Quantcast

Got Homework?

Connect with other students for help. It's a free community.

  • across
    MIT Grad Student
    Online now
  • laura*
    Helped 1,000 students
    Online now
  • Hero
    College Math Guru
    Online now

Here's the question you clicked on:

55 members online
  • 0 replying
  • 0 viewing

ghazi

can anyone give me or show me how to prove weight= mass* gravity? please

  • one year ago
  • one year ago

  • This Question is Closed
  1. ghazi
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    @experimentX

    • one year ago
  2. experimentX
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    are you trying to prove f=ma?

    • one year ago
  3. ghazi
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    no

    • one year ago
  4. ghazi
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    i am thinking and striving to prove weight = mass*gravity? how, i was pondering over it

    • one year ago
  5. experimentX
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    this comes from definition ... weight = gravitational force. weight = GmM/R^2 = m GM/R^2 = mg

    • one year ago
  6. ghazi
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    this is my question how weight = gravitational force* mass (not weight @experimentX :) )

    • one year ago
  7. ghazi
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    and i heard that there is a long proof of it i am looking for that

    • one year ago
  8. experimentX
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    weight = gravitation force = m g ---------------------------- well i guess there is since there is lot's of confusion around mass since the definition of mass keeps going round and round around force and inertia. I haven't understood it correctly.

    • one year ago
  9. experimentX
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    probably to clear out this circular logic of mass. but weight = mg ... this comes from newton's second law.

    • one year ago
  10. experimentX
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    weight= mass* acceleration due to gravity ------------------------------------- probably you made mistake here ... gravity would mean different thing.

    • one year ago
  11. ghazi
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    @experiment i need mathematical explanation of this definition how weight = mass*gravity?

    • one year ago
  12. Carl_Pham
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    There is no mathematical derivation. That the force exerted by gravity on an object is proportional to its mass is a hypothesis of Newtonian gravitation, confirmed by experiment. It's an observation, not a deduction.

    • one year ago
  13. ghazi
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    @carl_pham everything in this universe has a mathematical explanation and i strongly believe it has some mathematical explanation and it is in the book principia mathematica by newton , albeit i tried hard to understand that but unfortunately i couldn't and once again i must say there is a derivation of this but unfortunately i am unable to find it.

    • one year ago
  14. ivanmlerner
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    I was writing it for 10 minutes and the page reloaded

    • one year ago
  15. ivanmlerner
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    The thing is, \[F=ma=mGMr^{-2}\]if we notice that we are considering the weight only for objects very close to the surface of the earth, we see that GMr^-2=g and even though this radius usually change, we can consider it as constant and equal to the radius of the earth, therefore getting the acceleration g. A more formal explanation involves the same concept, we take a taylor expansion around the radius of the earth of the function GMr^-2=g(r) and consider only the first term since we r and the radius of the earth are very close. This provides a more clear view of whats going but is really unnecessary. It is not useful to continue the taylor expansion to include greater heights because the function F is really simple.

    • one year ago
  16. ghazi
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    @ivanmlerner your explanation seems precised . thanks

    • one year ago
  17. Carl_Pham
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    @ghazi, and interesting faith, but unfortunately you are wrong. Anything derived purely from empirical observation has no mathematical derivation at all. It just is. Obvious examples include the value of the fine structure constant, as well as many other important constants, why the nuclear forces have a finite range, and the Second Law of thermodynamics (the one that says the entropy of the universe is always increasing). Not one of these things has a mathematical, or indeed any explanation. They are simply observable facts that characterize this universe.

    • one year ago
  18. ghazi
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    agreed, but i'll get you that soon

    • one year ago
    • Attachments:

See more questions >>>

Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.

spraguer (Moderator)
5 → View Detailed Profile

is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...

23

  • Teamwork 19 Teammate
  • Problem Solving 19 Hero
  • You have blocked this person.
  • ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...

Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.

This is the testimonial you wrote.
You haven't written a testimonial for Owlfred.