Quantcast

A community for students.

Here's the question you clicked on:

55 members online
  • 0 replying
  • 0 viewing

ghazi

  • 2 years ago

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

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

    @experimentX

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

    are you trying to prove f=ma?

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

    no

  4. ghazi
    • 2 years ago
    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

  5. experimentX
    • 2 years ago
    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

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

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

  7. ghazi
    • 2 years ago
    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

  8. experimentX
    • 2 years ago
    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.

  9. experimentX
    • 2 years ago
    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.

  10. experimentX
    • 2 years ago
    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.

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

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

  12. Carl_Pham
    • 2 years ago
    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.

  13. ghazi
    • 2 years ago
    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.

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

    I was writing it for 10 minutes and the page reloaded

  15. ivanmlerner
    • 2 years ago
    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.

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

    @ivanmlerner your explanation seems precised . thanks

  17. Carl_Pham
    • 2 years ago
    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.

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

    agreed, but i'll get you that soon

  19. Not the answer you are looking for?
    Search for more explanations.

    • Attachments:

Ask your own question

Sign Up
Find more explanations on OpenStudy
Privacy Policy

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.