Proving the gravitational force of a solid sphere using integration

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the gravitational force of a solid sphere and the assumptions made in calculating it using integration. It highlights a misconception that the gravitational force from a circular plate can be treated as if its mass is concentrated at the center, which is not valid for all shapes. The argument emphasizes that while a sphere can be approximated as a point mass at its center, this does not hold for a disc due to the distribution of mass. The gravitational pull from a small part of the disc is shown to be less than if the mass were at the center, leading to an overestimation of the gravitational field if such assumptions are made. This analysis underscores the importance of correctly accounting for mass distribution in gravitational calculations.
Sam Jelly
Messages
15
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
I am trying to calculate the gravitational force of mass m from a solid sphere with Radius R, mass M with uniform mass distribution. I am integrating the gravitaional force done by the thin circular plate. (I put mass m on top of every circular plate's center of mass). I know the solution to this is GmM/R^2, but my answer seems to be wrong. Is there any mistake? (mass m is on the surface of mass M)
Relevant Equations
dF = GmdM/r^2
D917654A-DC87-45BD-94A5-D8E816870D4B.png

This is my attempt at the solution. x from the equation dF = GmdM/x^2 represents the distance between the circular plate’s center of mass and mass m.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It appears that you assume that the force between the plate and the mass ##m## is the same as if the mass ##dM## of the plate were in the center of the plate. Why would it be so?
 
I assumed that mass dM was in the center of each plate because the mass is distributed uniformly therefore it will be at the center of mass.
 
Sam Jelly said:
I assumed that mass dM was in the center of each plate because the mass is distributed uniformly therefore it will be at the center of mass.
This is wrong.

Essentially you are making an assumption about the overall gravity of an object where you cannot replace it by a point mass in the CoM, but you want to show it for a sphere - for which you can.
 
Sam Jelly said:
I assumed that mass dM was in the center of each plate because the mass is distributed uniformly therefore it will be at the center of mass.
If that were assumed to be true in general, there would be no point in proving it for the special case of a sphere!
 
As for a simple argument to see that it is not the case for a disc:

Consider the gravitational pull of a small part of the disc ##dm##. As long as the volume it is contained in is small, the gravitational pull at the point of interest can be approximated by the point source formula
$$
d\vec g = \frac{G\, dm}{x^2+r^2} \vec e,
$$
where ##\vec e## is a unit vector pointing from the point of interest towards the mass element. Now, by symmetry, the final gravitational field ##\vec g## must point towards the center of the disc, but there are two effects that both come into play for any ##r > 0##:
  1. The denominator ##x^2 + r^2 > x^2## so the first factor is always smaller than it would be if the mass ##dm## was on the symmetry axis.
  2. The component of the unit vector ##\vec e## will be smaller than 1
Both effects mean that the contribution of the mass ##dm## is smaller than it would be if you had put it at the center of mass. Since all mass elements (except for the one at ##r = 0##) give smaller contributions to the gravitational field than they would if they were at the center of mass, the result of approximating the full mass of the disc to be at the center of mass must overestimate the actual gravitational field.
 
  • Like
Likes Hill and PeroK
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with an outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Thread 'A bead-mass oscillatory system problem'
I can't figure out how to find the velocity of the particle at 37 degrees. Basically the bead moves with velocity towards right let's call it v1. The particle moves with some velocity v2. In frame of the bead, the particle is performing circular motion. So v of particle wrt bead would be perpendicular to the string. But how would I find the velocity of particle in ground frame? I tried using vectors to figure it out and the angle is coming out to be extremely long. One equation is by work...
Back
Top