Gravitational acceleration (g) is used as constant, but is it?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of gravitational acceleration (g) and its treatment as a constant in various contexts. Participants explore the variability of g due to factors such as height, depth, and geographical location, as well as its implications in different models, particularly in astronomical contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that gravitational acceleration varies with height, depth, and geographical location, questioning why it is treated as a constant in calculations.
  • Others suggest that g is regarded as a constant in localized problems where variations are negligible, allowing for simplifications in calculations.
  • One participant emphasizes that while G is a universal constant, g is not universally applicable and is context-dependent, particularly on the Earth's surface.
  • There is a discussion about the need for more complex models in scenarios like launching rockets, where factors such as changing mass and distance may require a non-constant approach.
  • Some participants clarify the distinction between G (the gravitational constant) and g (the acceleration due to gravity), noting that g is used for rough calculations and is not treated as a constant in all scenarios.
  • One participant raises a point about the acceleration due to gravity for other massive bodies, like the Sun, and questions the rationale behind treating g as constant for larger bodies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of g as a constant, with some agreeing that it is context-dependent while others maintain that it is often simplified for calculations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the appropriateness of treating g as a constant in various scenarios.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of using g as a constant, particularly in complex scenarios involving significant variations in gravitational acceleration. There is also a noted confusion between G and g, which affects the clarity of the discussion.

vishnu kumar
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Acceleration due to gravity is used as a constant throughout the massive body,but it varies due to height and depth & also varies from equator to pole,so it affect the rotational speed of planet from equator to pole.So, why would it takes as a constant.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is referred to as a constant in problems where all motion takes place within a small volume, so that the variation of the gravitational acceleration is small enough to be regarded as constant within that area.
 
(G x M1 x M2) / (r-squared) is the acceleration due to gravity.

As you point out, if any of M1, M2 or r are changing over time, the acceleration will change over time. G is the only constant. You can decide if you need more complex models than purely constant numbers for M1, M2 and r depending on the specifics of your problem. You are quite correct in your thinking that for some problems they should be considered non-constant (varying wtth time, usually) in order to get accurate-enough results.

For instance, if you launch a model rocket and you want to accurately calculate the time it will take that rocket to reach zero velocity in the air before it begins to fall back to earth, you need a model of the rocket mass that is decreasing with time as the rocket burns fuel and exhausts mass.

You might decide you need a time varying model of r as well for this problem, but for a small toy rocket that is only going to climb a few hundred feet at most, you will probably choose not to bother and just use a constant r value. It depends on how much accuracy you require in your answer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vishnu kumar
Yaa I agree but when we analyze astronomical model which varies a lot with time and rotation both.So, we should use such constant as a variable.
 
What do you mean by "astronomical model"? For motin of the planets, we use the universal gravitational constant, G, not the Earth's gravitational acceleration, g.
 
Vishnu -

I think you need to study / think about the difference between G, the gravitational constant, and g, the approximation used to model the acceleration due to Earth's gravity imposed upon objects at the surface of the earth. G is thought to be universal. g is not thought by anyone to be a universally applicable constant, it only applies to simple situations on the surface of the earth.
 
g is not treated as a constant. The approximate value for g is used for 'rough' calculations. Otoh, G is the constant that is assumed to be that, everywhere in the Universe.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn
Grinkle said:
(G x M1 x M2) / (r-squared) is the acceleration due to gravity.
Sorry, Vishnu. I should have said force, and the acceleration comes from dividing out the mass of the object which is how one arrives at g. I shouldn't post before noon, I guess.
 
Hi grinkle
I just want to figure out that only Earth hasn't acceleration due to gravity, any massive bodies have, just like sun has 272 m/s^2 acc^n due to gravity. So, I only want to know that why should we take g as constant for higher massive body(large dia).
 
  • #11
vishnu kumar said:
Hi grinkle
I just want to figure out that only Earth hasn't acceleration due to gravity, any massive bodies have, just like sun has 272 m/s^2 acc^n due to gravity. So, I only want to know that why should we take g as constant for higher massive body(large dia).
Who does?
 
  • #12
vishnu kumar said:
Hi grinkle
I just want to figure out that only Earth hasn't acceleration due to gravity, any massive bodies have, just like sun has 272 m/s^2 acc^n due to gravity. So, I only want to know that why should we take g as constant for higher massive body(large dia).

We shouldn't and we don't. You are, I think, confusing G with g.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters and davenn

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K