Gravity Revisited: Earth-Moon & Earth-Sun Comparisons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Restructure
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the implications of Newton's Law of Gravity in hypothetical scenarios involving the Earth, Moon, and Sun. It explores how the gravitational forces between these bodies differ due to their varying masses, leading to different accelerations and velocities when they are not in orbit. The conversation highlights the confusion surrounding the universality of free fall, particularly in experiments where two objects of different masses fall simultaneously. Participants debate whether the differences in impact times between objects of different masses are significant or negligible, with some asserting that Newtonian physics may not fully account for these nuances. Ultimately, the thread emphasizes the complexities of gravitational interactions and the importance of frame of reference in understanding these phenomena.
  • #31
Yes, I agree with Morberticus and Dave. You're basically saying the same thing I said in post #17. I don't even think the OP was even considering anything more than a two body problem. Using more than two bodies only serves to complicate the understanding of the universality of free fall and the equivalence principle. The EP has not been mentioned in this thread. But I think it is important to bring it up because the UFF and EP go hand in hand. I will use the following illustration:

uff_ep.gif


The dot located between m1 and m2 is the CoM. Notice that it is in the center an equal distance from m1 and m2. This tells us that the mass of m1 and m2 are equal. I cannot do animation here so you'll have to visualize the following.
Lets increase the mass of m2. Two things will happen. 1)The increase in inertial mass of m2 will cause the CoM to move to a position closer to m2. 2)The increase in gravitational mass of m2 will cause the relative acceleration of m1 and m2 toward each other to increase. Now, the equivalence principle tells us that gravitational mass is proportionally equal to inertial mass. So the shorter distance that m2 has to travel to reach the CoM (as a result of the increase in inertial mass of m2) exactly offsets the increase in acceleration (as a result of the increase in gravitational mass of m2). So the acceleration of m2 relative to the CoM remains constant, and the time that it takes to reach the CoM decreases. The only way to change the acceleration of m2 relative to CoM is to change the mass of m1.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Hello all.

I have a question.
Has any of the above discussion been experimentally verified?
Not saying it's wrong. Just want to know.
 
  • #33
Pallidin, I deleted part of my first paragraph in post #31 because I felt some parts of it may be incorrect. However, I have a high degree of confidence with the post as it is now. Please be more specific with your question. There have been lots of experimental tests for the UFF and EP.
 
  • #34
TurtleMeister said:
There have been lots of experimental tests for the UFF and EP.

Would you be willing to be more specific as to the sources?
 
  • #35
I think http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/" has some of the most recent tests of the EP. Right off hand, I don't have a recent source for the UFF.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
OK, good read.
But, I understand that this has not been endorsed by the NSF, DOE or NASA.
Am I missing something there?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
813
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K