Nope. F = Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/d[sup]2[/sup] and F = m[sub]1[/sub]a[sub]1[/sub]. Set the two equal to each other, and you find that the acceleration is only dependent on the mass of the earth (m[sub]2[/sub]) and the distance from the center.
That formula is for when the Mass of the other item is not significant. It doesn’t work when you are comparing the pull of the earth on the moon for instance.
You’re ignoring that the Earth is also attracted to the other object (Newton’s Third). Consider two masses M (probably the earth), at the origin, and m at a distance d away. F = GMm/d[sup]2[/sup], but dealing with the constantly changing distance (and thus the constantly changing force) is a huge PITA, so I’m just going to use the simplified formula F = mg (assuming M >> m). a = F/mass so a[sub]m[/sub] = -g and a[sub]M[/sub] = mg/M. Finding and equating the position equations gives us -gt[sup]2[/sup]/2 + d = mgt[sup]2[/sup]/(2M). Solving for t gives t = SQRT((2Md)/(g(m+M))). So increasing m decreases the time before the two objects collide.
Good Lord! Mightn’t vitriol such as this be better situated in the General Questions forum? There’s nary a sign of Goat felching within all the subscripts and superscripts, and I fear you all might be damaging the psyches of some of the boards more fragile math phobes here.
Which was why I realized GR had nothing to do with it. The two objects fall to the Earth at the same acceleration, but the Earth accellerates to the heavier object more. However, if you’re dropping both at the same time then the earth is accellerating towards both the same. Besides that, th e mass of the Earth is roughly 6x10[sup]24[/sup]kg. So any difference between the two masses is unmeasurable. I suspect that irregularities of the Earth (tides, etc.) would have a greater effect than the difference in mass between a bowling ball and a feather.
On another note, the sample size of this survey seems a bit small. I’d expect a large margin of error on the survey.
Also, I was stuck on the oxygen question because IIRC 75% of the O[sub]2[/sub] we get comes from phytoplankton, and I couldn’t remember if it was a plant or an animal.
Well, then, we’ve discovered that if you drop the objects together, they’ll both hit the ground at the same time (and faster than if you dropped them seperately), but if you drop them one at a time, the heavier object will hit the earth the slightest instant sooner, though both objects will take longer to fall then when you dropped them together. Science sure is fun.
Those will certainly be the controlling terms for virtually all uses of the equation, but they are still significant mathematically. If we treat d as a constant and we vary M[sub]1[/sub] are you saying that A will not change? Or that it won’t change significantly? The latter is true in most cases. The former is not.
Enjoy,
Steven
Hint: Animals do not photosynthesize.
But that IS a good example of the oversimplification (“dumbing down”) of the test leading people with more information to stumble.
This IS a legit denunciation, BTW; a series of standard shibboleths divorced from meaning is not science. Besides, “oxygen comes from plants” leads to people protesting the cutting down of 4 trees outside a school near here because “it will reduce the oxygen available to those children” (yes, they did say that).
I’m saying that the m[sub]1[/sub] terms cancel out.
phytoplankton are neither plants nor animals, according to most new classifications- they divvie up the microscopic & one celled livng things into anywhere from 1-6 other Kingdoms. One of them is not “plants”. So, the answer is wrong at that level.
I would say not knowing this is a lot worse than not knowing that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa, and I say this as an ex-astronomer. If people don’t know that antibiotics won’t kill viruses, they are more likely to ask for antibiotics when they have a viral illness like a cold or the flu (and at least some doctors will give them the antibiotics). That is one of the ways that drug-resistant bacteria are created, and they are a significant health threat. Geocentric worldviews, while deplorable, in most cases aren’t a threat to anybody else.
Mtgman: So what, exactly, is the subject matter a person should be expected to have a grasp on?
As far as the question of the sun orbiting the earth or vice versa goes, I think the essential ideas are pretty fundamental: stars are big, planets are small bits of stuff that congeal out of the material of stars, gravity attracts things together depending on their size and distance. The sun is a star and the earth is one of its planets, ergo, the earth is going around the sun instead of the other way around. (That’s not a complete explanation, of course, that’s just some of the crucial pieces of it.)
That’s not just random knowledge for knowledge’s sake; it’s some of the most basic stuff about how the universe is put together and how it works. Somebody who doesn’t even know that the earth orbits the sun has a blank spot where their mental image of the universe should be, and I think that’s a tragedy. (Of course, if they’re just using a different model, like a Ptolemaic geocentric universe with concentric crystalline spheres, that’s another thing. Not necessarily a good thing, but not as bad as just going around with that kind of hole in your mind.)
I just had to do some real soul searching after seeing the “Harvard kids didn’t know what caused the lunar phases!” video because I, with my two science degrees, didn’t know what caused the lunar phases. It had just never come up.
Lunar phases and the tilt of the earth’s axis, IMHO, are on a different scale of importance from the fundamental structure of the solar system. You can still have a basic grasp of the planets going round the sun, the moon going round the earth, etc., even if you haven’t quite understood the consequences in terms of how the sun’s rays happen to hit things during the revolutions.
Although I must say, I do think it’s a little pathetic that people should look at the same immemorial natural phenomena, month after month, year after year, for at least long enough to acquire two science degrees, and never even bother to wonder why they happen. But we’re talking a little pathetic here, not tragic and appalling.
the default is ignorance and people should not be looked down on for being in their natural state. […] The natural state of the human being is to be ignorant of damn near everything.
The natural state of the human being is also to be rude and selfish, attaching no importance to the wants of anybody but themselves. We certainly do look down on people (grown people, that is) for being in their natural state in that case. It takes years of parental and social training to awaken people to the value of being something besides rude and selfish. Training to awaken people to the value of transcending ignorance is equally time-consuming, and equally important. Just because everybody is born rude, selfish, and ignorant doesn’t mean it’s okay for them to stay that way.
For the majority of human history people thought stars were small and planets were big. For a large majority of the time people thought planets were stars(Venus, Jupiter, Mars, etc.). Applying the label “essential” to these ideas is all well and good, but the fact is that only a handful of things are essential to all human beings on the planet. Food, Water, Air, and that’s about it. It is all well and good to take these items you and I value, knowledge of these facts, critical thinking skills, politeness, etc. and say they are “essential” but the reality is that neither of us has the authority to establish what is “crucial” and what is not. The millions of people on the planet who are ignorant of these facts will happily go about their lives completely oblivious to the two of us worrying ourselves over their ignorance.
That’s me in a nutshell. A little pathetic, striving towards tragic and/or appalling.
I disagree. Maternal/Paternal instinct is natural and it very much runs counter to the idea that the natural state of Homo Sapiens Sapiens is selfishness. Rudeness is a social concept and as such has no place in the spectrum of naturally occuring behaviors. What is “rude” in one social framework may not be so in another. What is selfish in one society is still selfish in other societies, even if some societies tolerate selfishness and consider it more normal than others.
To be fair, this denunciation could apply to pretty much anyone on the planet at any time. Someone who has a different idea of what the “essential ideas” are than you do may think you pathetic, perhaps even tragic or appalling(oh I seethe with jealousy!). My point in the thread was to interject a bit of perspective. Ignorance is not a crime and “ignorant” should not be used in a negative sense. Especially when the importance of the fact someone is “ignorant” of is enforced only by the sense of outrage in the observer at someone not knowing something they, personally, consider essential.
It ain’t essential. If it were essential they would have died from not knowing it.
Enjoy,
Steven
Mtgman: It is all well and good to take these items you and I value, knowledge of these facts, critical thinking skills, politeness, etc. and say they are “essential” but the reality is that neither of us has the authority to establish what is “crucial” and what is not. The millions of people on the planet who are ignorant of these facts will happily go about their lives completely oblivious to the two of us worrying ourselves over their ignorance.
And if I had imagined that posting in the BBQ Pit would be a good way to enlighten those millions of people about these issues, I would surely be very disappointed right now. Lucky for me I already had a clue.
Mtgman: Maternal/Paternal instinct is natural and it very much runs counter to the idea that the natural state of Homo Sapiens Sapiens is selfishness.
But maternal/paternal instinct doesn’t kick in until an individual’s had many years of parental and social training to overcome their natural selfish tendencies. Yes, we have innate good qualities, but they need socialization to bring them out.
Mtgman: Rudeness is a social concept and as such has no place in the spectrum of naturally occuring behaviors. What is “rude” in one social framework may not be so in another.
But the concepts of rudeness and politeness are universal. All cultures have customs that are somewhat arbitrary but that have to be followed just because they demonstrate awareness of and respect for social norms. All children are born ignorant of those norms and customs, and therefore rude, and have to be socialized into politeness.
Mtgman: My point in the thread was to interject a bit of perspective. […]
It ain’t essential. If it were essential they would have died from not knowing it.
Thanks for that helpful perspective, but I already knew that an awareness of the basic structure of the solar system is not literally necessary for physical survival. But we’re not talking here about what people need to know just to stay alive in any culture on the planet you happen to name. We’re talking about things that we think people in one of the most prosperous and technologically advanced nations of the world ought to have as part of their basic intellectual heritage.
Most of what you’re doing here is irritating me because it’s not arguing, it’s just “rant squelching”. Rant squelching is when people come along and object to somebody’s sounding off about something (in the Pit, yet!) because “there are more serious problems in the world” or “why should anyone care what you think about this”. Well, no shit, Einstein! If this were a major threat to the existence of humanity and I had the power to remedy it on my own, then I’d be out there doing that instead of sitting around complaining on a freaking message board, wouldn’t I?
The whole point of pittings and rantings is that you take them passionately and argue them on their own terms. If you think the whole subject is trivial or overblown, well then, you can safely ignore it and go back to your more important task of making sure that everybody on the planet is getting Food, Water, Air, which are the only things that really count, after all. No need to hang around here pissing all over the fireworks.
Boy, that was a rude post. Sorry Steven, I take it all back. (Although I would kind of like to keep the overall rejection of “rant squelching” in general.) Nevermind.
I disagree entirely, but this is a disagreement about anthropology and and probably is too large to contain here, so I’m ok with agreeing to disagree.
Fair enough. I think the differences between our stances are due to each of us thinking of different specific “rude” behaviors. Some are natural behaviors(picking your nose) which are squelched by society. Some are simple examples of selfishness(interrupting conversations because whatever it is you have to say is obviously the most important). Rudeness, to me, implies intent to a degree.
Yea, I got that. And I’m trying to get some idea about exactly what that “basic intellectual heritage” is and should be because I am part of this culture and I don’t consider this knowledge “essential” I consider it “trivial”. If your only actual USE of this knowledge will be in games of “Trivial Pursuit” then I can’t really fault someone for not taking the time out of their lives to learn it. Seems the very definition of rational ignorance.
Fireworks need to be pissed on sometimes. They go out of control and start grass fires. Balance is important. A fire which is threatening to burn one out of every four of my fellow citizens is one I’ll gladly donate my water to putting out.
Enjoy,
Steven
Whether the earth goes around the sun or not is completely irrelevent when installing a plumbing system. A basic understanding of gravity is all that is needed. And just as the gravitational theorist may look down on the plumber for not understanding Einstein, the plumber would equally look down on the gravitational theorist for not being able to install a plumbing system, even though he is supposedly an expert on gravity.
Both are capable of critical thinking, both are trained in a physical science, and both consider the other an idiot.
The short answer is no, you dont have to have an in-depth understanding of the higher level forces/causes etc of your own specialty to be very good at it and capable of critical thinking. In some cases you dont even have to have a basic understanding. I dont know many auto mechanics who could describe the science behind friction in even a basic way. That in no way tells me anything about their ability to determine when I need new piston rings.
One of the most intelligent and brilliant electricians Ive ever known was a creationist. One of the most brilliant programmers Ive known is a die-hard Democrat. Both are very intelligent and capable of critical thinking but were still obviously very culpable to being sold a line of bullshit.
Id like to see some questions similar to these, and what the answers are; for some reason I think the results might be a bit different:
What substance is the gasket under your toilet made out of?
What is a piston ring?
Which is less likely to allow a ground fault, a breaker or a fuse?
etc etc etc
Mtgman: *And I’m trying to get some idea about exactly what that “basic intellectual heritage” is and should be because I am part of this culture and I don’t consider this knowledge “essential” I consider it “trivial”. If your only actual USE of this knowledge will be in games of “Trivial Pursuit” then I can’t really fault someone for not taking the time out of their lives to learn it. *
So a society shouldn’t include anything in basic education that isn’t going to be directly “USED” in a practical situation? Well, there goes music, art, poetry, history, most foreign languages, most mathematics as well as most science, philosophy, religion, and pretty much everything else. I can’t say I think much of your criteria for “basic intellectual heritage”.
Immediately practical knowledge is certainly very important and everybody should have lots of it, but to say that other kinds of knowledge are optional and that nobody should be expected to know anything that they haven’t got a practical “USE” for is, as I said, a tremendous intellectual impoverishment.
Well, at least this last exchange has made clear the futility of discussing the issue further. I hadn’t realized previously that you think that society has no business expecting its members to know anything that they don’t have a direct practical use for. Given that assumption, then of course you don’t believe that people should be taught that the earth orbits the sun, or for that matter even that the earth is round instead of flat, or that the earth is more than 6000 years old. All information that isn’t immediately relevant to practical knowledge for everyone’s everyday life should be relegated to specialized training for the few people who will actually need to know it, or to the realm of trivia for people who happen to like that sort of thing.
Clearly, we have no common ground for discussing educational requirements. If I’d properly understood your position before, I wouldn’t have wasted my time and yours arguing about it.