- #1
Ebenshap
- 9
- 0
I want a better visual model of what Newton's gravitational force formula represents:
(G⋅m1⋅m2)/d2
But there are two contradictory things that I'm having trouble reconciling:
Multiplying the two masses shows a relationship between the two point sources, but using the area of the sphere to come up with how the intensity lessens over distance is best represented visually with one point source. For example, a point of light. When gravity involves two point sources, how can one justify dividing the results by a formula that involves one point source? It's almost as if the pull from the two point sources is represented as a single virtual point source that sends gravity out in all directions, but this is very abstract and it's hard to say if that's actually what's going on.
Also light goes out in all directions. But if gravity is the relationship between masses, then that would imply that the gravity of two masses only goes in the direction where the two would meet.
Does anyone know of any historical debate that may have arisen at the time that this information was published? Is there some kind of rationale that can explain away the contradictions above?
Thank you,
Eben
(G⋅m1⋅m2)/d2
But there are two contradictory things that I'm having trouble reconciling:
Multiplying the two masses shows a relationship between the two point sources, but using the area of the sphere to come up with how the intensity lessens over distance is best represented visually with one point source. For example, a point of light. When gravity involves two point sources, how can one justify dividing the results by a formula that involves one point source? It's almost as if the pull from the two point sources is represented as a single virtual point source that sends gravity out in all directions, but this is very abstract and it's hard to say if that's actually what's going on.
Also light goes out in all directions. But if gravity is the relationship between masses, then that would imply that the gravity of two masses only goes in the direction where the two would meet.
Does anyone know of any historical debate that may have arisen at the time that this information was published? Is there some kind of rationale that can explain away the contradictions above?
Thank you,
Eben