Solving the mass of the Earth using 17th and 18th Century tools

  • Thread starter Thread starter Johnnymac
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth Mass Tools
AI Thread Summary
To solve for the mass of the Earth using 17th and 18th-century tools, Newton's and Kepler's laws are essential, particularly the equation g = G(M/r^2). The radius of the Earth can be determined using historical methods involving the angles of sunlight, which predate the telescope. Measuring the gravitational constant G poses a challenge, but using the gravitational interaction with another body, like the moon, could provide necessary data. The discussion emphasizes the importance of historical methods and available tools in deriving the Earth's mass. Overall, the conversation highlights the ingenuity of early scientists in tackling complex problems with limited resources.
Johnnymac
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Solving the mass of the Earth using 17th and 18th Century tools...

Good afternoon, morning, evening everyone...

I am looking for a little guidance on how to solve for the mass of the Earth utilizing only tools and theories available to people in the 17th and 18th Century.

I have Newton's and Keplar's laws available...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
G\frac{M}{r^2}=g
Telescope was invented already, so r is available. g - also isn't big problem. The most difficult thing is to measure G. But there are some ways. This data is enough.
 
What does having a telescope have to do with finding r, the radius of the earth? That as calculated about a thousand years before the telescope was invented, wasn't it?
 
Yes. It really was (if i remember correctly, even 2 thousand years before). Just when i started to think how to measure r, telescope was my first idea. If i lived in 18th century i would use it.
Sorry, i wasn't presice.
 
Thank you both! Here's to solving!
 
Several centuries ago, the radius of the Earth was found using the angles of the Sun rays formed on Earth. To find the mass you will probably have to use g=(G.m1.m2)/r^2. This means you will need the mass of another body, like the moon.

Not sure how else you could find the Mass of the earth.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top