0089: "Gravitational Mass"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Little Cream Soda
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:07 am UTC

0089: "Gravitational Mass"

Postby Little Cream Soda » Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:28 am UTC

Image
Title-Text: She's so fat the attraction goes up as the CUBE of the distance instead of the square


okay, maybe this is just me, but...the alt text reads: She's so fat the attraction goes up as the CUBE of the distance instead of the square

obviously I get the joke she's fat enough to scare Isaac Newton, but here's the thing...

assuming her mass is constant, and said object of attraction has a constant mass as well, wouldn't that mean that she attracts things less?

what I mean:
normally: gM1M2
__________r2

but in the case presented to us, it's:gM1M2
________________________________r3

because r3 > r2, when r > 1, the overall answer for the formula would be smaller:
1/1, 1/8, 1/27, 1/64, ....
as opposed to 1/1. 1/4. 1/9, 1/16...see what I mean?

of course, that also means that if you got within less than a meter to her, the attraction would increase exponentially with each lost centimeter. (...ew).

now, just so you know, I only just completed the earliest available (and unfortunately, lowest level) physics class in my high school, and I'm in 11th grade.


Did I miss something? is it just that way to be stupid? HAS ANYONE ELSE NOTICED THIS?

please, tell me I'm not crazy or something.

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: an error in an alt text?

Postby Random832 » Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:33 am UTC

Add a link and we've got an individual-comic thread - we didn't have one for this comic before.

That said - the constant in play could be different (it would have to be different, since there are different units - even with the same value, we don't know what distance is "1" length unit - could be a metre, could be a parsec.), so that the force is larger closer to the body and smaller further away than that distance.

Oh, and learn2mathmarkup:
[math]\LARGE\frac{GM_1M_2}{r^2}[/math]
and
[math]\LARGE\frac{GM_1M_2}{r^{\color{brown}{\mathbf{3}}}}[/math]

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: an error in an alt text?

Postby Diadem » Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:35 am UTC

I can't believe noone spotted the obvious error in this cartoon before.

Attraction doesn't go up with the square of the distance. It goes down with the square of the distance.


Apart from that though, I don't see the topicstarter's problem. Yes, the attraction (both in the 1 / r^2 and 1 / r^3 cases) would go up very fast if the distance gets close to zero. That's indeed correct. Why is that a problem? Gravity is only relevant for very large objects anyway, which can never get really close together (since it's the distance between the centers that count).
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Robin S
Posts: 3579
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: an error in an alt text?

Postby Robin S » Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:04 am UTC

Random832 wrote:we didn't have one for this comic before.
Actually, we did, but it was in the wrong subforum because it's such an old thread. Merge maybe?

Attraction does indeed go down with the square of distance, but I think the point of the comic was that it goes up with the square of the inverse of distance, so that, as others have pointed out, the gravitational field is stronger close to the object. If an object followed an inverse cube law, the gravitational field would of course become stronger much more quickly as the object was approached.

Though in the case of yo momma, I don't see why anyone would approach her. [/lame attempt at following the theme of the comic]
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: an error in an alt text?

Postby Random832 » Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:40 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Apart from that though, I don't see the topicstarter's problem. Yes, the attraction (both in the 1 / r^2 and 1 / r^3 cases) would go up very fast if the distance gets close to zero. That's indeed correct. Why is that a problem? Gravity is only relevant for very large objects anyway,


It's every bit as relevant to me as it is to the earth. But, then, that's not exactly what you meant.

Robin S wrote:
Random832 wrote:we didn't have one for this comic before.
Actually, we did, but it was in the wrong subforum because it's such an old thread. Merge maybe?


I don't know why I didn't find that when I searched.

Robin S wrote:Attraction does indeed go down with the square of distance, but I think the point of the comic was that it goes up with the square of the inverse of distance, so that, as others have pointed out, the gravitational field is stronger close to the object. If an object followed an inverse cube law, the gravitational field would of course become stronger much more quickly as the object was approached.


Right - we have to determine at what distance the acceleration is the same as if it used the usual law - OP assumes that it would be 1 metre, but there's not necessarily a reason for it to be that.

User avatar
pyroman
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:35 am UTC
Location: University at Buffalo
Contact:

Re: Gravitational Mass (an error in an alt text?)

Postby pyroman » Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:47 pm UTC

heh funny i HAD noticed that but with a combination of it being so long ago back before i was active in the forums and just kinda taking it as haha shes so fat that i never said anything. Now i am ashamed for not doing so. good call though.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

michaelsinger
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:18 pm UTC
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: Gravitational Mass (an error in an alt text?)

Postby michaelsinger » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:38 pm UTC

My favorite "Yo Mama" joke:
What's Yo-Yo Ma's middle name?

Comic JK
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:08 pm UTC

Re: Gravitational Mass (an error in an alt text?)

Postby Comic JK » Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:53 am UTC

The alt text should say something like: "Yo mama's so fat the attraction falls as the 1.5th power of the distance instead of the square." This would be physically much more accurate, but sadly harder to get and much less funny.

This is why xkcd is famous and our comics are not. Or at least, I tell myself that it's my superfluity of rigor and not a dearth of wit.
Image
A webcomic funnier than life itself. Updated Monday-Friday.

dulantha_f
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:10 am UTC

Re: "Gravitational Mass" Discussion

Postby dulantha_f » Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:12 am UTC

mama's mass = (Fr^2)/Gm

therefore, r^3 will indeed make yo mama fatter

User avatar
snowyowl
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:36 pm UTC

Re: "Gravitational Mass" Discussion

Postby snowyowl » Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:14 pm UTC

dulantha_f wrote:mama's mass = (Fr^2)/Gm

therefore, r^3 will indeed make yo mama fatter

I'm sorry, I have to call you out on this. First, you're assuming a large radius: r^3 is actually smaller than r^2 for sufficiently small r. But I can forgive that.
Second, you are forgetting that as r increases, mass is constant and the force of gravity varies. You've got it backwards.

Oh, and the dimensional analysis doesn't work out at all. Well, it does a bit, but not in the way you think (you have to change G as well).
The preceding comment is an automated response.

dulantha_f
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:10 am UTC

Re: "Gravitational Mass" Discussion

Postby dulantha_f » Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:33 pm UTC

snowyowl wrote:
dulantha_f wrote:mama's mass = (Fr^2)/Gm

therefore, r^3 will indeed make yo mama fatter

I'm sorry, I have to call you out on this. First, you're assuming a large radius: r^3 is actually smaller than r^2 for sufficiently small r. But I can forgive that.
Second, you are forgetting that as r increases, mass is constant and the force of gravity varies. You've got it backwards.

Oh, and the dimensional analysis doesn't work out at all. Well, it does a bit, but not in the way you think (you have to change G as well).


True, I'm just trying to defend the author. I think what he meant was that for F to behave "normal" mama's mass is soo large, it has to be divided by r^3, not by r^2. And of course the dimensions aren't going to work out since the equation contains r^2 - it's just a joke guys. If we try to do the math, obviously it's not going to work out.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests