The textbook I'm using for physics now are (Lamlard) by prof Ajaja, (New school) by prof M.W Anyakoha , (Essential physics) by prof O.E Farinde and (Fundermental In physics) by David Halliday and Robert Resnick.

you will be wondering that what is this one saying now or guessing that is he a sec students "No" guess more, I mean more, more and more.
is he a jambite "I will say yes" because you're now guessing your guessing right.

Fundermental in physics is a textbook recommended by JAMB but too bulky and fully loaded with explanation and diagrams in colored, why essential physics give you key point with little details and Lamlard (lamlard is of good advantage for jambite with almost 95% of jamb question in it) as well. Note lamlard is not for who don't have basic knowledge of physics. But you can still use lamlard by reading larmlard along with other textbooks. and new school is into detail but not upto the standard of fundermental in physics.

But I still need more help on this textbooks because I don't have a good foundational background in Physics.
so am among the category of people to be asking question in this platform. waiting for you my Ogas at the top to dominate this group.

Formula for absolute potential is
U(r)=-GMm/r

But since we are concedering the absolute value..d negative is neglected
U(r)=GMm/r

Now

(1)True...from d formula above making U(r) subject of formula...
U(r)=GMm/r

Now let GM/r =k
Then the formula becomes
U(r)=km
U can see d gravitational potential is directly proportional to the mass..

(2)true...
From the formula...let GMm=k

Then U(r)=k/r
It means the absolute potential has an inverse relationship with the radius...I.e,as radius increases, gravitational potential decreases..

Kendzyma:
Formula for absolute potential is
U(r)=-GMm/r

But since we are concedering the absolute value..d negative is neglected
U(r)=GMm/r

Now

(1)True...from d formula above making r subject of formula...
r=GMm/U(r)

Now let GM/U(r) =k
Then the formula becomes
r=km
U can see d radius is directly proportional to the mass..

(2)true...
From the formula...let GMm=k

Then U(r)=k/r
It means the absolute potential has an inverse relationship with the radius...I.e,as radius increases, gravitational potential decreases..

Thankz for this explanation bros!

Kendzyma:
Formula for absolute potential is
U(r)=-GMm/r

But since we are concedering the absolute value..d negative is neglected
U(r)=GMm/r

Now

(1)True...from d formula above making r subject of formula...
r=GMm/U(r)

Now let GM/U(r) =k
Then the formula becomes
r=km
U can see d radius is directly proportional to the mass..

(2)true...
From the formula...let GMm=k

Then U(r)=k/r
It means the absolute potential has an inverse relationship with the radius...I.e,as radius increases, gravitational potential decreases..

THANKS
[]

According to what prof Ajaja said in my lamlard textbook both the answer are FALSE and according to ANYAKOHA he started that (U) which is the gravitational potential decrease as the distance increase. why lamlard say gravitational potential decreases (become more negative) as the body is moved closer to the center of the earth.

so have been confused on this explanation rather on this two textbooks.
so I need more explanation on this confusing area sir.

Kendzyma:
Formula for absolute potential is
U(r)=-GMm/r

But since we are concedering the absolute value..d negative is neglected
U(r)=GMm/r

Now

(1)True...from d formula above making r subject of formula...
r=GMm/U(r)

Now let GM/U(r) =k
Then the formula becomes
r=km
U can see d radius is directly proportional to the mass..

(2)true...
From the formula...let GMm=k

Then U(r)=k/r
It means the absolute potential has an inverse relationship with the radius...I.e,as radius increases, gravitational potential decreases..

Very wrong analysis bro

Canavaro2077:


THANKS
[]

According to what prof Ajaja said in my lamlard textbook both the answer are FALSE and according to ANYAKOHA he started that (U) which is the gravitational potential decrease as the distance increase. why lamlard say gravitational potential decreases (become more negative) as the body is moved closer to the center of the earth.

so have been confused on this explanation rather on this two textbooks.
so I need more explanation on this confusing area sir.

anyakoha explained its own while negleting the negative which makes the answer true(dnt know why dey choosed false after that explanation)


the second textbook considered the negative sign so which makes there explanation correct also...but ones the question is "absolute" gravitational potential,u have to follow anyakoha explanation and if theres no absolute,follow the second...

chloride6:


Very wrong analysis bro

you are right
i actually just rechecked the first question well,checked in a hurry

(1)true,
from the formula U(r)=Mm/r
let M/r=k
U(r)=km
so gravitational potiential has a direct relationship with mass


you can also explain ur own version..

i have reedited it above,though will still like to see their explanation why they chose false in the first question

if I may ask sir which physics textbook are you using.

Kendzyma:
i have reedited it above,though will still like to see their explanation why they chose false in the first question

i need to find a math tex to answer your question.

brb

okay, im back...

The question asks if the absolute values of a gravitational potential associated with a body at a fixed distance increases if the body mass changes.

You already know that,

U(r)=-GM/r not -GMm/r

And that its absolute value is GM/r

Therefore in a scenario where r is constant, how does U(r) change with respect to a change in M.

Essentially you have to evaluate the first partial differential of U(r) with respect to M.

Since G, r are all constant or considered constant,

The first partial differential of U(r) with respect to M equals 1 which is constant, hence it does change.

So the answer is true.

Modified

I have modified my response...

Since the values of the first partial differential of U(r) with respect to M equals one, it may be interpreted as an increase in M causes an increase in U(r) by a factor of 1.

If the answer of the first partial differential of U(r) with respect to M was zero, the answer would be false.

It is was a thoughtless error, i was working toward your answer..]

Hope you understand?

The first one is TRUE sir why the second question is FALSE in my lamlard textbook.

I really appreciate your support and contributions sirs.

Canavaro2077:
I really appropriate your supports sirs.

I have modified my answer

Please, who can solve this question for me?

The bulb and stem of a thermometer contains 0.50.ml up to zero mark. If the length of a degree on the scale is. 0.30cm, what is the cross sectional area of the bore? (apparent cubic expansivity of the mercury in glass is 1.5x 10¯⁴ per k?)