Solution to gravitational differential equation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the gravitational differential equation, specifically how the acceleration due to gravity relates to the inverse square of the distance from a primary mass. The user proposes that integrating the function related to gravity leads to a solution involving -ln(r). This indicates a misunderstanding of the relationship between gravitational force and position functions. The conversation highlights the need for clarity in interpreting the results of differential equations in the context of Newtonian mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newtonian mechanics
  • Basic knowledge of differential equations
  • Familiarity with integration techniques
  • Concept of gravitational force as an inverse square law
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of gravitational force from Newton's laws
  • Learn about the solutions to second-order differential equations
  • Explore the implications of integrating functions in physics
  • Investigate the role of potential energy in gravitational systems
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying mechanics and differential equations, as well as anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of gravitational theory.

lubuntu
Messages
464
Reaction score
2
I have just been reading about gravity and have a question, I guess I want to just see if my idea is correct. This is purely a Newtonian mechanics question ignoring any other consideration.

If the acceleration of an object due to gravity is given to be some function proportional to the inverse square of the distance of the object from the primary mass does it then follow that one solution to the position function would some how be related to the function

-ln(r)

as integrating with respect to r twice would give you that as a solution?

If so how does one interpret what that means?

I am new to differential equations and mechanics in general but I would appreciate it if someone could help me expand this idea and where I am going wrong.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K