Gravitational Force: Formula Derivation for 2 Continuous Bodies

AI Thread Summary
The gravitational force formula for two continuous bodies is derived from the point mass formula F = Gm1m2/r^2. The derivation involves considering the gravitational interaction between small masses from each body, leading to a sum expressed as GΔm1Δm1'r^/r^2. This sum is then transformed into an integral form, resulting in F = ∫G dm ∫r^/r^2 dm', which raises questions about whether this represents a double integral. Clarification is sought on the proper notation and whether the equation could be more accurately expressed as a double integral. Understanding this derivation is crucial for applying gravitational force concepts to continuous mass distributions.
demonelite123
Messages
216
Reaction score
0
so the formula for gravitational force is F = Gm1m2/r2 and that can be written as F = Gm1m2r^/r2 (r^ represents a unit vector). now this formula is for 2 point masses. my teacher derived the formula for 2 continuous bodies using a 6 dimensional Riemann sum. he first considered the gravitational force between one small mass of one body (Δm1) and with every other small mass in the other body (Δm1', Δm2',...). so the sum of the forces between Δm1 and (Δm1', Δm2',...) is GΔm1Δm1'r^/r2 + GΔm1Δm2'r^/r2 + GΔm1Δm3'r^/r2...and when summed up and take limit n~> infinite, it becomes ∫GΔm1dm'r^/r2 and he factored out the constants so it became GΔm1 ∫ r^/r2 dm'. the limits of the integral are over the region of the body with small masses (Δm1', Δm2',...). then he took the integral again to sum up all these forces in over the region of the body with small masses (Δm1, Δm2,...) so he got

F = ∫G dm ∫r^/r2 dm'. now I'm not sure what this means exactly. it just looks like 2 separate integrals. is this supposed to be a double integral? is this how you are supposed to write this equation? I've never seen integrals written this way before.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Would it be better if it was written as F=∫∫G dm*r^/r2 dm'? With double integrals, you can first integrate with respect to one variable, then integrate with respect to the other.
 
oh ok i wasn't sure if you could rearrange it into a double integral or not. thanks!
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top