• Re: Gravitational acceleration

    From Ross Finlayson@ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com to sci.physics on Mon Jan 26 19:45:24 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics

    On 01/26/2026 01:33 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    Ross Finlayson wrote:
    When you think about Newton's laws, or when I do,
    or when one does, or as one may, think about Newton's
    laws, as we think about Newton's laws, one might make
    for a "deconstructive account" of them.

    rest/rest motion/motion equal/opposite
    <- isn't that three laws?

    Once again your writing is so confused that one cannot discern what you mean.

    F = ma

    This is a formulation of Newton's Second Law of Motion.

    Originally (in 1686/1687) Newton wrote this law in Latin words that as an equation he would have later written (or has written?)

    F = p|c,

    (F = dot p, where by a dot above a symbol he defined the derivative of the corresponding quantity with respect to time, a notation that we are still using today), where he had previously defined the equivalent of

    p = m v.

    He called this, what we call "momentum" today, "the quantity of motion", and defined that it "arises from Velocity [v] and the quantity of Matter [mass
    m] together" ("Philosophi|a Naturalis Principia Mathematica": "Definitiones").

    [The notion of vectors did not exist yet -- they were introduced only in
    the 19th century by Hamilton --, so Newton would not have written this
    as a vector equation.]

    <https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-ADV-B-00039-00001/25>

    (Cambridge University, Cambridge Digital Library. High resolution digitised version of Newton's own copy of the first edition, interleaved with blank pages for his annotations and corrections. Cited in: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica#Latin_versions>)

    One can see that this is equivalent to

    F = m a,

    considering that the mass is assumed to be constant-|, and that acceleration is the derivative of velocity with respect to time:

    F = p|c = m v|c = m a.

    I have heard that the law was first formulated as "F = m a" by Leonhard
    Euler ca. 100 years later, but so far I have not found corroborating evidence.

    ___
    -| This assumption must be challenged in special cases. For example, the
    mass of a rocket decreases due to pushing out fuel for propulsion. As
    a result, the *rocket equation* features a time derivative of mass that
    arises from the product rule of derivation: F = p|c = m v|c + m|c v = m a + m|c v.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation#Most_popular_derivation>

    <- that's also F(t) = m d^2 x /dt^2, differential d

    Correct.

    F = g Mm / d^2

    That is a *wrong* notation of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

    AISB, one must use "G" for the gravitational *constant* here; "g" is the symbol for the gravitational *acceleration* instead, whose magnitude is given by

    g(d) = G M/d^2,

    which is therefore NOT constant in general.

    However, this form of the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration only holds for spherically-symmetric objects with mass M when d means the
    distance from the center of mass, i. e. the _radial_ distance.

    In general, the *field of* gravitational acceleration grau (the gravitational field) is given by Gauss' Law for gravitation:

    rec ria grau = -4-C G -U,

    where -U is the mass density field.

    AISB (multiple times) for a *uniform* *spherically-symmetric* mass density, using Gauss' Theorem, one finds Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:

    re#_V dV (rec ria grau ) = re>_A dArau ria grau
    = -4-C r-# g(r) = -4-C G re#_V dV -U = -4-C G M
    <==> g(r) = G M/r-#
    ===> grau(rrau) = -(G M/r-#) rrau/r
    <==> Frau_g = m grau(rrau) = -(G M m/r-#) rrau/r,

    where V is a spherical volume that fully contains the region where the mass density is non-zero (i.e. the entire, assumed spherically-symmetric, celestial object where we would like to determine the gravitational field).

    <- F(t) = g Mm / d(t)^2 proportional inverse-square distance d

    Force is a function of time.

    In general, yes; but not necessarily.

    Because the law in this form only applies to spherically-symmetric mass distributions, one usually writes "r" (for "radius") instead of "d".
    [Another reason is to avoid confusion with the operator for the total derivative which also is "d".]

    Newton's Law of Gravitation gives rise to the differential equation

    r|e reo (d-#/dt-#) r = G M/r-#

    from

    F = m a = m (d-#/dt-#) r = G M m/r-#.

    Solving this differential equation, one can calculate, for example, the time that it takes for an object to fall in vacuum when the fact that the gravitational acceleration varies with altitude (to begin with) cannot be neglected. This is important, for example, to land space probes safely on comets and asteroids (which has been done).

    There is at best a tenuous relation of this to special and general relativity, so F'up2 sci.physics instead.


    Hm. The story of the priority dispute between Newton and Leibniz on
    the calculus is well-known, yet, one might aver that they're talking
    about two different things, the fluxions and fluents with regards to
    Newton's notation of derivatives, and the differential and integral
    bar with respect to Leibnitz' notation of integrals. Then, lesser-known
    is the priority dispute between Newton and Hooke over
    universal gravitation, or Newton and Kepler over universal gravitation,
    then as about the definition of F as mass by acceleration, whether
    it's really derivate in definition of power.

    Thanks for clarifying G vis-a-vis g, yes, that's what's intended.


    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn@PointedEars@web.de to sci.physics on Wed Jan 28 15:48:53 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    Ross Finlayson wrote:
    F = ma

    This is a formulation of Newton's Second Law of Motion.

    Originally (in 1686/1687) Newton wrote this law in Latin words that as an equation he would have later written (or has written?)

    F = p|c,

    (F = dot p, where by a dot above a symbol he defined the derivative of the corresponding quantity with respect to time, a notation that we are still using today), where he had previously defined the equivalent of

    p = m v.

    To corroborate my claim, I should also have cited and quoted the law as
    written by Newton, which can be found here:

    ,-<https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-ADV-B-00039-00001/46>
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | Lex II.
    |
    | Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impress|a, & fieri se-
    | cundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur.
    |
    | [Newton's detailed explanation]

    Which I translate to:

    "Law II

    The change of motion is proportional to the impressed motive force, and is
    done according to the straight line in which the force is impressed [i.e.,
    the motion changes in the direction of the exerted force]."

    He called this [p], what we call "momentum" today, "the quantity of motion", and
    defined that it "arises from Velocity [v] and the quantity of Matter [mass
    m] together" ("Philosophi|a Naturalis Principia Mathematica": "Definitiones").

    [...]

    <https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-ADV-B-00039-00001/25>

    (Cambridge University, Cambridge Digital Library. High resolution digitised version of Newton's own copy of the first edition, interleaved with blank pages for his annotations and corrections. Cited in: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica#Latin_versions>)

    He wrote there:

    | Def. I
    |
    | Quantitas Materi|a est mensura ejusdem orta ex illius Densitate &
    | Magnitudine conjunctim.
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | Def. II.
    |
    | Quantitas motus est mensura ejusdem orta ex Velocitate et quantitate
    | Materi|a conjunctum.

    Which I translate to:

    "Definition I

    The Quantity of Matter is the measure of the same, arising from Density &
    Size [volume] together.

    [...]"

    (this is equivalent to mass m = -U V), and

    "Definition II

    The Quantity of motion is the measure of the same, arising from Velocity and the quantity of Matter together."

    (this is then equivalent to [non-relativistic] momentum, as I explained before).

    My translations are corroborated (and partially informed) by Andrew Motte's official translation of 1729 of the second edition of the "Principia" into English:

    <https://books.google.ch/books?id=Tm0FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false>

    One can see that this is equivalent to

    F = m a,

    considering that the mass is assumed to be constant-|, and that acceleration is the derivative of velocity with respect to time:

    F = p|c = m v|c = m a.

    More precisely:

    One can see from the Latin original that Newton never clearly stated (the equivalent of) F = p|c there, but merely a proportionality between the
    exerted force and the change of motion (he previously defined motion to be measured by the "quantity of motion", now called momentum).

    However, the modern form of the law is implied because, following Newton's definition of "(the quantity of) motion", the "change of motion/momentum"
    can only be due to either a change of velocity, or "the quantity of matter" (mass), or both. Then for the same change of velocity, i.e. acceleration,
    a constant mass serves as the required proportionality constant.

    And ISTM that Newton *meant* a constant mass because he had no reason to
    assume that "the quantity of matter" would change due to an exerted force.
    --
    PointedEars

    Twitter: @PointedEars2
    Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn@PointedEars@web.de to sci.physics on Tue Jan 27 16:54:05 2026
    From Newsgroup: sci.physics

    *Please* trim your quotes to the relevant minimum, i.e. to the parts of a posting that you are actually replying to:

    <https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>

    Ross Finlayson wrote:
    Then, lesser-known is the priority dispute between Newton and Hooke over universal gravitation,

    That is possible as they were contemporaries.

    or Newton and Kepler over universal gravitation,

    That is NOT possible as Kepler died in 1630, 12 years before Newton (1642rCo1726/1727) was born.

    then as about the definition of F as mass by acceleration, whether
    it's really derivate in definition of power.

    No, that's nonsense.

    Thanks for clarifying G vis-a-vis g, yes, that's what's intended.

    You're welcome.
    --
    PointedEars

    Twitter: @PointedEars2
    Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2