Instantaneous Change in Gravitational Force

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the instantaneous change in gravitational force experienced by an object as it falls toward the Earth. Participants explore the mathematical formulation of this change, particularly through modifications of Newton's law of gravitation, and the implications of varying acceleration during the fall.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a modified equation for gravitational force that accounts for the change in distance over time, suggesting the use of derivatives to find instantaneous change.
  • Another participant notes that the modified equation is only valid over small distances where acceleration can be considered constant, referencing kinematic equations.
  • A different participant points out a potential misunderstanding in the previous responses and clarifies that all variables except force and time should be treated as constant, with initial velocity set to zero.
  • One participant suggests using the chain rule to express the change in force with respect to time, providing a method to derive the necessary expressions.
  • Some participants express frustration with earlier responses, asserting that Newtonian gravity is appropriate for this scenario and that the speed of gravitational propagation is not relevant.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need to calculate the acceleration of the falling body and multiply it by the mass to find the force as a function of time.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of integrating the force or using conservation of energy to compute the rate of change of distance, with some participants acknowledging the complexity of the problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the modified gravitational force equation and the assumptions regarding constant acceleration. There is no consensus on the best approach to derive the instantaneous change in force, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their assumptions, particularly regarding the constancy of acceleration throughout the fall and the implications of using different mathematical approaches. Some responses indicate a need for clarification on the initial conditions and the treatment of variables in the equations.

usnkruse
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
It has occurred to me that gravitational force on an object will change as the object falls toward the Earth. I modified Newton's equation F=GMm/(r^2) to reflect the change in force over time:

F = GMm/[r-.5a(t^2)]^2

Now that I have the equation I'm trying to figure out the instantaneous change in force. I assume it would be the derivative of the above equation, but I'm not the best at derivatives. Can anyone help me out?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, this will only work over a small enough region for the acceleration to be considered constant. The term ##r_0-\frac12at^2##, I assume you are taking from the constant acceleration kinematics equations and assuming ##v_0=0##. If that is the case, your construction of the function requires the ##F'\approx0## just as happens near the surface of the Earth (where g is approximately constant). I did a quick check using a variable acceleration and it doesn't seem to be very illuminating (unless I'm missing a simplification).
 
Reply to DrewD

There seems to have been a [Math Processing Error] in your reply which looks to be important.

To clear things up. In the equation all variables are considered to be constant except "F" and "t." Initial velocity of "m" is to be considered 0. "r" is to be considered the initial distance between "m" and "M."
 
why don't you do

dF/dt=(dF/dr)(dr/dt)

F=GMm/r2

dF/dr=(-2GMm/r3)(dr/dt)

Now take the initial distance between the 2 bodies as R the conserve energy (calculate velocity form COM frame {for simplicity}) you should ger a dr/dt plug it in and you're done.
 
Popper's answer is unhelpful. There's nothing wrong with using Newtonian gravity in this limit, and this is a discussion of a moving body through a static field, so the speed of gravitational propagation doesn't enter into this problem.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Popper's answer is unhelpful. There's nothing wrong with using Newtonian gravity in this limit, and this is a discussion of a moving body through a static field, so the speed of gravitational propagation doesn't enter into this problem.

The error in my post was that I misunderstood his question. I thought that he was talking about the change in the gravitational field of a moving body, soI deleted my erroneous response.

To find the force as a function of time first calculate the acceleration of the falling body and then multiply the result by the body's mass.
 
usnkruse said:
There seems to have been a [Math Processing Error] in your reply which looks to be important.

To clear things up. In the equation all variables are considered to be constant except "F" and "t." Initial velocity of "m" is to be considered 0. "r" is to be considered the initial distance between "m" and "M."


You can't consider the acceleration to be constant. Differentiating the equation you gave will not give the answer you are looking for. Arkavo's explanation works (but the last line should start with dF/dt), but to compute ##\frac{dr}{dt}##, you either have to integrate the force or make use of conservation of energy. I think the latter works better, but again, as a function of the distance, it will be approximately 0. If you want to try it, just set ##E_{total}=-\frac{GMm}{R}## where ##R## is the starting distance and solve for ##v##.


Edit: clearly my first sentence is silly. The acceleration IS (almost) constant. What I meant was the acceleration isn't constant over the entirety of the fall.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K