B Newton's Law of Gravitation: Balancing Centrifugal Force & Internal Pressure

Osvaldo
Messages
27
Reaction score
1
How is the centrifugal force in an orbiting planet or star, balanced if according to Einstein there is not such gravity force and is only space time curvature. Also, how come in order to determine internal pressure of a planet or star, the force acting near the center is calculated using the Newton formula F = G mM/Rsquared.
Then was Newton wrong? If so why this formula still aplly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Both questions are doubts about the amount of curvature giving the same effect as gravity -- not about whether there can be curvature that changes the definition of a "straight path". The fact is that the amount of curvature, both near and at a distance of R, and the resulting effect do match the effect of gravity. If they did not match, then there really would be a problem.

PS. Probably a better term than "straight path" would have been "unaccelerated path in space-time". The completely correct term is "geodesic path".
 
Last edited:
Osvaldo said:
How is the centrifugal force in an orbiting planet or star, balanced if according to Einstein there is not such gravity force and is only space time curvature?

In Newton's gravity, there is no centrifugal force. Instead, gravity provides a centripetal force that keeps an object in orbit. There is only one (inertial) force in this case.

In General Relativity, there are no forces on an orbiting body. Instead, its path through spacetime is a natural one (technically called a geodesic).

To calculate the path of an object in curved spacetime, you can use the Lagrangian principle. For the spacetime round a spherically symmetric star like the Sun, this gives a very close approximation to Newton's law of gravity.
 
Osvaldo said:
How is the centrifugal force in an orbiting planet or star, balanced if according to Einstein there is not such gravity force and is only space time curvature.
There is no such thing as the centrifugal force either. (In exactly the same sense)
 
In inertial frames in Newtonian physics, things move on straight lines if no unbalanced forces act on them. So there must be an unbalanced force if an object is not moving in a straight line - and that force is gravity.

General relativity basically modifies Newton's first law. Things experiencing no force don't move in straight lines. They follow paths called "geodesics". Far from any source of gravity, these are (arbitrarily close to) straight lines. Close to sources of gravity they (or their spatial projections) are curves. So no centripetal force is necessary because the orbital path is inertial.
 
Osvaldo said:
How is the centrifugal force in an orbiting planet or star, balanced if according to Einstein there is not such gravity force and is only space time curvature.
In Newtonian mechanics the inertial centrifugal force is used in rotating frames of reference. In General Relativity you instead use a different space-time metric for the rotating frame, and there is neither a force of gravity, nor a centrifugal force.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Back
Top