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

tanvirms

hi. we know gravitational force F is prop. to m1m2, it is also inversely prop. to d^2, we then combined these two proportions and wrote that F is prop. to m1m2/d^2. How can we do that? does that mean if x is prob to a, and x is prop to b, then x is prop to ab? im confused.

  • one year ago
  • one year ago

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

    yes. we can just multiply.

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

    but i need a mathematical explanation.

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

    Mathematically, i dont know how to prove it. But if u multiply it, then the resulting expression will satisfy the required conditions. which are, F will still be proportional to m1m2 and F will still be inversely proportional to R^2. So inorder to represent both using only one expression, we write it that way.

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

    but it doesnt work that way

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

    y doesnt it? we need an expression that satisfies both conditions. and it does. whats wrong?

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

    it doesnt because that would lead to the confusion that i posted about, x prop to a and xx prop to b doesnt mean x prop to ab....

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

    it does. x prop ab cos if u now double ab, it could be taken as doubling a and keeping b the same or vice versa. and the result would be a doubling of x.

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

    lets say x is prop to a, then x=k1a similarly, x=k2b if we multiply them, then x^2=k1k2ab or x^2 is prop to ab (k1k2 is constant) so u see, x^2 will be prop to ab, not x itself.

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

    Why do u multiply? you just need an expression that satisfies both conditions. F is never equal to k*m1*m2 It is ONLY PROPORTIONAL to m1*m2. The espression for force is not derived in the way u mentioned. newton just said that force would increase when m1*m2 increases, and would decrease proportional to r^2 So we now need an expression that can satisfy both these conditions. and F = Gm1m2/r^2 Thats all. it DID NOT come from F = k1*m1m2 and F = k2/r^2

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

    yes it did, it came from F=Gm1m2/r^2 where G is the constant of proportionality. i guess there are a few ideas of proportionality u haven't come across yet.

    • one year ago
  11. Vincent-Lyon.Fr
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Quote: "i guess there are a few ideas of proportionality u haven't come across yet." Come on, @tanvirms! What @Saikam explained is perfectly clear; no need to sneer! Instead of complicating things with equalities, proportionality constants and so on, get back to common sense and think again what the word "proportionality" means. If X is proportional to a, b², 1/c ,1/d² , cos \(\alpha\) and 1/ln r at the same time, is means that there is ONE proportionality constant k so that: \(\large X=k\;\LARGE \frac{ab^2\cos\alpha}{cd^2\ln r}\)

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

    but Vincent, shouldn't there be a mathematical explanation? again, why isn't x proportional to a+b? or a-b? why only ab?

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

    i perfectly agree to your given equation....but we can only write that when the proportionality constant 'k' is same for every proportion, isn't it? what if the constant is different for ever proportion?

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

    Your Q is valid Its a matter of an experiment. Initially people found that F grav. is proportional to masses of the objects and also to R(-2) and the when they varied both mass and distance they found the eqn. holds too. the above process neednt hold for everything on earth

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

    thanks people! i emailed Dr.Math and got a very satisfying answer.... @srikrishnapriya thats what i wanted to know :D

    • 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.