Justification of Newton's model

  • Thread starter Thread starter neelakash
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Model
AI Thread Summary
Newton's model for predicting tidal heights based on the gravitational attraction of the Sun and Moon is widely accepted, yet its justification is questioned due to its simplifications. The model assumes constant water density and uses two perpendicular tubes to represent tidal differences, which may not accurately reflect real-world complexities. Critics highlight the neglect of Earth's non-uniform solid core and the artificiality of the model's assumptions. Despite these concerns, the model's effectiveness in predicting tides is acknowledged, raising questions about the validity of its foundational assumptions. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the tension between theoretical models and their practical applicability in understanding tidal phenomena.
neelakash
Messages
491
Reaction score
1
There is a model devised by Newton to predict the difference in the height of the tides (as observed from the earth) due to the attraction of Sun/moon.It is well known.Here we pretend that two tubes,filled up of water runs from the surface to the centre of the earth.They are taken as perpendicular.Hence using npn-inertial frame of the earth,the difference is found.density of water is assumed constant.

To what extent it is justified?What right do we have to assume this superficial model?
All we can say if a model be prepared like this,for it the equilibrium tide-hight difference will be ...
Can you please make it clear?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not following you - "What right"? What does that mean? We believe Newon's model becaus it works. You can derive it from Newton's gravity equation.
 
My question is why does it work at all?We are simply making a model where there is no resemblance.
I say this because
(1)we are taking two orthogonal tubes of water of equal density!
(2)we are neglecting the non uniform solid core solid core of the earth.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top