a bit confusing.)
It never seems to be the case. Serway's book describes it as a general procedure. Here is the excerpt from Serway's book:(as this page can be previewed in amazon; I think it never breaks any copyright)
Now this certainly works for x ∞ (a^n)(t^m); but what happens when we apply this for...
Wait, I have another question. In law of gravitation we know F = GmM/r^2 Here G is a proportionality constant, isn't it? Then how come it is not a pure number (ie it has units like) 6.67×10^−11 N·(m/kg)2 ?
This is actually an example from Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Serway. I am confused about the way they solved it.
Homework Statement
Suppose we are told that acceleration a of a particle moving with uniform speed v in a circle of radius r is proportional to some power of r, say...
As Nugatory said, objects of different masses feel different gravitational force. Now, I think your confusion is, if masses feel different magnitudes of gravitational force how come they accelerate at same rate? Right?
In other words you are asking if F is different how can g be same?
You...
For both reasons; I think.
Cotton is more electronegative (then wool) implies Cotton atoms' (outer shell) electrons are more tightly held than wool.
Wool is less electronegative (then cotton) implies Wool atoms' (outer shell) electrons are more loosely held than cotton.
Hey, thanks a lot. :-)
But I wonder why while writing intro physics books they never clarify this. I started this thread just for kicks but in the end I have learned something important.
I am beginner intro physics student. So I might be lacking in concept. That said; when we study 1D kinematics don't we consider 1D quantity like 1D velocity. 1D acceleration as vectors?
If we multiply velocity with time, we get displacement. How can we multiply two vector and get a vector? (I thought it is possible only under cross multiplication, but you reminded me that cross multiplication is only for 3D.) So how do we multiply the 'vector' time with any other vector...