Neville: Yes and
no. I am saying that a point is reached when g = 0 but the exponential, as it
stands (ie, without some form of damping), does still predict a slight field
strength anywhere in the universe.
Thanks for theresponse Neville. Then the curve isn't a true representation. What if you positioned a
hypothetical zero g where ever you needed it and work from there?
I only have the Artemis data to work with, but that is giving me exactly what you are suggesting.
Not being a mathmatician, I went to logic. Exponential FORMAL
describes a rate of increase which becomes quicker
and quicker as the thing that increases becomes
larger:
It appears then,
that "exponential curve" is the wrong name for our curve. Correct, which is why it is termed an exponential decay in the paper. Cannot this term also
be reversed as a rate of decrease from a maximum, to zero? i.e. we have a
defined maximum, ( an object at ground level) which decreases at a non linear
rate till it reaches zero, as the distance increases. If you enforce these
limits, what do you call the curve. ?
A damped exponential decay.
practical example.
Think of a unit north pole situated exactly at
the neutral mid point between two south poles, and the force due to the
attraction at points along a path from this zero point to one of the south
poles. I ask this as a graphical question, having no relationship to the
question of gravity.
Hope you don't charge for math lessons.
:-) Neville.
Philip.
