Center of masses and proving gravity

  • Thread starter Thread starter sparry
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Center Gravity
AI Thread Summary
Using the center of mass (CM) simplifies calculations in systems of particles by ensuring that the total momentum is zero in the CM frame, allowing for easier analysis of angular momentum and kinetic energy. Newton's hypothesis connected the gravitational force acting on falling objects to the motion of planets, suggesting a universal force, though he did not provide direct proof of this connection. He developed mathematical frameworks that extended these concepts to all matter, enhancing understanding of gravitational interactions. By defining centripetal force in relation to his laws of motion, Newton linked circular motion to gravitational principles, further generalizing Kepler's laws. The discussion highlights the complexity of proving gravitational effects between celestial and inertial masses, emphasizing the foundational nature of Newton's contributions.
sparry
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am just curious to know what the advantages are to using center of mass for velocity are in a system of particles?

Also, how did Newton prove that the motion of the planets around the sun was the same as a projectile on Earth (I understand that this helped prove the force of gravity was responsible for both, but i don't understand how he proved them inherently the same)

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The sum of the momenta of all the particles is zero in the CM frame, which simplifies calculations in many cases. The total angular momentum or KE of a system of particles is equal to the angular momentum or KE of the total mass sitting at the CM plus the angular momentum or KE about the CM. All sorts of stuff like these make the CM frame very useful.

Newton (and a few others) hypothesized that it was the same force that moved the planets around the Sun that pulled apples down from trees. He didn’t prove it. He extended this property to all matter in the Universe. We can't quite make out the enormity and grandeur of the statement sitting here in the 21st century. Then he developed the mathematics for it, which other people couldn’t. A lot of things sort of made more sense after that using his law.
 
jr writes>
Newton defined centripetal force in terms of his second and third law by setting his first law object on a uniform circular path of motion, where the law of areas falls out as an efficient area enclosing artifact of the circle itself. He then connected the efficient time artifact of the circular motion to Kepler's efficient time controlled law of areas and generalized Kepler's law of areas to the entire universe as the mathematical carrier for his centripetal force. He assigned the resistance he worked against (inertial mass) and called gravity as the "a priori" cause of the centripetal force.

If we define gravity as the resistance we work against and quantify in terms of our inertial mass, or the inertial mass of other inertial mass objects that we as inertial mass objects interact with. an equal and opposite quantitative, but nonetheless subjective notion of force ensues. This is proved gravity. However it is not proved to act between celestial objects or between inertial mass objects and celestial objects.
Have a good time.
johnreed
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top