Monthly Physics Competition Questionnaire

[AnTiFreeze3]

Each month I will be hosting a question that, if answered correctly, will result in a free book of my choice to be delivered to the winner of the competition.

This month's prize: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

The question for this month is the following: Why is it that objects that are held above the ground tend to fall towards the Earth?

 

[micromass]

The question for this month is the following: Why is it that objects that are held above the ground tend to fall towards the Earth?

It is the will of Satan.

 

[PhizKid]

It's not the objects falling towards the Earth, it's the Earth falling towards the objects

 

[WannabeNewton]

It won't fall. You're holding it still above the ground. Kthxbai

 

[micromass]

It's not the objects falling towards the Earth, it's the Earth falling towards the objects

Close, but not quite. In reality, nothing falls towards each other. It is our mind that makes it seem that things are falling. Without the mind, nothing is.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

It won't fall. You're holding it still above the ground. Kthxbai

I'm sorry, the answer we were looking for was

Spoiler

Like I would give away the answer to an ongoing competition, you ignoramus.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Close, but not quite. In reality, nothing falls towards each other. It is our mind that makes it seem that things are falling. Without the mind, nothing is.

You're getting close! Keep following this train of thought, and you might just win a new book!

 

[micromass]

You're getting close! Keep following this train of thought, and you might just win a new book!

Is this the book that you're going to give away: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0538497815/?tag=pfamazon01-20 ? In that case: no thanks.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Is this the book that you're going to give away: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0538497815/?tag=pfamazon01-20 ? In that case: no thanks.

Oh don't worry, we here at the annual/12 competition already know that you have a copy of that book which you enjoy very much, and would never think of supplying you with a book which you already possess.

Assuming you don't have this book, then this remains our standard prize for this month.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The answer is \mathcal{L}_{\boldsymbol{\psi}}(\epsilon_{abcd}\xi^{b}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d}) + 2\psi^{e}\nabla_{[a}(\epsilon_{e]fgh}\xi^{f}\nabla^{g}\xi^{h}) = 0<br />

 

[micromass]

Oh don't worry, we here at the annual/12 competition already know that you have a copy of that book which you enjoy very much, and would never think of supplying you with a book which you already possess.

Assuming you don't have this book, then this remains our standard prize for this month.

Reported for giving away crackpot books.

 

[micromass]

The answer is \mathcal{L}_{\boldsymbol{\psi}}(\epsilon_{abcd}\xi^{b}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d}) + 2\psi^{e}\nabla_{[a}(\epsilon_{e]fgh}\xi^{f}\nabla^{g}\xi^{h}) = 0<br />

But what does that mean?

 

[WannabeNewton]

But what does that mean?

Whatever you want it to mean young grasshopper.

 

[micromass]

Whatever you want it to mean young grasshopper.

I see. To understand the equation, I must first become one with the equation.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I see. To understand the equation, I must first become one with the equation.

Yeah sure whatever turns you on brah

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Obviously you guys didn't read the fine print for this competition: All answers to my questions, just like all of physics, are devoid of any math, because of the pure uselessness and homeliness of mathematics in general.

For this reason, WannabeNewton's answer remains, yet again, false.

 

[micromass]

Obviously you guys didn't read the fine print for this competition: All answers to my questions, just like all of physics, are devoid of any math, because of the pure uselessness and homeliness of mathematics in general.

For this reason, WannabeNewton's answer remains, yet again, false.

Can we use philosophy?

 

[WannabeNewton]

For this reason, WannabeNewton's answer remains, yet again, false.

This is tough. None of my textbooks cover this. After hours of deliberation I have, however, come upon a solution.

Kate Upton.

 

[micromass]

This is tough. None of my textbooks cover this. After hours of deliberation I have, however, come upon a solution.

Kate Upton.

What do you find prettier:

Kate Upton

or

\mathcal{L}_{\boldsymbol{\psi}}(\epsilon_{abcd}\xi^{b}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d} ) + 2\psi^{e}\nabla_{[a}(\epsilon_{e]fgh}\xi^{f}\nabla^{g}\xi^{h}) = 0

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Can we use philosophy?

Of course.

This is tough. None of my textbooks cover this. After hours of deliberation I have, however, come upon a solution.

Kate Upton.

Ah, you've finally started using your brain. While Kate Upton isn't the exact answer, the units for this answer are in Kate Uptons; ie. 17 Kate Uptons, or 92 Kate Uptons.

 

[WannabeNewton]

What do you find prettier:

Kate Upton

or

\mathcal{L}_{\boldsymbol{\psi}}(\epsilon_{abcd}\xi^{b}\nabla^{c}\xi^{d} ) + 2\psi^{e}\nabla_{[a}(\epsilon_{e]fgh}\xi^{f}\nabla^{g}\xi^{h}) = 0

Mila Kunis no question.

 

[micromass]

Mila Kunis no question.

Enjoy then:

 

[WannabeNewton]

Ah, you've finally started using your brain. While Kate Upton isn't the exact answer, the units for this answer are in Kate Uptons; ie. 17 Kate Uptons, or 92 Kate Uptons.

10 Kate Uptons per second. At least that's how it goes down in my dreams.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Enjoy then

Dude what the hell I was eating.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Following this post, everyone will be allotted one final post in which they can post their final answer to my original question. I will review these answers and pick the one that my gut tells me has the most rightness to it.

 

[micromass]

Final Answer:

Whatever happens is because AntiFreeze3 commands them to happen. He is perfection.

 

[Viru.universe]

Both objects exert gravitational forces on each other, if the person holding the object fails to provide equal and opposite force of magnitude "mg" then both objects will fall towards each other, however Earth being massive moves negligible, thus it seems to the observer as if only the object is falling down.
Was that explanation good enough?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Knights of Ni. That will be all.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Both objects exert gravitational forces on each other, if the person holding the object fails to provide equal and opposite force of magnitude "mg" then both objects will fall towards each other, however Earth being massive moves negligible, thus it seems to the observer as if only the object is falling down.
Was that explanation good enough?

Needs more $\nabla_a$

 

[PhizKid]

Both objects exert gravitational forces on each other, if the person holding the object fails to provide equal and opposite force of magnitude "mg" then both objects will fall towards each other, however Earth being massive moves negligible, thus it seems to the observer as if only the object is falling down.
Was that explanation good enough?

Prove that there is such thing as a gravitational force without using any Newtonian physics or descendants thereof (since Principia is the prize)

 

[micromass]

Needs more $\nabla_a$

Dat $\nabla$

 

[WannabeNewton]

Dat $\nabla$

It's the answer to everything according to 2001 Space Odyssey.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

WannabeNewton and micromass have both disregarded the rules of this competition by posting twice, after I allowed them to post only once, and have therefore forfeited the prize.

 

[WannabeNewton]

WannabeNewton and micromass have both disregarded the rules of this competition by posting twice, after I allowed them to post only once, and have therefore forfeited the prize.

Ain't nothin' but a thang.

 

[Viru.universe]

Prove that there is such thing as a gravitational force without using any Newtonian physics or descendants thereof (since Principia is the prize)

but I know physics only upto Newtonian level, so I explained on the basis of the knowledge which I have at the moment

 

[micromass]

but I know physics only upto Newtonian level, so I explained on the basis of the knowledge which I have at the moment

But you can't use Newtonian physics since that's the prize he's giving away!

 

[Viru.universe]

But you can't use Newtonian physics since that's the prize he's giving away!

well then I guess I'll try after a couple of years after learning some new stuff

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Everyone broke the rules, so no one gets the prize. I think I'll buy the book anyway and use it as a doorstop or something.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Everyone broke the rules, so no one gets the prize. I think I'll buy the book anyway and use it as a doorstop or something.

I happen to have a copy that I inherited from my uncle, zoobyinsole, when he passed away 85 years ago. Your doorstop idea is about the best use for it. A quick read through revealed the plot is beyond soporific, the characters are completely 2 dimensional, and the illustrations are like some sort of proto-cubism, all geometric and abstract. There's a lot of talk about the attraction of this body for that body, but none of the romances ever goes anywhere. It's no wonder it has never been made into a movie.

Incidentally, he says the bodies are attracted by the mysterious power of hypothesis non fingere. I think that's some sort of achemist's love potion, but I'm not sure.