Can the Change in Gravitational Field Strength Exceed Its Original Value?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ngkamsengpeter
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravitational
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the change in gravitational field strength, specifically questioning how the change can exceed the original value, as illustrated by the formula g-g'=(2h/R)g when substituting h=3R/4, resulting in a gravitational change of 1.5g. Participants clarify that while F=GMm/R² cannot be proven in an absolute sense, it serves as a foundational axiom of Newton's gravitational theory. The local difference in gravitational strength at varying heights is approximately given by 2g(h/R), valid only when h is significantly smaller than R. The conversation emphasizes the mathematical nature of gravitational proofs and the limitations of axiomatic foundations in physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
  • Familiarity with gravitational field strength concepts
  • Basic knowledge of calculus and derivatives
  • Concept of spherical shells in gravitational fields
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of F=GMm/R² in classical mechanics
  • Explore gravitational field strength variations with height
  • Study the implications of Newton's gravitational axioms
  • Learn about gravitational effects in nested spherical shells
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone interested in gravitational theories and their mathematical foundations will benefit from this discussion.

ngkamsengpeter
Messages
193
Reaction score
0
I come across this formula :
g-g'=(2h/R)g ; h<R
However , if I substitute h =3R/4 the change in gravitational will be 1.5g .
How can the change of gravitational field strength is bigger than its original gravitaitonal field strength ?

Besides , how can I prove F=GMm/R2 ?

Besides this , where can I find the details explanation on gravitational
 
Physics news on Phys.org
?! Where did you find this formula?

P.S. You can't prove F = -GMm/r². Newton defined force as F = ma and then calculated that a grav. force of the form F = -GMm/r² would explain both the motion of the planets and the falling of apples at the surface of earth. From there, we can only make observations that will either agree with his theory of gravitation, or disprove it. But never prove it.

Edit: What I meant to say is that F = -GMm/r² is like THE axiom of Newton's theory of gravitation. Historically, this was the mother equation, and all the other flowed from it. Of course, starting from different axioms, you could manage to derive, and thus "prove" F = -GMm/r². But it would only be a proof in the mathematical sense of the word, meaning that F = -GMm/r² is true provided your axioms are true. But since no axioms on which a physical theory is built are absolutely provable, nothing is absolutely provable, including F =-GMm/r².
 
Last edited:
The local difference in gravity strength at different heights
(g_lo - g_hi) is only APPROXIMATELY equal to 2g(h/R) , and
only if h be MUCH smaller than R : h << R .

We START with g = GM/R^2 . If we move to a higher elevation,
R becomes [tex]R_{hi} = R_{lo} + h[/tex] ; [tex]{R_{hi}}^{2} = {R_{lo}}^{2} + 2 h R_{lo} + h^{2}[/tex] .
We ignore h^2 compared to R.
Now, the fractional "%" difference [tex]({R_{lo}}^2 - {R_{hi}}^2) / {R_{lo}}^2 \approx 1 - 2h/R \approx \frac{1}{1+2h/R}[/tex]
So g_old , at low elevation , changes by the reciprocal of that factor,
[tex]\frac{g_{lo}-g_{hi}}{g} \approx 1 + 2h/R[/tex] .

(this is easier with derivatives)

You can "prove" that nested sperical shells (sort-of-like Earth)
are surrounded by a gravity field "as if" they were all at R = 0 ...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K