Deviation of Newton's Gravity Equations

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter eNathan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    deviation Gravity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation and understanding of equations related to gravity, particularly focusing on the time of fall for an object under constant acceleration due to gravity. Participants explore the mathematical relationships involved, the significance of squaring terms, and historical context related to these equations.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the equation T = √(2d/g) and questions the logic behind the factor of 2 in the distance equation D = (t² * g) / 2.
  • Another participant suggests that the discussion requires knowledge of calculus to fully understand the derivation of these equations.
  • A participant explains the position equation for an object under constant acceleration and notes that the derived time equation is valid only when initial velocity is zero.
  • There is a repeated inquiry about the frequent occurrence of squared terms in physics equations, with a request for clarification on their significance.
  • One participant suggests that the thread's title should reflect the derivation of Galileo's law for free-falling bodies rather than attributing it to Newton, emphasizing that Newton's role is limited to confirming the constancy of acceleration due to gravity on Earth.
  • Historical context is introduced regarding Galileo's work and the publication of his findings on parabolic trajectories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the attribution of the equations to Newton versus Galileo, and there is no consensus on the clarity of the mathematical derivations or the significance of squaring terms in physics.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the importance of initial conditions in the equations discussed, and there are references to calculus concepts that may not be fully understood by all participants, indicating a potential gap in foundational knowledge.

eNathan
Messages
351
Reaction score
2
[tex]T = \sqrt { \frac{2d} {g} }[/tex]
Therefore (and I had to come up with this on my own because I could not find it on the internet :smile:)
[tex]D = \frac{t^2 * g} {2}[/tex]

But I cannot find the logic in why the time equals 2 times the distance over the acceleration of gravity on earth. Now, I do understand the units. The Time is in seconds, and the Distance is in meters, because the acceleration is in meters per second (any other units will work just fine).

But why is the distance multiplied by 2?
And why is the square root function used?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hehe, I only wish I did. I am researching it in my spare time, and I plan to take classes on it but in shorts no I don't know calc.

But it won't hurt if you try to explained it to me anyway if that was your plan :)
 
To integrate Newton's second law in scalar form

[tex]\frac{d^{2}y(t)}{dt^{2}}=g[/tex]

subject to the initial conditions

[tex]y\left(t_{0}\right)=y_{0}[/tex]

[tex]\frac{dy}{dt}\left(t_{0})=:v\left(t_{0}\right)=v_{0}[/tex]


Daniel.
 
More simply, I'm sure you know the position equation for an object in constant acceleration:

[tex]x = x_0 + v_0t + \frac{gt^2}{2}[/tex]

Notice if [itex]x_0 = v_0 = 0 [/tex] then solving for t:<br /> <br /> [tex]t = \sqrt{\frac{2x}{g}}[/tex]<br /> <br /> Your equation is only valid when the initial velocity is zero.[/itex]
 
whozum said:
More simply, I'm sure you know the position equation for an object in constant acceleration:

[tex]x = x_0 + v_0t + \frac{gt^2}{2}[/tex]

Notice if [itex]x_0 = v_0 = 0 [/tex] then solving for t:<br /> <br /> [tex]t = \sqrt{\frac{2x}{g}}[/tex]<br /> <br /> Your equation is only valid when the initial velocity is zero.[/itex]
[itex] <br /> [tex]x = x_0 + v_0t + \frac{gt^2}{2}[/tex]<br /> <br /> Hmn, I think I get your point, but why do you square numbers all the time anyway? I mean, I see it everywhere. e=mc^2 ^2 ^2 blah every equation in physics involves [tex]x^2[/tex] <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":smile:" title="Smile :smile:" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":smile:" /> Maybe if you explain why everything need be squared, I can understand it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":smile:" title="Smile :smile:" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":smile:" /> <br /> <br /> Thx[/itex]
 
eNathan said:
[tex]T = \sqrt { \frac{2d} {g} }[/tex]
Therefore (and I had to come up with this on my own because I could not find it on the internet :smile:)
[tex]D = \frac{t^2 * g} {2}[/tex]

But I cannot find the logic in why the time equals 2 times the distance over the acceleration of gravity on earth. Now, I do understand the units. The Time is in seconds, and the Distance is in meters, because the acceleration is in meters per second (any other units will work just fine).
Hope it is a type, and you use meters per second squared for the acceleration. Also, this thread should be titled "Deduction (or derivation) of Galilean law for free falling bodies"; Newton has no role here except to confirm us that acceleration g is approximately constant at Earth surface.

Indeed the original proof of the time square formula can be found in internet :biggrin: here:
http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Galileo_Prototype/DHTML/D202.HTM
 
Last edited:
arivero said:
Indeed the original proof of the time square formula can be found in internet ::biggrin:: here:
http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Galileo_Prototype/DHTML/D202.HTM
This requires a bit of history. In order to get students, Galileo did not publish the parabolic trajectory until Cavalieri did (rightly attributing it to master Galileo). Then he become furious for a moment but finally he thought better and he finished his http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0416.php in a notebook of Galileo, mss 72, probably used during the composition of the book.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
eNathan said:
[tex]x = x_0 + v_0t + \frac{gt^2}{2}[/tex]

Hmn, I think I get your point, but why do you square numbers all the time anyway? I mean, I see it everywhere. e=mc^2 ^2 ^2 blah every equation in physics involves [tex]x^2[/tex] :smile: Maybe if you explain why everything need be squared, I can understand it :smile:

Thx

The reason is calculus, and definitions of acceleration, velocity, and position.

Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity:

[itex]a = \frac{dv}{dt} [/tex] so then [itex]\int{a}{dt} = \int{dv} [/tex]<br /> <br /> Integral of a constant acceleration "a" is just 'a' times the dependent variable, t. v = at+v_0. v_0 is the integration constant.<br /> <br /> [itex]v = at+v_0[/itex]<br /> <br /> Velocity is the rate of change of position:<br /> <br /> [itex]v = at+v_0 = \frac{dx}{dt}[/itex] so then [itex]x = \int{(at+v_0)}{dt} [/tex]<br /> <br /> Integral of a linear function of time 'at' is 'at^2/2':<br /> <br /> [tex]x = \int{at+v_0}{dt} = v_0t+\frac{at^2}{2} + x_0[/tex][/itex][/itex][/itex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 138 ·
5
Replies
138
Views
9K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K