[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

*To*: dinosaur@usc.edu*Subject*: Re: Sauropods vs. Gravity*From*: "James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>*Date*: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 03:23:28 -0800*References*: <3C8357AA.5755D6AB@bellsouth.net>*Reply-to*: jrccea@bellsouth.net*Sender*: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

In my ms. below, the emphasis italics disappeared, so I have placed my emphasis in ALL CAPS and am trying again. Sorry. James R. Cunningham wrote: > The gravitational attraction is proportional to the mass, and to the > inverse square of the distance between the two bodies. > (halve the distance, and the attraction goes up by a factor of 4). So, > for a given mass the gravitational attraction at the > surface is stronger if the radius of the body is smaller. This is also > why objects in elliptical orbits move faster when near > perigee than near apogee. > > Jim > > Darryl Jones wrote: > > At 03:28 PM 3/3/2002, you wrote: > > I looked up this topic and found this from the USGS: > > "Gravitation is the force of attraction between two bodies, such as > the Earth and our body. The strength of this > attraction depends on the mass of the two bodies AND the INVERSE SQUARE > OF THE distance between them." [emphasis JIM'S] > > What am I missing?

**References**:**Sauropods vs. Gravity***From:*"James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: Stormer Spinosaurus specimen** - Next by Date:
**RE: Many, many thoughts & responses re: the Hutchinson-Garcia paper - LONG** - Previous by thread:
**Sauropods vs. Gravity** - Next by thread:
**Re: Sauropods vs. Gravity** - Indexes: