Newton's Law Of Universal Gravitation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on why Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation uses the inverse square of the distance (r^2) rather than just the distance (r). Using r^2 allows for accurate predictions of planetary movements, fitting observational data perfectly, while a linear force law would incorrectly position the Sun at the center of elliptical orbits. Newton's law, demonstrated through Euclidean geometry, is crucial for understanding these elliptical orbits, which are only approximations of actual planetary paths. Additionally, the analogy of light intensity diminishing with distance illustrates the inverse square relationship, suggesting a similar reasoning for gravitational force. Overall, the inverse square law is essential for accurately describing gravitational interactions in a way that aligns with observed celestial mechanics.
sheenktk
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Can anyone tell me that why we take r square instead of r?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because if we took r instead of r^2 then predictions of such theory would not fit to experimental results. Especially plredicted planet movements would not fit to observations. If we take r^2 - they fit perfectly well.
 
The original reason why Newton did that is that the only central force law (in terms of powers of r--and this might be valid for any function of r, but I'm not sure) that produces elliptical orbits for the planets with the Sun at the focus of the ellipse. So, it's basically the only option, to the extent that the orbits really are elliptical (which is really only a good approximation).

A linear force law also produces elliptical orbits, but then the Sun would have to be at the center of the ellipses, which is not what we see.

Newton's law of gravity was one of his greatest achievements because he was able to demonstrate these facts using Euclidean geometry. His proofs are complicated, but they are described in a somewhat readable form in Brackenridge's book, The Key to Newton's Dynamics (I say it's complicated, but it's possible to give a fairly simple outline of the main points, which is done in the first few chapters--unfortunately, I am too rusty on it to describe it here, and I never found the time to finish the rest of the book).There may also be other explanations for the r^2 (I saw one in a book about quantum field theory, and you could derive it as some sort of limiting case in general relativity).
 
Last edited:
Imagine we are talking about light instead of gravity for a moment...

A bulb emits light at a rate of 1 watt. If you construct a sphere around the bulb with a radius of 1 meter then the total interior surface area of the sphere is 4pi and the intensity of the light striking the interior is 1/4pi watts per square meter.

If the sphere were 2 meters in diameter then the surface area would be 16pi and the intensity of the light striking the interior is 1/16pi watts per square meter.

As you can see, the intensity of light striking the interior of the sphere is inversely proportional to the square of it's radius.

Now if we imagine that a mass is a source radiating gravitons just like a light bulb radiates photons the reason for the inverse square law becomes obvious.
 
homeomorphic said:
A linear force law also produces elliptical orbits, but then the Sun would have to be at the center of the ellipses,

Yeah, like shown here:

[URL]http://bluelyon.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/isaac-Newton-pound-note.jpg[/URL]

Trajectories for different laws of gravity:

http://megaswf.com/serve/1161536
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top