Why is Newton's law of gravitation different for non-spherical objects?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the application of Newton's law of gravitation to non-spherical objects, specifically addressing the differences in gravitational force calculations when comparing spherical and non-spherical bodies. Participants explore the implications of distance and the shape of objects on gravitational interactions, including the need for integration in certain cases.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the gravitational force equation differs for non-spherical objects, specifically referencing a modified equation involving distance and length.
  • Another participant clarifies that Newton's law applies to point masses and certain geometries, suggesting that for extended bodies, one must integrate the force over the object's volume.
  • A different participant provides a mathematical expression for the acceleration of a non-point mass, emphasizing the need for integration and the conditions under which the simplified form of the equation holds true.
  • It is noted that for large distances relative to the size of the object, the gravitational force can be approximated using the original inverse square law, with minimal error.
  • One participant emphasizes that gravitational attraction should be considered from the center of mass of the objects, and that the integration approach is necessary to account for the distribution of mass.
  • Another participant reflects on the initial confusion regarding the equations and acknowledges the clarification provided by others in the thread.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and interpretation of the gravitational equations, with some agreeing on the necessity of integration for non-point masses, while others highlight the confusion surrounding the application of these principles. No consensus is reached on the best approach to apply Newton's law to non-spherical objects.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the assumptions made about the density of the non-spherical object and the conditions under which the simplified equations are valid. The discussion does not resolve the complexities involved in applying Newton's law to different geometries.

tonyza2006
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi there,

I don't understand why the equal of Newton's law of gravitation F = Gm1m2/d(squared) is different for no spherical objects.

In the image of my attachment there are one spherical object and a no spherical object. So why if there are not very distant the equal used is F = Gm1m2/d(d+L).

How It's used (d).(d+L) on the contrary (d).(d), which is the original equal?


Thanks
Tony

PS: Sorry about my english.
 

Attachments

  • grav_force.GIF
    grav_force.GIF
    1.7 KB · Views: 589
Physics news on Phys.org
Your question isn't quite clear. Your diagram shows (I believe) a spherical body (centered at location x = 0, say) and an extended body that goes from x = D to x = D + L. Given that, I do not understand your first equation for the gravitational force between the two objects.(1) The second equation makes sense, since it says that when the objects are far enough apart they can be treated as point masses and you can ignore the small size of the object.

Strictly speaking, Newton's law of gravity only applies for point masses (and certain special geometries, such as uniform spheres and spherical shells). To get the net force between the two objects you'd have to integrate the force on each mass element of the extended body.

(1)Edit: My bad, as I was too lazy to do the integral. :rolleyes: As D H points out, your first equation is perfectly fine. Note that this is allowed because your first object is spherical and can thus be treated as a point mass at x = 0.
 
Last edited:
Strictly speaking, Newton's law of gravitation only applies to point masses. It can be applied to non-point masses by integrating over the volume. In the case of this (presumably constant density) bar,

[tex]a = \int_d^{d+L} \frac{G\rho}{x^2}dx[/tex]

where [itex]\rho[/itex] is the density of the bar: [itex]\rho=M_{\text{bar}}/L[/itex]

This yields

[tex]a = \frac{GM_\text{bar}}{d\cdot(d+L)}[/tex]

Note well: This result is valid for all distances d. Another way to write the above is

[tex]a = \frac{GM_\text{bar}}{d^2}\frac 1 {1+L/d}[/tex]

In the case that [itex]d\gg L[/itex], the final factor is very close to one. In other words,

[tex]a \approx \frac{GM_\text{bar}}{d^2}\,,\,d\gg L[/tex]
 
For d >> L we can validly write the equation as:

[tex]F =~ \frac{G m_1 m_2}{d^2}[/tex] because think about it:

If d = 10000000000000000m and L = 1m than d+L = 10000000000000001, so when we square it the numbers are pretty much the same. Using d by itself in this case turns out to only give an error of ~2*10^-8% from the real value.
 
Feldoh said:
Well first off we can think of Newton's Law of Gravitation as acting from an objects center of mass.
You can't (or shouldn't) do that.

Edit
That was a bit too terse. The reason you should not do that is because it is wrong. The gravitational attraction between two non-point masses is the sum of the gravitational attractions amongst all the bits of matter that comprise the two objects (or you can integrate if you ignore that matter is not discrete). The only way this would summed / integrated form would yield the same result as the center of mass to center of mass calculation is if gravitation was a linear function of distance. It is not of course; gravity is an inverse square law.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprise with the number of answers. You really help me!

Thanks Doc Al, D H and Feldoh, your answers are brilliant.

And thanks to adivice the matters of integrate.Thanks
Tony
 
The only way this would summed / integrated form would yield the same result as the center of mass to center of mass calculation is if gravitation was a linear function of distance. It is not of course; gravity is an inverse square law.

Good explanation and reminder...That explains why the first equation "looks strange" at first...I had initially thopught "Should the second term be (d+L)/2??"...before I read further...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 117 ·
4
Replies
117
Views
10K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K