- . . . cyclotron.10.1
- You
could even imagine examples from ``outside Physics,''
in which the radius and speed
were purely metaphorical; but I can't think of one . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- . . . .10.2
- We
write this
in standard notation.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- . . . .10.3
- We
write this
in standard notation.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- . . . Empiricist10.4
- (who
may or may not be the same person as
the Experimentalist and/or the Theoretician
- these are just different ``hats''
that a Physicist may put on)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- . . . it.10.5
- Of
course, as in Kepler's case, the empirical description
is always in terms of some preselected model
or paradigm; but the paradigm in question is generally
a familiar and widely accepted one, otherwise it is not
very helpful in communicating the results to others.
Besides, the data themselves are ``collected''
within the context of the Experimenter's paradigms and
models about the world. The ``simple'' act of vision
employs an enormous amount of ``processing'' in the
visual cortex, as discussed earlier . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- . . . are10.6
- (neglecting
perturbations from the other planets, as is assumed in all Kepler's laws)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- . . .
ellipses10.7
- Note that a circle
is just a special case of an ellipse in which the major and semimajor axes
are both equal to the radius and both foci are at the centre
of the circle.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- . . . orbit.10.8
- This
feature, unlike the other two LAWS,
is true for any ``central force''
(a force attracting the body back toward the centre, in this case the sun).
The other two are only true for inverse square laws,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- . . . tiny.10.9
- If
the Earth attracts a 1 kg mass with a force of 9.81 N,
the gravitational force between two 1 kg masses
separated by RE would be smaller by a factor equal to
the number of kilograms in ME, which is a large number.
Fortunately the smaller masses can be placed much closer together;
this helps quite a bit, but the force is still miniscule!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- . . . time.10.10
- If
you have a TV satellite dish, it is pointing at such a satellite;
note that (if you live in the Northern Hemisphere)
it is tipped toward the South. Why?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- . . .
why.10.11
- (The most intuitive explanation for this
involves the concepts of kinetic and potential energy,
which we will watch emerge from Newton's Mechanics
in succeeding Chapters.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- . . . Earth.10.12
- Surely
by now you have gotten skeptical of my repeated declarations
that the mass of the Earth can be treated as if it were all
concentrated at the Earth's centre of gravity (i.e. the centre
of the Earth). What about all the bits right next to us?
They have a much smaller r2 and thus contribute far more
``pull'' than those `way on the other side.
Well, hang on to that skepticism! I'm not leading you astray
(promise!) but a little later on I will be in a better position
to use Gauss' Law to explain in a few quick steps why
this works. You should only provisionally accept this notion
until you have seen a convincing argument with your own eyes.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- . . . past.10.13
- This
motif has been used in several delightful science fiction
stories, notably ``Neutron Star'' by Larry Niven.
and ? Egg ? by ? .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- . . . stable.10.14
- Bill Unruh,
of the UBC Physics Department, is one of the world's
leading experts on this subject.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.