Kepler's planetary motion and inverse square law

AI Thread Summary
The inverse square law of Newton's gravitational force is directly related to Kepler's laws of planetary motion, particularly in how Kepler's third law can be derived from it. The relationship shows that the square of the orbital period (P^2) is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis (a^3). While the inverse square law specifically applies to gravitational forces, the second law of Kepler is applicable to any central force field. This indicates that the principles governing planetary motion extend beyond just the inverse square law. Understanding these connections deepens the comprehension of celestial mechanics.
shounakbhatta
Messages
287
Reaction score
1
Hello,

The inverse square law of Newton's gravitational force, is it somehow related to each other?

I mean to say P^2 is directly prop.a^3. Is it from the third law that the derivation of inverse sq.law of G=M.m/R2 is derived?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can derive all of Kepler's laws from the inverse square law of gravitation.
 
shounakbhatta said:
Is it from [Kepler's] third law that the derivation of inverse sq.law of G=M.m/R2 is derived?

Basically, yes. This old thread has a couple of links to files that have more details. See posts #9 and #10.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=399797
 
But I think the second law is not only for inverse square rule, in fact it holds true for any centre field force(\vec{F}= f(r)\vec{r}) because \dot{S}= \frac{1}{2}r^2 \frac{dw}{dt} where r^2 \frac{dw}{dt} is consevative in any central force field.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top