Newton´s derivation of Gravity´s law

  • Thread starter Thread starter mprm86
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation Law
AI Thread Summary
Newton's derivation of the law of gravity stemmed from the principle that the same gravitational force affecting falling objects on Earth also governs planetary motion. He hypothesized that gravity acts as a centripetal force, with its strength depending on the masses of two objects and inversely on the square of the distance between them. Initially, his theory did not align with the observed motion of the Moon, leading him to set it aside for 20 years until better data validated his predictions. Newton's insights were further informed by Kepler's laws of planetary motion, which he built upon to refine his calculations. Ultimately, his approach exemplified the scientific method through assumptions, hypotheses, and validation.
mprm86
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
How did Newton come to his gravity´s law? Could someone please explain his deduction of the law, or he just said: the force exerted by gravity between two planets is F = -Gm1m2r^-2 ?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Newton's first assumption was that the same law that governs falling objects on Earth must also govern objects going around the Earth (as opposed to a different set of rules for planetary objects).

It was a short leap for him to realize that the Earth's gravity could be acting as a centripetal force. The trick was guessing at the proportionality. Obviously, the bigger the object, the more it weighed, but his insight was that the force of gravity must depend on the mass of two objects. The product of the two masses made more sense than the sum, so he investigated that relationship. Also, the force must get weaker as the distance increases. Following the rule for the intensity of light, he assumed an inverse-square proportionality. Newton realized that a constant of proportionality was needed, but he never knew what "G" would be.

He took his assumptions and checked it out regarding the motion of the Moon around the earth. THe data did not support his hypothesis, so he put his theory away for 20 years. Later, better data was measured, and he rechecked his prediction and this time it turned out correct.

So it was the scientific process that got him there: an assumption, an insight, a hypothesis, a prediction, and a validation. That's pretty much what everyone does (other than those who accidentally stumble into a discovery).
 
Don't forget Kepler's earlier Laws of Planetary motion. Newton would have been aware of these and this too would have helped him. Particularly so the relationship - Time period of planet squared is proportional to distance of planet cubed.
 
Adrian Baker said:
Don't forget Kepler's earlier Laws of Planetary motion. Newton would have been aware of these and this too would have helped him. Particularly so the relationship - Time period of planet squared is proportional to distance of planet cubed.

Yes, that's right, the "shoulders of giants" and all. Newton was already aware of the geometrical aspects of planetary motion (thanks to Keppler). This allowed him to know what sort of calculations to do to make his predictions. Sadly, Keppler did not have the advantage of knowing Newton's laws of motion and was still under the dillusion* that there must be a propelling force in the direction of motion for all planets. Poor guy!

* edit: I guess this word is a combination of "disillusion" and "delusion"
 
Last edited:
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