Is this correct?Solved: Magnitude of Net Gravitational Force on Mass in Square

  • Thread starter Thread starter huh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravitation Law
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the net gravitational force on one mass in a square arrangement of four identical 600 kg masses. The correct approach involves using the law of gravitation and superposition of forces, accounting for vector components. Initial calculations mistakenly halved the distance for the diagonal mass, leading to incorrect force values. The correct method involves using Pythagorean theorem to determine the diagonal distance and applying trigonometric functions for accurate vector components. Ultimately, the revised calculations yield a net gravitational force of approximately 2.35 x 10^-3 N.
huh
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
law of gravitation- is this better?

Could someone check this please?

Four identical masses of mass 600 kg each are placed at the corners of a square whose side lengths are 14.0cm (.14m).

What is the magnitude of the net gravitational force on one of the masses, due to the other three?

It's asking for the absolute value of the force.

Ok so the equation to use is (GMm)/r^2

And superposition of forces should be used, correct?

This is what I am trying: for the mass in the upper left hand corner
G= 6.67 x 10^-11

(G*600*600)/(.14^2)= 1.23 x 10^-3 for the masses beside and below

(G*600*600)/(.07^2)= 4.90 x 10^-3 for the mass diagonal from the one used
(.07 because the attraction would decrease by half, right?)

So adding these together:
(2)(1.23 x 10^-3) + 4.90 x 10^-3= 7.35 x 10^-3

or
(1.23 x 10^-3)+(-1.23 x 10^-3)+ 4.90 x 10^-3 = 4.90 x 10^-3
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You have to break them up into x and y-axis components, add those, then use Pythagoras to add them back up.
 
huh said:
(G*600*600)/(.07^2)= 4.90 x 10^-3 for the mass diagonal from the one used
(.07 because the attraction would decrease by half, right?)

I'm not sure of your reasoning here.

I would calculate the new distance by pythagoras and use that.

You're right - the attaraction DOES half, but you've used that fact to half your distance, squared your distance and substitued it into the equation which has given you a GREATER force for that diagonal one... which can't be right!

Also remember when you add, you're adding vectors.
 
Okay let's try again:

(G*600*600)/(.14^2)= 1.23 x 10^-3 for the masses beside and below

use cos(0) and sin(0)
x-component: 1.23 x 10^-3 y-component: 0
use cos(90) and sin(90)
x-comp: 0 y-comp: 1.23 x 10^-3

(G*600*600)/[(.14^2)+(.14^2)]= 6.13 x 10^-4 for the mass diagonal from the one used
(I saw something like this denominator in an example I found)
use cosine and sine of 45 degrees
x and y-comp: 4.33 x 10^-4

So adding these together:
F(x)=0 + 1.23 x 10^-3 + 4.33 x 10^-4 = 1.66 x 10^-3
F(y)=4.33 x 10^-4 + 1.23 x 10^-3

using pythagorean theorem:
2.35 x 10^-3
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top