It doesn't cause you can still get artillery and such
*Um somehow I don't think they mean in a battle field :P I would assume that you are talking about physics? In which case the answer would be that the concept of a field eliminates the idea of action at a distance because the objects are thought to be in constant contact with the field.
there is no contact between th objects,and the forces are acting at a distance putting this in terms of the field concept, we can say that the orbiting satellite and electron interact with the force fields of the object.
An action at a distance is a term used to describe how masses attract when they are held at a certain distance. If one of these objects is charged is creates an electric field that can be felt by all other masses within a certain distance.
No. The sum of the gravitational field and the electric field is a useless concept.
I assume you mean, of the gravitational field? The gravitational field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. At a distance of 1 Earth radius, the distance from the center of the Earth is twice the distance at the Earth's surface; thus, the field strength is 1/4 what it is on the surface. If at the surface the field strength is about 9.8 meters per second square, divide that by 4 to get the field strength at a distance of one Earth radius from the surface.I assume you mean, of the gravitational field? The gravitational field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. At a distance of 1 Earth radius, the distance from the center of the Earth is twice the distance at the Earth's surface; thus, the field strength is 1/4 what it is on the surface. If at the surface the field strength is about 9.8 meters per second square, divide that by 4 to get the field strength at a distance of one Earth radius from the surface.I assume you mean, of the gravitational field? The gravitational field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. At a distance of 1 Earth radius, the distance from the center of the Earth is twice the distance at the Earth's surface; thus, the field strength is 1/4 what it is on the surface. If at the surface the field strength is about 9.8 meters per second square, divide that by 4 to get the field strength at a distance of one Earth radius from the surface.I assume you mean, of the gravitational field? The gravitational field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. At a distance of 1 Earth radius, the distance from the center of the Earth is twice the distance at the Earth's surface; thus, the field strength is 1/4 what it is on the surface. If at the surface the field strength is about 9.8 meters per second square, divide that by 4 to get the field strength at a distance of one Earth radius from the surface.
Magnets have a magnetic field about them. This field can act on objects without the magnet coming in contact with the object.
there is no contact between th objects,and the forces are acting at a distance putting this in terms of the field concept, we can say that the orbiting satellite and electron interact with the force fields of the object.
It doesn't cause you can still get artillery and such *Um somehow I don't think they mean in a battle field :P I would assume that you are talking about physics? In which case the answer would be that the concept of a field eliminates the idea of action at a distance because the objects are thought to be in constant contact with the field.
An action at a distance is a term used to describe how masses attract when they are held at a certain distance. If one of these objects is charged is creates an electric field that can be felt by all other masses within a certain distance.
No. The sum of the gravitational field and the electric field is a useless concept.
I assume you mean, of the gravitational field? The gravitational field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. At a distance of 1 Earth radius, the distance from the center of the Earth is twice the distance at the Earth's surface; thus, the field strength is 1/4 what it is on the surface. If at the surface the field strength is about 9.8 meters per second square, divide that by 4 to get the field strength at a distance of one Earth radius from the surface.I assume you mean, of the gravitational field? The gravitational field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. At a distance of 1 Earth radius, the distance from the center of the Earth is twice the distance at the Earth's surface; thus, the field strength is 1/4 what it is on the surface. If at the surface the field strength is about 9.8 meters per second square, divide that by 4 to get the field strength at a distance of one Earth radius from the surface.I assume you mean, of the gravitational field? The gravitational field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. At a distance of 1 Earth radius, the distance from the center of the Earth is twice the distance at the Earth's surface; thus, the field strength is 1/4 what it is on the surface. If at the surface the field strength is about 9.8 meters per second square, divide that by 4 to get the field strength at a distance of one Earth radius from the surface.I assume you mean, of the gravitational field? The gravitational field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. At a distance of 1 Earth radius, the distance from the center of the Earth is twice the distance at the Earth's surface; thus, the field strength is 1/4 what it is on the surface. If at the surface the field strength is about 9.8 meters per second square, divide that by 4 to get the field strength at a distance of one Earth radius from the surface.
Assuming that both have mass, then in order to completely eliminate the gravitational forces between them, an infinite distance between their centers is required.
The perimeter is always the distance around the outside edge (of the field). However this will vary according to the size of the field; it is not a standardised distance.
Yes. The endzone is included in the distance of a field goal.
Magnets have a magnetic field about them. This field can act on objects without the magnet coming in contact with the object.
Carl Friedrich Gauss.
The field-holler
mass