Acc to Newtons gravitational theory f=GmM/r^2and the distance r is

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Newton's gravitational theory, specifically the formula f=GmM/r^2, and the implications of gravitational force on a hypothetical flat rectangular planet. Participants explore how gravitational force varies with distance from the center of mass and the effects of different geometries on gravitational fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that gravitational force would be highest at the center of a flat rectangular planet and decrease as one moves away, questioning the validity of this idea.
  • Another participant argues that the formula applies to extended objects only with spherical symmetry, indicating the need for integration to find net gravitational force for non-spherical shapes.
  • A different viewpoint states that near the surface of a large flat slab, the gravitational field is approximately perpendicular to the slab, and while it is stronger near the center, the difference may not be noticeable for a large slab.
  • One participant discusses the gravitational field of an infinite plane, stating it would be constant regardless of distance from the plane, contrasting it with point sources and line sources.
  • A question is raised about what material geometry could produce a logarithmic dependence for a gravitational field.
  • Another participant reiterates that for an infinite slab, the gravitational field remains constant with distance, negating the typical 1/r^2 or 1/r attenuation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on how gravitational force behaves in relation to flat geometries, with no consensus reached on the implications of these geometries for gravitational fields.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of gravitational fields in various geometries and the limitations of applying Newton's law without considering the specific shape and extent of the mass distribution.

vivinisaac
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
acc to Newtons gravitational theory f=GmM/r^2
and the distance r is taken from the centre of mass of the object
so hypothetically if there was a flat rectangular planet gravity would be highest at the centre of the rectangular planet and if we stand away from the center gravitational pull should decrease
is this true
it doesn't sound right bcuz i thought if we stand anyware on the flat surface
we wud experience the same gravitational force
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That formula works for extended objects only when they have spherical symmetry. Otherwise you have to apply the formula to each point of the object, and integrate (using calculus) to find the net gravitational force.
 
Near the surface of a large, flat slab, the field is approximately perpendicular to the slab. Only near the edges would you notice anything was different. So yes, it is stronger near the center, but for a fairly large flat slab you wouldn't notice.
 
If the rectangular slab were infinite in extent and the lone mass-energy present, its field would indeed be perfectly perpendicular from its surface. (Try integrating Newton's gravitational law over surface mass density out to infinity in two dimensions.) Any observer, however, would distort the local field, thus inducing greater gravitational field density than when considering the normal field by itself.
 
Gravity from a point source is relative to 1/r^2. Gravity from an infinitely long line source would be relative to 1/r. Gravity from an infinite large plane would be constant, no matter where you were.
 
What material geometry would create a logarithmic, ln|r|, dependence for a gravitational field?
 
Loren Booda said:
If the rectangular slab were infinite in extent and the lone mass-energy present, its field would indeed be perfectly perpendicular from its surface.

not only that, but if the slab were an infinite plane, the graviatational field would be constant with distance from the plane or slab. no 1/r^2 or even 1/r attenuation of the field.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
37K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
3K