Kepler's planetary motion and inverse square law

AI Thread Summary
The inverse square law of Newton's gravitational force is directly related to Kepler's laws of planetary motion, particularly in how Kepler's third law can be derived from it. The relationship shows that the square of the orbital period (P^2) is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis (a^3). While the inverse square law specifically applies to gravitational forces, the second law of Kepler is applicable to any central force field. This indicates that the principles governing planetary motion extend beyond just the inverse square law. Understanding these connections deepens the comprehension of celestial mechanics.
shounakbhatta
Messages
287
Reaction score
1
Hello,

The inverse square law of Newton's gravitational force, is it somehow related to each other?

I mean to say P^2 is directly prop.a^3. Is it from the third law that the derivation of inverse sq.law of G=M.m/R2 is derived?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can derive all of Kepler's laws from the inverse square law of gravitation.
 
shounakbhatta said:
Is it from [Kepler's] third law that the derivation of inverse sq.law of G=M.m/R2 is derived?

Basically, yes. This old thread has a couple of links to files that have more details. See posts #9 and #10.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=399797
 
But I think the second law is not only for inverse square rule, in fact it holds true for any centre field force(\vec{F}= f(r)\vec{r}) because \dot{S}= \frac{1}{2}r^2 \frac{dw}{dt} where r^2 \frac{dw}{dt} is consevative in any central force field.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Back
Top