How Newton derived his law of gravitation

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter QuantumDefect
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravitation Law Newton
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on how Isaac Newton derived his Law of Gravitation, represented by the equation F=G*m_1*m_2/r^2. Participants explore historical context, mathematical derivations, and the contributions of other scientists, particularly focusing on the interplay between Newton's work and that of Kepler and Cavendish.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that Newton's derivation was influenced by Hooke's law and Galileo's experiments on free fall.
  • Others argue that Newton relied heavily on Kepler's laws of planetary motion, which were based on Tycho Brahe's observational data.
  • One participant describes a 'Eureka' moment for Newton, realizing that the force causing objects to fall on Earth was the same force keeping planets in orbit.
  • There is a claim that Newton mathematically demonstrated the gravitational force's dependence on mass and distance.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about whether Newton estimated the gravitational constant 'G', with one stating that Cavendish was the first to measure it directly.
  • Another participant questions the absence of numerical values for 'G' in Newton's "Principia," suggesting that Newton may not have known the Earth's mass or density.
  • One participant provides a mathematical derivation of the gravitational force, referencing various equations and relationships involving mass and distance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether Newton estimated the gravitational constant 'G' or if he left it without a value. There are competing views regarding the contributions of Newton and Cavendish, and the discussion remains unresolved on these points.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the historical timeline of discoveries, indicating that Cavendish's experiment occurred after Newton's "Principia." There are also references to the lack of explicit numerical values for 'G' in Newton's writings, which contributes to the uncertainty in the discussion.

QuantumDefect
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
I was wondering if any of you could explain how Newton derived his Law of Gravitation: F=G*m_1*m_2/r^2 ? If this question is to vague tell me, thanks guys.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is not too vague, but too long. A first indication is that he relied strongly in the concept of force (and inertial mass) from Hooke's law as well as his (F=ma), and a second one come from Galileo' experiment about free fall.
 
Newton relied heavily on Keplar's three laws of Planetary motion. These were deduced from the data that Tycho Brahe obtained over many years. These laws seemed to be correct, but didn't explain WHY objects orbited as they did.

Newton devised laws of circular motion and realized that the same force that made things fall down on Earth, was responsiple for the Centripetal force that keep the planets in orbit. This was his 'Eureka' moment - realising that the two forces were one and the same.

Newton then showed mathematically that the gravitational force between two objects was proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distances between them.

To get a value for the constant 'G' he estimated the density of planet Earth and from that estimated its mass.

Clever chap...!
 
I didn't know that Newton ever tried to estimate G. I thought that Cavendish was the first to do so?
 
Cavendish designed the experiment to directly measure G. Why do you doubt that Newton made an estimate? Do you really think that he would come up with a constant, then leave it without a value?
 
It could have been ignorance,but i don't remember seeing in the "Principia" the constant of proportionality between the gravitational attraction force and the product of the 2 masses devided by the square of the distance between them...Not to mention some numerical values...
Incidentally though,Cavendish's famous experiment came 100 years after Halley's first publication of Newton's "Principia"...In 1787,to be exact.
 
Last edited:
Adrian Baker said:
Newton relied heavily on Keplar's three laws of Planetary motion. These were deduced from the data that Tycho Brahe obtained over many years. These laws seemed to be correct, but didn't explain WHY objects orbited as they did.

Newton devised laws of circular motion and realized that the same force that made things fall down on Earth, was responsiple for the Centripetal force that keep the planets in orbit. This was his 'Eureka' moment - realising that the two forces were one and the same.

Newton then showed mathematically that the gravitational force between two objects was proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distances between them.

To get a value for the constant 'G' he estimated the density of planet Earth and from that estimated its mass.

Clever chap...!

In high-school i learned the other way around.It was Cavendish who first calculated the Earth's mass (i have no recallection of the density) using Newton's law,because he was the first man who knew both the Earth's radius (mean radius),both his constant (of course,he didn't name it that way) G.And that was done in 1787,shortly before Lagrange's first definition of the meter (do u rememeber it?? :-p ),which is an evidence to support the fact that Cavendish kney Earth's mean radius.
 
Yes, Cavendish was the first to calculate the Earths mass (and big 'G'), but as Integral points out above - do you really thing Newton wouldn't have tried to estimate its value?

It isn't that hard to make an estimate of the Earth's mass is it? The Earth is mosly made of rock and it must be Iron rich due to it having a magnetic field. Estimate the proportions of each, measure the density of an average rock, add a bit for the iron rich core and then use the Earths dimensions to work out its mass. From this you get big 'G'.
 
  • #10
Adrian Baker said:
Yes, Cavendish was the first to calculate the Earths mass (and big 'G'), but as Integral points out above - do you really thing Newton wouldn't have tried to estimate its value?

As i said above,i didn't see any numerical values for G,or even G (or any other latter) itself in the "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica".Maybe it's in other Newton's writing,or maybe it isn't al all.

Adrian Baker said:
It isn't that hard to make an estimate of the Earth's mass is it? The Earth is mosly made of rock and it must be Iron rich due to it having a magnetic field. Estimate the proportions of each, measure the density of an average rock, add a bit for the iron rich core and then use the Earths dimensions to work out its mass. From this you get big 'G'.

So far,i have no evidence Isaac Newton knew the mass of planet Earth,by this simple method,or any other one...
 
  • #11
Newtonian Nexus...



According to my records, Newton derived the law of gravitation as follows:

[tex]F = M \frac{dv}{dt}[/tex]
[tex]a = s \frac{d^2}{dt^2}[/tex]
[tex]\frac{dv}{dt} = s \frac{d^2}{dt^2}[/tex]
[tex]F = M \left( s \frac{d^2}{dt^2} \right)[/tex]
[tex]F = Ma[/tex]

[tex]s \frac{d^2}{dt^2} = \frac{F_m}{M_m}[/tex]

[tex]s_m \frac{d^2}{dt^2} = G \frac{M_e}{r_m^2}[/tex]

[tex]s_m \frac{d^2}{dt^2} = \frac{F_m}{M_m} = G \frac{M_e}{r_m^2}[/tex]

[tex]F_m = M_m s \frac{d^2}{dt^2} = G \frac{M_e M_m}{r_m^2}[/tex]

[tex]g = G \frac{M_e}{r_e^2}[/tex] - Terra
[tex]a_m = G \frac{M_e}{r_m^2}[/tex] - Lunar
[tex]GM_e = gr_e^2 = a_m r_m^2[/tex]
[tex]\frac{g}{a_m} = \left( \frac{r_m}{r_e} \right)^2[/tex]
[tex]F_e = G \frac{M_e M_m}{r_m^2}[/tex]
[tex]G = \frac{g r_e^2}{M_e}[/tex]

 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K