Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / June 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

directions of gravity

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
zxcv_890@hotmail.com - 28 Jun 2008 23:05 GMT
As a basic intro to gravity, we're told it is directed straight
downward to Earth's center.  But then if you look at an incline plane
question, you see that gravity can act on angles, as long as it's
still directed in a downward direction.  We use trigonometry to
calculate the magnitude gravity in the direction of the inclined
plane, because that is the direction that the object is free to move.
We may also calculate the magnitude of gravity perpendicular to the
incline if we are concerned about friction.

Here's my question: If gravity acts in *all* downward directions
(i.e., not just straight down) regardless of whether or not the object
is on an incline, wouldn't the magnitude of the force acting on the
object above ground be the sum of all the downward forces, and not
just the magnitude of the *straight* downward force.  For example, |
F_g| decreases as the angle away from straight down increases.
Gravity acting straight down on a 10kg mass has a magnitude of approx.
98N, but  10deg. off of straight down (to the right and to the left),
the magnitude decreases to 98sin(80) = 96.5.  20deg. off of straight
down gives 98sin(70) = 92.1, etc.  until gravity loses its effect
entirely at the horizontal.  Each of these symmetric pairs of forces
has a resultant vector that acts straight down.  There are infinitely
many such pairs, so we would need calculus to sum of all the
resultants.  In any case, the resultant of these resultants would be a
vector directed straight down, but with a magnitude substantially
greater than 98N.  Therefore the object should be accelerating more
than 9.8m/s^2.
mitch.nicolas.raemsch@gmail.com - 28 Jun 2008 23:37 GMT
On Jun 28, 2:05 pm, zxcv_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> As a basic intro to gravity, we're told it is directed straight
> downward to Earth's center.  But then if you look at an incline plane
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> greater than 98N.  Therefore the object should be accelerating more
> than 9.8m/s^2.

Einstein showed us that directions in curved space are curved whether
he realized it or not. Your measuring rod is curved because it is
extended in the curved space-time continuum of gravity.

Movement and extension are in curved space.

Mitch Raemsch
Uncle Al - 29 Jun 2008 01:53 GMT
> On Jun 28, 2:05 pm, zxcv_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > As a basic intro to gravity, we're told it is directed straight
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> Einstein
[snip crap]

> Mitch Raemsch

Idiot.  Hey f.cking stooopid - Galileo.

Signature

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Igor - 28 Jun 2008 23:52 GMT
On Jun 28, 6:05 pm, zxcv_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> As a basic intro to gravity, we're told it is directed straight
> downward to Earth's center.  But then if you look at an incline plane
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> greater than 98N.  Therefore the object should be accelerating more
> than 9.8m/s^2.

Gravity only "acts" in one direction.  Any other consideration you're
discussing here is a projection of the gravitational acceleration
vector into any arbitrary direction along which an object is free to
move.  Since a physical object can only move in one direction at a
time, no summations are required.  Now, the path that the object is
taking may not be static, and hence the projection may change as
needed, such as on a surface of non-constant slope.  But again, no
summation is required, since at any given instant, an object is still
only moving in one particular direction and there's still only one
projection angle.
Jim Black - 29 Jun 2008 00:37 GMT
> As a basic intro to gravity, we're told it is directed straight
> downward to Earth's center.  But then if you look at an incline plane
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> We may also calculate the magnitude of gravity perpendicular to the
> incline if we are concerned about friction.

I think you've misunderstood why we take components of the gravitational
force in those sort of problems, and what it means.  Neglecting friction,
there are *two* forces on a block sliding down an inclined plane, gravity
and the force of the inclined plane on the block.  Gravity is pulling
straight down, but the block can't move straight down without bending the
inclined plane.  The inclined plane does bend ever so slightly, and as a
result of that strain it puts pressure on the block.  The inclined plane
bends just enough so that the total force on the block is in a direction
which won't send the block through the inclined plane.

Here's a picture of the two forces on the block:

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/652/forcescx1.png

The force of the inclined plane on the block is called the "normal force"
because it's normal (perpendicular) to the inclined plane.

And here's a picture of the total force on the block, obtained by adding
the two force vectors head-to-tail:

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/6439/totalzd7.png

Notice that the total force is parallel to the inclined plane.  If the
normal force was just a little bit smaller, the total force would be
pushing the block further into the inclined plane, causing the normal force
to continue increasing.  If the normal force was a bit larger, it would
push the block away from the inclined plane, decreasing the normal force.
At this point, the normal force is stable.

You can see from the diagram that the total force and the normal force make
a right angle, and that the hypotenuse of the right triangle they form is
the gravitational force.  Thus, the total force is equal to component of
the gravitational force parallel to the inclined plane, and the normal
force is -1 times the perpendicular component.  But these are just
mathematical, geometrical statements, and they don't tell you the physics
of what's going on.  For that, you have to understand the two forces on the
block.

In general, when you solve problems like this, it's a good idea to:

(1) Draw a diagram showing the forces on the object.

(2) Then use the geometry of that diagram to calculate what the forces are.

You should *never* try to short-circuit the diagram by saying things like,
"Oh, the force on the block is the component of the gravitational force
parallel to the inclined plane," because you don't know if that's true
until you've looked at the forces.  Many students get into trouble this
way.

I hope this helps.  Good luck!

Signature

Jim E. Black    (domain in headers)
How to filter out stupid arguments in 40tude Dialog:
 !markread,ignore From "Name" +"<email address>"
 [X] Watch/Ignore works on subthreads

zxcv_890@hotmail.com - 30 Jun 2008 00:01 GMT
 
> Gravity is pulling straight down, but the block can't move straight down without bending the
> inclined plane.  The inclined plane does bend ever so slightly, and as a
> result of that strain it puts pressure on the block.  The inclined plane
> bends just enough so that the total force on the block is in a direction
> which won't send the block through the inclined plane.

Your explanation is excellent, thank you.  I'm just unclear about this
point you're making about the direction of force that the incline
applies to the block being perpendicular to the plane's surface.
Could you be more specific about (or could you point me to a resource
that better explains) what you mean by "The inclined plane bends just
enough so that the total force on the block is in a direction which
won't send the block through the inclined plane."  That is, what
exactly is causing the direction of the force on the block to be
perpendicular to the plane's surface (as opposed to, say, straight up)

> I hope this helps.  Good luck!

Yes it did, thanks!
Jim Black - 30 Jun 2008 20:10 GMT
> Your explanation is excellent, thank you.  I'm just unclear about this
> point you're making about the direction of force that the incline
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> exactly is causing the direction of the force on the block to be
> perpendicular to the plane's surface (as opposed to, say, straight up)

We can get this from a conservation of energy argument.  If you push the
block into the inclined plane, bending it, the mechanical potential energy
of the inclined plane increases rapidly.  That means that work had to be
done by the block on the inclined plane.  The work done by an object is the
distance it moves times the component of the force on the object in the
opposite direction (This is for constant force; you need calculus if the
force is changing with position, but we'll be working with small enough
distances that we can ignore that).

If we knew how much the potential energy increased when you pushed the
block into the inclined plane, and the distance moved by the block, we
could calculate the perpendicular component of the force from the inclined
plane by dividing the two.  Likewise, we could calculate the component of
the force parallel to the plane's surface by considering what would happen
if we moved the block parallel to the surface.  If the plane isn't already
bent, the potential energy wouldn't change at all, and you'd have zero
force parallel to the surface.  Even if the plane is bent a little, it
should be clear that the potential energy change per distance is much
larger perpendicular to the plane than parallel to the plane, so we can
ignore any parallel component of the force.

But if friction is present, then this all changes.  Then the inclined plane
can exert a significant force on the block parallel to its surface.  In
this case, the work done by the block is converted not into potential
energy, but into heat.

When we solve simple mechanics problems, though, we generally don't have to
worry about this stuff.  All we need to know is that the force from the
inclined plane will be perpendicular to its surface, and that its magnitude
is just large enough to keep objects from going into the plane.

Signature

Jim E. Black    (domain in headers)
How to filter out stupid arguments in 40tude Dialog:
 !markread,ignore From "Name" +"<email address>"
 [X] Watch/Ignore works on subthreads

Uncle Al - 29 Jun 2008 01:52 GMT
> As a basic intro to gravity, we're told it is directed straight
> downward to Earth's center.  But then if you look at an incline plane
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> We may also calculate the magnitude of gravity perpendicular to the
> incline if we are concerned about friction.

One hopes you are not in college.  If in college, one hopes you are
someplace harmess like home economics, fine arts, or political
science.  Why be a one-eyed man amidst the blind?

> Here's my question: If gravity acts in *all* downward directions
> (i.e., not just straight down)

a = g[sin(theta)] where a = net downward acceleration, g = 9.8
m/sec^2, and "theta" is the angle of elevation.  Are you a diversity
admission?

> regardless of whether or not the object
> is on an incline, wouldn't the magnitude of the force acting on the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> greater than 98N.  Therefore the object should be accelerating more
> than 9.8m/s^2.

Knowing something is insufficient.  You must know what you know -
understanding.

Signature

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

zxcv_890@hotmail.com - 30 Jun 2008 00:13 GMT
> One hopes you are not in college.  If in college, one hopes you are
> someplace harmess like home economics, fine arts, or political
> science.  Why be a one-eyed man amidst the blind?

And one hopes you are not a teacher.  If a teacher, one hopes you are
someplace harmless like only given students who have zero future
potential anyway, or students who have sufficiently thick skin so that
they continue to study physics despite the discouraging words of an
angry old man unhappy with the world and so frustrated at his
powerlessness to change it that he has to pick on innocent students
who are just trying to learn.  Why be a f-ing a-hole amidst kind souls
like Jim Black who are genuinely trying to help people?

> Knowing something is insufficient.  You must know what you know -
> understanding.

Wow, you're just soooooooooo bloody profound, aren't you?  Oh, believe
me, I know what I know.  And what I know is that you are a f-ing a-
hole.
Androcles - 30 Jun 2008 01:26 GMT
On Jun 28, 8:52 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:

> One hopes you are not in college. If in college, one hopes you are
> someplace harmess like home economics, fine arts, or political
> science. Why be a one-eyed man amidst the blind?

And one hopes you are not a teacher.  If a teacher, one hopes you are
someplace harmless
=======================================
No, no, it's "harmess".

like only given students who have zero future
potential anyway, or students who have sufficiently thick skin so that
they continue to study physics despite the discouraging words of an
angry old man unhappy with the world and so frustrated at his
powerlessness to change it that he has to pick on innocent students
who are just trying to learn.  Why be a f-ing a-hole amidst kind souls
like Jim Black who are genuinely trying to help people?
=========================================
He can't help being a f.cking arsehole. He even has a picture of himself
on his web page.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.