I am so fucking happy I remembered right that it was proportional to the inverse of the square in particular.
31, yes, but I am Physics Major Georg adn should not have been counted towards determining what's common knowledge.
it's okay, the margin of error on this poll is really high so it's very possible physics is good, actually
If it makes you feel any better physics is THE ONE AND ONLY TIME I actually really like numbers and maths.
i like physics on a conceptual level but when actual numbers and forumas come into the picture i start floundering very quickly
29 and uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no I don't know it at all I technically took an ap physics class but its cirriculum was only slated to cover half the material on the ap test, which meant we weren't likely to even get 3s on the test. so the class revolted and complained and dragged our feet, and our teacher didn't feel like teaching an optional class to a bunch of high-performance babies, so we turned it into a study hall. but i do vividly remember the time we went down to the gym and dropped a barbie doll with a parachute from high in the room
38 and something something gravity falls off over distance something Look, I'm a writer, and the physics class I tried to take was in high school, half a lifetime ago. (I dropped it because the teacher thought that teaching consisted of testing only from the reading, and spending class time showing us slides of his trip to Japan.) Physics is awesome, but I have nowhere near the background I need to appreciate it, and have forgotten all of the math I had that would have allowed me to dip my toes in. People who can wrap their heads around it impress the hell out of me.
I'm 23 and all I knew before I checked the spoiler was that gravitational force lessened dramatically with distance.
I should know this, but I believe gravitational force is equal to something like Spoiler (Mass * Gravitational Constant)/(Distance ^ 2). With the caveat that 'distance' is from the point center of the object. There's some derivation for determining the mutual attraction of two objects, but for cases where Body A is much more massive than Body B, that should work.
I'm a 11011arian (okay, okay, I'm 1Bteen) and something something square-cube law. It's been a while and I don't deal with it so I'd have to look it up.
That's at least true for classical electromagnetism, which is also an inverse-square law in our regular 3+1-dimensional universe; a rough explanation is that a charged particle sends out photons to produce its electric field and the intensity is going to be inversely proportional to the area/hypervolume of the shell. However, general relativity in 2 space dimensions is actually really weird because it turns out that spacetime has to be completely flat in the absence of mass instead of the curvature that produces gravity, and a point particle instead bends space into a cone! To anyone who thinks they'll be able to make sense of this, I'll point you to Greg Egan. (I'm 27, and a PhD student in math.)
Yay, another Egan fan. But yeah, 2 space dimensions is weird because a bunch of things that can occur in 3 and up simply don't appear in 2 space dimensions.
Big fan of physics. I knew it had to do with inverse squares in some way. *shrug* High school was a long time ago, and the physics I focused on in college were of the electronic variety, not astro.
