Gravitational Acceleration Help

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the equivalence of GMm(1/r1 - 1/r2) and mgh near the Earth's surface, where r2 is nearly equal to r1. Participants suggest starting with the gravitational formula g = GM/r1^2 and substituting r2 = r1 + h, assuming h is much smaller than r1. They emphasize simplifying the expression by canceling mass m and manipulating the terms to relate h, r1, and r2. The conclusion drawn is that under the assumption h << r1, the two expressions can be approximated as equal, leading to the result mgh. The discussion highlights the importance of recognizing the smallness of h in the context of gravitational calculations.
wikidrox
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
I don't understand how to do this question. Please help

Show that GMm (1/r1 - 1/r2) and mgh are, for practical purposes, equal, when r2 is almost equal to r1 near the Earth's surface.

I just don't know how to do it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1.
g=\frac{GM}{r_{1}^{2}}, where r_{1} is the radius of the earth.

2. Set r_{2}=r_{1}+h, and assume h&lt;&lt;r_{1}

See if these relations might help you..
 
wikidrox said:
I don't understand how to do this question. Please help

Show that GMm (1/r1 - 1/r2) and mgh are, for practical purposes, equal, when r2 is almost equal to r1 near the Earth's surface.

I just don't know how to do it.
Okay, if you're trying to prove that:

GMm(\frac{1}{r_{1}}\ -\ \frac{1}{r_{2}})\ =\ mgh

Notice that you can start by cancelling out "m" from both sides. Also, notice that you can rewrite the stuff in brackets like so:

GM\frac{r_{2}\ -\ r_{1}}{r_{2}r_{1}}\ =\ gh

Now, can you think of a relationship between h, r1, and r2? Also, recognize that r1 is the radius of the Earth. Now, can you use the information from the previous sentence to make an assumption so that you can do something with the r1r2 part?
 
hgfdkl;

I still can get it totally.

here is where I get to:

GM/r1^2 + r1h = g

I can't get rid of the r1h.
 
Let's do this as follows:

1. You are to approximate:
GMm(\frac{1}{r_{1}}-\frac{1}{r_{1}+h})

2. You know the following:
\frac{GM}{r_{1}^{2}}=g,h&lt;&lt;r_{1}

3. Bring the difference in 1. together like this:
GMm(\frac{1}{r_{1}}-\frac{1}{r_{1}+h})=GMm(\frac{r_{1}+h-r_{1}}{r_{1}(r_{1}+h)})=
m\frac{GM}{r_{1}^{2}}\frac{h}{1+\frac{h}{r_{1}}}=\frac{mgh}{1+\frac{h}{r_{1}}}

4.
Now, by 2:
h&lt;&lt;r_{1}\to\frac{h}{r_{1}}&lt;&lt;1

The fraction in the denominator is seen to be much less than 1, and therefore we have the approximate equality:
\frac{mgh}{1+\frac{h}{r_{1}}}\approx{mgh}
 
Then there's always a series expansion :biggrin:
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
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