B Relating Gravitational Field Strength and Mass

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between gravitational field strength (g) and mass (m), emphasizing the formula g = GM/r². Participants clarify that while g is proportional to m, the radius (r) also plays a crucial role in this relationship, leading to the conclusion that g ∝ m/r² is more accurate. The gravitational constant (G) is acknowledged as essential for understanding the proportionality, stemming from experimental observations. Additionally, a participant seeks clarification on calculating the orbital period of an asteroid using Kepler's constant, expressing uncertainty about their calculations. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of gravitational relationships and the importance of precise notation and understanding in physics.
taetae
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I know the formula for calculating field strength is g= GM/r2 , however if I'm trying to show the proportionality relationship between just g and m, would g ∝ m be correct, since a larger mass equals a stronger force of gravity and vice versa?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Hello tae2, :welcome:

What about the dependence of ##r## on m (c.q. vice versa) ? Think two planets of the same composition ...

PS do use consistent notation: don't change capital M for lower case m if it is not the intention to designate another variable
 
BvU said:
Hello tae2, :welcome:

What about the dependence of ##r## on m (c.q. vice versa) ? Think two planets of the same composition ...

PS do use consistent notation: don't change capital M for lower case m if it is not the intention to designate another variable

Yup, that's where I got confused haha. The mass of the object needs to be divided by the square of it's radius. The question I'm stuck on asks for me to write a proportionality relationship for g relating to m, would g∝ m/r2 be more accurate then? Or should the constant of proportionality, G, be included as well, making it g∝ Gm/r2?

(Taking a class online is so frustrating when you don't quite understand something, I feel like I'm teaching myself!)
 
Last edited:
I'm also confused by what your teacher is asking. The relation between mass and gravity is the gravitational constant. It's just a constant proportion. It came about by experimentation. Newton understood the concept that two objects pulled each other and that that force was relative to the distance. He had a problem with that he needed a force of certain units and his equations had a completely different unit, so he added the G and gave it a unit. Later on once we had more precise measurements of mass and force, we were able to discover the value of this constant.

Of course then Einstein came along.
 
Exercise means gravitational acceleration at the surface, I would venture.

With ##m\propto r^3## and ##g \propto m/r^2## I would say: 8 times heavier, then twice the gravitational acceleration... but I agree that an online answer is a gamble

taetae said:
I feel like I'm teaching myself)
isn't so bad at all ! :smile:
 
Thank you for the help! I hope it's ok to sneak one other question into here (I went through and did all the rest of the questions but this is the only other one I'm confused with). I just want to check whether or not I did it correctly.
It's about determining the orbital period of an asteroid (in Earth years) that has the average radius of orbit as 2.77 AU. It says to use the value of Kepler's constant "expressed in the units of yr2/AU3" and the formula T2=Cr3. So, if my understanding is correct, to find the value of Kepler's constant you would do:
C=T2/r3
C=12/13 = 1yr2/AU3

And then to calculate the orbital period:
T=√Cr3
T=√(1yr2/AU3)(2.77)3

I feel like this doesn't look right...I'm pretty sure I didn't input the correct value for C but I'm unsure how to otherwise get it..
 

Thread 'Does it make sense to build new radio telescopes?'

TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
View full post »
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'

Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'

This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
View full post »

Thread 'Could fast radio bursts be alien radar signals?'

Both have short pulses of emission and a wide spectral bandwidth, covering a wide variety of frequencies: "Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are detected over a wide range of radio frequencies, including frequencies around 1400 MHz, but have also been detected at lower frequencies, particularly in the 400–800 MHz range. Russian astronomers recently detected a powerful burst at 111 MHz, expanding our understanding of the FRB range. Frequency Ranges: 1400 MHz: Many of the known FRBs have been detected...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Sun gravitational lensing forces
Replies
11
Views
1K
Find the gravitational field strength of planet X
Replies
10
Views
2K
I A "continous" gravitational field formula r=0 to infinity
Replies
16
Views
576
I Gravitational Field with Dark Energy: Observable Effects?
Replies
1
Views
1K
Gravitational equipotential multiple choice problem
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Time Dilation in Gravitational Field: Potential vs Field Strength
Replies
12
Views
2K
I Big bang balloon?
Replies
5
Views
169
B Gravitational field strength calculation
Replies
3
Views
4K
I Postulating a minimum gravitational field strength
Replies
11
Views
2K
Gravitational Field Multiple Choice Help
Replies
5
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top