B Regular derivation on The Universal Law of Gravitation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of Newton's law of gravitation, specifically the relationship between force, mass, and distance. The original poster expresses confusion over combining two proportionalities, leading to a different equation than expected. Responses clarify that while multiplying proportionalities is mathematically valid, the resulting expression may not retain the original proportional relationships. It is suggested to accept the law as established and verify it against experimental results rather than seeking alternative derivations. The conversation emphasizes understanding the application of proportionality in physics rather than solely focusing on derivations.
I am Meaningless
Hello Everybody, I am Meaningless and I had this doubt on Newtons laws of gravitation while deriving it. My textbook stated the following derivation 9 for any two masses m1, m2, and radius 'r'
It stated that according to the law of product of masses,
F (Directly Proportional) m1*m2
And according to the inverse square law,
F (Directly Proportional) 1/r2
Now here came my doubt..:
They then said that, When both Forces (F's) were combined, we would get,
F ( Directly Proportional) m1m2/r2
But I thought of elaborating the ''combination'' and logically approached it. Here's what I got:
If F was directly proportional to the product of the masses, the it would be equal to the product of the masses and a proportionality constant which I took as 'k'.
Now similarly if F was directly proportional to the inverse of the square of the radius then it would be equal to the inverse of the square of the radius multiplied by a proportionality constant which I took as 'l'.
Now if I multiplied them I would get...
F2 = K*L*m1*m2/r2
and if I rooted (square root) the entire equation on both sides I would get...
F = (SQRT)[K*L*M1*M2/R2]

Which did not seem to match with F = Gm1m2/r2
Now please tell me if:
1.There is any rule with the Proportionality that I am not aware of (or)
2.What my textbook has given is wrong
3. This was experimentally proved as an exception
4. If there is any other derivation for it
Any help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance :-)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am Meaningless said:
Now if I multiplied them
This step is wrong. You need one force law which obeys both proportionalities. The product you took does not obey either.
 
  • Like
Likes I am Meaningless
Dale said:
This step is wrong. You need one force law which obeys both proportionalities. The product you took does not obey either.
Thanks a lot for the reply Dale. So can I conclude that, I can only multiply two proportionalities only if one side of both equation obeys the original proportionalities? Also could you give another derivation perhaps by using Kepler's Laws, to make my understanding clearly? If that is Impossible, then could you just give another derivation?
 
I am Meaningless said:
I can only multiply two proportionalities only if one side of both equation obeys the original proportionalities?
You can certainly multiply two proportionalities any time you feel like it. However, the square root of the resulting expression may no longer be proportional to either of the original proportionalities. The operation that you did is mathematically valid, but just doesn't have the result you require.

I am Meaningless said:
Also could you give another derivation perhaps by using Kepler's Laws, to make my understanding clearly? If that is Impossible, then could you just give another derivation?
I don’t think that a derivation is particularly productive. I would just take the law as a given and check to see if it matches the result of experiments. If it does, then you can use it regardless of how it is obtained.
 
Last edited:
Dale said:
You can certainly multiply two proportionalities any time you feel like it. However, the square root of the resulting expression may no longer be proportional to either of the original proportionalities. The operation that you did is mathematically valid, but just doesn't have the result you require.

I don’t think that a derivation is particularly productive. I would just take the law as a given and check to see if it matches the result of experiments. If it does, then you can use it regardless of how it is obtained.
Okay, Thanks a lot Dale.
 
If the units are suitably chosen, the numerical value of G = 1.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Hello! I am generating electrons from a 3D gaussian source. The electrons all have the same energy, but the direction is isotropic. The electron source is in between 2 plates that act as a capacitor, and one of them acts as a time of flight (tof) detector. I know the voltage on the plates very well, and I want to extract the center of the gaussian distribution (in one direction only), by measuring the tof of many electrons. So the uncertainty on the position is given by the tof uncertainty...
Back
Top