Problem with gravitation equation

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gettinlate
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravitation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the discrepancies encountered in calculating weight at different altitudes using Newton's gravitational formula. Participants explore the implications of various factors affecting gravitational force, including the accuracy of constants and the influence of latitude on gravitational acceleration.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a project involving a spreadsheet to calculate weight at altitude using Newton's formula for gravitational attraction, noting a discrepancy when altitude is set to zero.
  • Another participant confirms the general formula and explains how it should reduce to the familiar weight equation, suggesting that gravitational acceleration (g) can be derived from the constants used.
  • A different participant points out a potential misunderstanding regarding the definition of Newton, clarifying that 1 N is equivalent to kg·m·s-2, which implies a constant value for g should not be assumed.
  • Another participant identifies two possible issues: the variation of R and g with latitude and the lack of accounting for centrifugal effects on gravitational force, suggesting calculations be done at the poles for consistency.
  • A later reply acknowledges the previous participant's input, noting that using values consistent with the poles significantly improved the accuracy of the calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the importance of using consistent values for gravitational calculations, particularly concerning latitude. However, there is no consensus on the exact nature of the discrepancies or the best approach to resolve them, as different factors are considered.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the variability of gravitational acceleration with latitude and the potential influence of centrifugal force, indicating that the calculations may depend on specific conditions not initially accounted for.

gettinlate
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'm having a problem with a project I've been kicking around for some time now.

This arose out of a discussion with a co-worker who was wondering how much less one would weigh at various intervals of increasing altitude above the surface of the earth.

I set out to create a spread sheet to demonstrate.
The spreadsheet would take inputs for the mass (weight) of the person & the desired altitude and show the weight at altitude.
Although I created the spreadsheet using Newton's formula for gravitational attraction, I noticed a peculiar thing. That is, if I set the altitude to zero, i.e to remain at mean sea level, the field showing weight at altitude does not give the original starting weight.

Despite having searched the web for the highest precision values I could find for the variables, I'm supposing that the problem can only be due to some inaccuracy in one or more of the values I have in the equation. (Or I messed up somewhere else)

Here's what I have:

F = G*m1*m2/ r^2


G = 6.67259 * 10^-11

m1 = Mass of Earth = 5.9736 * 10^24 kg

m2 = Mass of object on surface of Earth (at mean sea level) = 50 kg

r = Radius of Earth = 6.3674425 * 10^6 m

1 Newton (N) = 9.80665002864 kg



(6.67259 * 10^-11) *(5.9736 * 10^24) * 50 = 19.929692 * 10^15

(19.929692 * 10^15) / (6.3674425 * 10^6) ^2 = 491.5532 N = F

F = 491.5532 N BUT! 50Kg * 9.80665002864 = 490.3325 N For a difference of 1.227 Newtons.


With this kind of error, I have to input an altitude of 7920 m to get the result to equal the starting weight.

Can anyone see what I'm doing wrong here? Or am I just trying to get more accurate results than is possible with available data?

Thanks for any insight.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I didn't go through all the numerics, I'm sure you did them right (more or less).
But taking this general formula
F = G*M*m/ r^2
with M the mass of the earth, and m that of the object, you want it to reduce to the familiar
F = m g
if you put r = R (the Earth radius)

Comparing, you find that g = G*M/R.

If r is close to R (i.e. close to the surface of the earth) then F = m g is a good approximation to G M m / r^2.
 
"1 Newton (N) = 9.80665002864 kg"

1 N = Kg m sec^-2,

otherwise you are setting g to a constant.
 
I see two possible problems.

R and g vary with latitiude. Were the values used consistent with each other? I.e., the value of g used corresponds to the same latitude that has the value of R used?

Also, there was no accounting for the centrifugal contribution to g.

To avoid using centrifugal effects, try doing the calculation at the poles (latitude 90 degrees, north or south):

R = 6,356.750 km
g = 9.832129 m/s^2

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity
 
Thanks Redbelly,

The values you gave get me within .01%.

I had considered centrifugal force being a factor, but if anyone asked, I was going to say that we were doing the experiment at the poles.

Until now, I was not aware that the value of g, and therefore the method of expressing Newtons as weight in kg would vary so much with latitude.

I was trying to use a theoretical perfect sphere (where R was the mean value between the equator & poles) for my calculations,which didn't work. But matching the R value & the g value at the poles did the trick!

I do appreciate the help.
Thanks again
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K