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

  • Thread starter Thread starter ngkamsengpeter
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravitational
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the formula for gravitational field strength change, specifically questioning how substituting h = 3R/4 results in a gravitational change greater than the original strength. It emphasizes that while F = -GMm/R² cannot be proven in an absolute sense, it is foundational to Newton's gravitational theory, derived from the motion of celestial bodies and earthly objects. The local difference in gravitational strength is approximately given by 2g(h/R) under the condition that h is much smaller than R. The conversation also touches on the mathematical derivation of gravitational effects at varying heights and the implications of using different axioms in physics. Overall, the topic highlights the complexities of gravitational calculations and the nature of scientific proof.
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 R_{hi} = R_{lo} + h ; {R_{hi}}^{2} = {R_{lo}}^{2} + 2 h R_{lo} + h^{2} .
We ignore h^2 compared to R.
Now, the fractional "%" difference ({R_{lo}}^2 - {R_{hi}}^2) / {R_{lo}}^2 \approx 1 - 2h/R \approx \frac{1}{1+2h/R}
So g_old , at low elevation , changes by the reciprocal of that factor,
\frac{g_{lo}-g_{hi}}{g} \approx 1 + 2h/R .

(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:
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top