Is G Calculated with g on All Planets and Stars?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nicu
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the gravitational constant G and the local gravitational acceleration g on different celestial bodies. Participants explore whether G is derived from g, the implications of the Cavendish experiment, and the effects of Earth's rotation on gravitational measurements.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that G is calculated using g, implying a tautological relationship across different celestial bodies based on mass and radius.
  • Others argue that G is a universal constant and that g is derived from it, emphasizing that local gravitational acceleration can vary based on mass and radius.
  • There is a discussion about the Cavendish experiment, with some asserting that it does not rely on Earth's gravity and can be used to measure G independently.
  • Concerns are raised about the effects of Earth's rotation on gravitational measurements, with differing views on its significance in the context of the Cavendish experiment.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the simplicity of calculating g for other planets and the need for experiments conducted in space to validate these calculations.
  • Disagreements arise regarding the role of Earth's rotation in gravity, with some asserting it is a cause of gravity while others contest this claim.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as multiple competing views remain regarding the relationship between G and g, the implications of the Cavendish experiment, and the effects of Earth's rotation on gravitational measurements.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the assumptions underlying the Cavendish experiment and its applicability to other celestial bodies. There are unresolved questions about the influence of Earth's rotation on gravitational measurements and the definitions of terms like radius in this context.

nicu
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
i see G is calculated with g,or assumed to be the same,just other value,for all planets,stars,etc,variable being just mass and radius(they are also calculated with g)...
so,on the moon gravity is x time smaller then on the earth,because the mass of the moon is x time smaller.on the sun is bigger,etc,etc,etc...
i doubt very much...
isn`t it tautology?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is the other way round. G is the universal constant and g is the derived one.

Thus from the mass, radius and G you can calculate the local g

G can be measured, look up 'cavendish experiment'

So the 'g' for any planet can be different – and if it is spinning , as the Earth does, is dependent on latitude because the 'centrifugal force' near the equator reduces 'g'.

Hope this helps

Regards

Sam

PS when I say G is universal I am neglecting unproven dark energy theories
 
thank you...
it`s the other way around because it`s reversed trough extrapolation...
g was experimental measured on Earth firstly...
i agree with spinning and centrifugal force,not interested in dark or bright theories...
in the cavendish experiment i see only what is meant for,ratio ground/water,the water being chose to have 1 unit traditional density...
this experiment,like that with pendulum,are made on earth...
i doubt that it`s as simple as that,`you sit at your desk,calculate `g` for where you want to go,manufacture a rocket,on with your costume...and off you go...`
so,one experiment has to be made out of space to convince me...
:)
 
The cavendish experiment does not use the gravity of the Earth in any way. Only the gravitational force between two masses is tested, therefore you can calculate G with it.

Using the known radius of the Earth and the known acceleration g on the surface of the earth, you can calculate the mass of the earth.
In a similar way, if you know the mass and the radius of an object, you can calculate the local gravitational acceleration g with your knowledge of the fundamental constant G. g=GM/r^2, neglecting rotation here.


Look up details to Gravity Probe B, if you want to see precision tests of gravity in space.
 
Something just occurred to me about the Cavendish Experiment, and I felt like posting it somewhere. So here it is.

Won't it be affected by the Earth's rotation, sort of like the Focault Pendulum?
 
As the rotation is limited to one dimension, the two probe masses have a velocity in opposite directions, and the timescale of the experiment is much smaller than 24 hours, I don't see any significant effect.
 
cavendish mechanical experiment is made on earth,but doesn`t use g in any way,after you...
and you neglect Earth rotation,which is the cause of gravity...then why you need RADIUS for?radius is for rotating objects...
you simplify what you suit you to simplify for an unproven theory in the end which everybody knows and i i don`t agree with...
 
Wait.

Unproven theory? Technically, it has been disproven and a more general form of it, general relativity, has come into play, but this is a good enough approximation for anything. Newton's Universal Law of Gravity describes the motion of the planets very well. Almost perfectly, the largest deviation is in Mercury's orbit, which is something like a deviation of one part in 10^7. We don't need to know G to notice how well this works.

Radius. I'd imagine that means the radius of the bar that the two balls are on. That's what radius is for, and, again, the Earth's rotation is negligible.
 
nicu said:
cavendish mechanical experiment is made on earth,but doesn`t use g in any way,after you...
Do you need g to evaluate how long you have to accelerate with 1m/s^2 in horizontal direction to reach 10m/s? No.
The cavendish experiment uses only forces perpendicular to the Earth's gravity.

and you neglect Earth rotation
Right
which is the cause of gravity
Wrong

radius is for rotating objects...
Wrong. Take a ball from a random ball game. Do you have to rotate it to determine its radius?
The radius of a spherical object is the distance between surface and center, and that is important to calculate g.

you simplify what you suit you to simplify for an unproven theory in the end which everybody knows and i i don`t agree with...
No, I can do the math. And you?
 
  • #10
nicu said:
i see G is calculated with g,or assumed to be the same,just other value,for all planets,stars,etc,variable being just mass and radius(they are also calculated with g)...
so,on the moon gravity is x time smaller then on the earth,because the mass of the moon is x time smaller.on the sun is bigger,etc,etc,etc...
i doubt very much...
isn`t it tautology?

nicu said:
thank you...
it`s the other way around because it`s reversed trough extrapolation...
g was experimental measured on Earth firstly...
i agree with spinning and centrifugal force,not interested in dark or bright theories...
in the cavendish experiment i see only what is meant for,ratio ground/water,the water being chose to have 1 unit traditional density...
this experiment,like that with pendulum,are made on earth...
i doubt that it`s as simple as that,`you sit at your desk,calculate `g` for where you want to go,manufacture a rocket,on with your costume...and off you go...`
so,one experiment has to be made out of space to convince me...
:)

nicu said:
cavendish mechanical experiment is made on earth,but doesn`t use g in any way,after you...
and you neglect Earth rotation,which is the cause of gravity...then why you need RADIUS for?radius is for rotating objects...
you simplify what you suit you to simplify for an unproven theory in the end which everybody knows and i i don`t agree with...

So you have never actually taken a physics course, right?
 
  • #11
http://www.infoocean.info/avatar1.jpg The cavendish experiment does not use the gravity of the Earth in any way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
nicu said:
cavendish mechanical experiment is made on earth,but doesn`t use g in any way,after you...
and you neglect Earth rotation,which is the cause of gravity...then why you need RADIUS for?radius is for rotating objects...
you simplify what you suit you to simplify for an unproven theory in the end which everybody knows and i i don`t agree with...

The Earth's rotation is the cause of gravity? Lololol. Unproven theory? LOLOLOLOLOL. General relativity is one of the most proven theories of all time.
 
  • #13
i don`t see any counter argument( lol is not an argument),only quick childish not satisfy reactions...like a herd of dogs attacking a new one to show who`s the boss here...
thank you very much for conversation ...
 
  • #14
Looks like a good time to close this thread, and a good time to remind people of the PF Rules on Overly Speculative Posts.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad G Force Calculation Optimisation with camera, equations & accelerometer (drop testing)
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Perceived Weight on Earthlike Planet w/ Faster Rotation
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
High School Help Scaling Gravity Simulation
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Undergrad Verse from "A Brief History of Time"
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
High School Calculating g with a Conical Pendulum
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
High School Use Surface-Volume to approximate gravity for planets and protons
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Static sphere with gravitating fluid
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Lagrangian for pendulum
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Undergrad Which object will hit the surface of a planet first?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Undergrad Free fall equations with realistic, altitude-dependent g?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K