Gravitation Help: Newton's Laws, Moon & Earth, and F_g=m*G/R_e^2

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Cyrus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravitation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the laws of gravitation, specifically focusing on the relationship between the Earth and the Moon, the implications of Newton's laws, and the application of the gravitational force equation. Participants explore concepts such as orbital motion, gravitational forces within and outside spherical bodies, and the historical context of Newton's theories.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Cyrus questions why the Moon and Earth, despite their mutual gravitational attraction, are not spiraling into each other over billions of years.
  • Warren explains that the Moon's orbital velocity allows it to maintain a stable orbit rather than falling directly toward the Earth.
  • Cyrus expresses confusion about the gravitational force equation F_g = m_e * m * G / R_e^2, particularly regarding its application to point masses and the implications of distance on gravitational force.
  • Warren clarifies that for gravitational calculations, only the mass interior to a given radius matters, leading to zero gravitational force at the center of the Earth.
  • Another participant elaborates on the gravitational effects of a uniform spherical shell, stating that it behaves as if all mass is concentrated at its center outside the shell and exerts zero force inside it.
  • A historical perspective is provided, noting that Newton initially believed objects should spiral into larger masses, a view that was challenged and ultimately led to the development of his laws of motion and gravitation.
  • The concept of momentum and velocity in relation to gravitational attraction is discussed, emphasizing that an object passing through a point of concentrated mass would continue oscillating indefinitely.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the implications of gravitational forces and the behavior of celestial bodies. There is no consensus on the initial interpretations of Newton's laws or the nuances of gravitational calculations, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the gravitational force equation, particularly regarding its application at varying distances and within spherical bodies. The historical context of Newton's theories also suggests that interpretations have evolved over time.

Cyrus
Messages
3,246
Reaction score
17
Hi, I've been reading on the laws of gravitation, let me just say, WOW, how can a man like Newton think of something that obscure. SHEESH! Anyways, I can see how each body gravitates with an equal and opposite force towards each other. Now, if this is the case, how come the moon and the Earth are at a distance appart. According to this they should have small accelerations towards each other, and with time, they should increase the speed at which the get closer. If you consider the billions of years of our solar system, I wonder why they are not together yet. Also, if you look at the equation [tex]F_g = m_e *m* G / R_e^2[/tex]. It equates this to w=mg. But i thought that this equation is used for point mass bodies, which my physics book says is the case in symetrical spherical bodies. Is it ok to use this equation in finding gravity of an object because it is so tiny in comparison to the size of the earth, it is a point particle too? Finally, the denominator causes some confusion. As the distance r from the Earth gets bigger, the gravitation decreases. But if you are at the center of the earth, there should be zero gravitation, but this equation shows infinite gravitation, am i just using this equation outside of its limitations? Thanks for helping me.

Cheers,

Cyrus Abdollahi
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cyrusabdollahi said:
Hi, I've been reading on the laws of gravitation, let me just say, WOW, how can a man like Newton think of something that obscure. SHEESH! Anyways, I can see how each body gravitates with an equal and opposite force towards each other. Now, if this is the case, how come the moon and the Earth are at a distance appart. According to this they should have small accelerations towards each other, and with time, they should increase the speed at which the get closer. If you consider the billions of years of our solar system, I wonder why they are not together yet.
The Earth and Moon are constantly accelerating towards each other. The concept you're missing is that of orbital velocity. The Moon is not just falling straight down toward the Earth; it's moving at a significant speed sideways too. The Moon moves sideways fast enough that for every foot it falls toward the Earth, it also moves sideways enough to gain a foot in altitude due to the curvature of the Earth. The net result is a nearly-circular orbit where the Moon is freely falling around the Earth, but not losing any altitude.
Also, if you look at the equation [tex]F_g = m_e *m* G / R_e^2[/tex]. It equates this to w=mg. But i thought that this equation is used for point mass bodies, which my physics book says is the case in symetrical spherical bodies. Is it ok to use this equation in finding gravity of an object because it is so tiny in comparison to the size of the earth, it is a point particle too?
From a distance, a gravitating body appears to have all its mass concentrated at its center of gravity.
Finally, the denominator causes some confusion. As the distance r from the Earth gets bigger, the gravitation decreases. But if you are at the center of the earth, there should be zero gravitation, but this equation shows infinite gravitation, am i just using this equation outside of its limitations? Thanks for helping me.
Only the mass interior to your radius matters. In other words, if you're halfway to the center of the Earth, only the inner half of the Earth's mass matters. The outer half actually all cancels out. When you get to the center, there is zero gravitational force, because there is zero mass interior to you.

- Warren
 
It can be shown through calculus that the net gravitational force exerted by a uniform spherical shell is:

a) the same as if all the matter were concentrated at its center, OUTSIDE the spherical shell
b) zero, INSIDE the spherical shell

So when inside the Earth, all the mass outside your radius no longer matters. At the exact center of the Earth, the net force is zero.
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
Hi, I've been reading on the laws of gravitation, let me just say, WOW, how can a man like Newton think of something that obscure. SHEESH! Anyways, I can see how each body gravitates with an equal and opposite force towards each other. Now, if this is the case, how come the moon and the Earth are at a distance appart. According to this they should have small accelerations towards each other, and with time, they should increase the speed at which the get closer. If you consider the billions of years of our solar system, I wonder why they are not together yet.

How ironic. At first glance at this problem, Newton had the same impression as you. Given an object circling another, larger object, the small object should slowly spiral into the larger object. This was Newton's original response to this problem - a response that got him totally lambasted by Robert Hooke (who just lived to flame other scientists and scholars). Newton was so stung by Hooke's response that he devoted years to proving an object would, indeed, slowly spiral into the larger. Obviously, he never proved that conjecture since it was totally wrong. Instead his efforts resulted in his laws of motion, the universal law of gravitation, and a whole new mathematical method (calculus).

The easy way to see why this is wrong is to create a fictional point which has all the Earth's mass concentrated within it. A stationary object is going to go from zero velocity to a very fast velocity as it accelerates towards the point. Since the point is fictional and the object can pass right through it, it will - it has built up momentum and velocity that can't just suddenly go to zero. Once it passes through the point, gravity will slow the object at the same rate that it sped it up. In other words, the object will eventually reach zero velocity at exactly the same distance away from the point that it started at, except on the opposite side of the point. Once at zero, the object again accelerates towards the point, building up velocity, passing through the point and slowing at the exact same rate, and so on and on, back and forth forever.

Orbits are the same, but the object has a tangential, or lateral, velocity thrown in as well. Changes the shape from a straight line to an ellipse, but the principal is the same - however fast the object is accelerated towards the Earth on one side of the ellipse (apogee to perigee), it is slowed down by the exact same rate on the other side of the ellipse (perigee to apogee). There's no net change.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 117 ·
4
Replies
117
Views
10K