Sentences with phrase «inverse square of distance»

# 331, Mark, keep in mind that gravitational force decreases as the inverse square of distance, so about the only object in the solar system that has any influence would be Jupiter — and that is probably negligible.

A spherical gravitational source has an external gravitational field that falls off precisely as the inverse square of the distance from the sphere's center.

This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centres of the sun and planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts (as mechanical causes use to do), but according to the quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to immense distances, decreasing always as the inverse square of the distances....

Not exact matches

The study also considered an estimate of the waste dumps which was performed using the Inverse distance squared method.

Remember the inverse square law — if you double the distance between the light and the seedlings, you reduce the light by a factor of four.

The scientists relied on the inverse - square law of physics, which states that the intensity of light drops off according to the square of the distance between the light source and its target.

Their curse was the inverse square law, which states that the intensity of electromagnetic radiation is inversely proportional to the distance from the emitting source.

The brightnesses of stars does decrease with greater distance (remember the inverse square law) BUT there are more stars further out.

The distances to very luminous objects can be derived using the inverse square law of light brightness if their luminosity is known.

Re 392 Chris Dudley — I don't understand what you mean by R ^ 2T ^ 4 — and there should be something about how optical depth is proportional to R, and also, if you're going a significant distance toward the center of such an object, there is the issue of spherical geometry; if the optical thickness is large enough across small changes in radius, then you don't need to account for the spherical geometry in the calculation of the flux per unit area as a function of the temperature profile and optical thickness; however, the flux per unit area outward will drop as an inverse square, except of course within the layers that are being heated through a different process (SW heating for a planet, radioactivity, latent and sensible heat loss associated with a cooling interior, gravitational potential energy conversion to enthalpy via compression (adiabatic warming) and settling of denser material under gravity (the later both leads to compression via increased pressure via increased gravity within the interior, and also is a source of kinetic energy which can be converted to heat)...

«Inverse - square law The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light or other linear waves radiating from a point source (energy per unit of area perpendicular to the source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; so an object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one - quarter the energy (in the same time period).»

Re 51 Tom P — Okay, I'll look at those, but while I have the time now: yes, center of mass is shited in proportion to mass and distance, whereas gravity follows an inverse square law, which is roughly why I wouldn't expect all the planets or the sun to orbit the barycenter — well, at least not neatly as if all the mass was concentrated at the barycenter (perhaps I misunderstood what you meant).

Many of the stories that we hear about the alleged problems caused by wind turbines at considerable distances go entirely counter to the inverse square law.