Exactly Why doesn't the moon fall and strike the earth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bengaltiger14
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth Fall Moon
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of why the moon does not fall to Earth, exploring concepts related to gravitational forces and orbital mechanics. Participants are examining the nature of orbits, particularly in the context of celestial bodies like the moon and planets.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the idea that the moon is in free fall towards Earth while moving in a circular path. There are comparisons made to other objects in orbit, such as planets around the sun. Some participants question the conditions necessary for objects to maintain orbits and explore the balance between gravitational attraction and velocity.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with various interpretations of orbital mechanics being explored. Some participants have provided insights into the nature of orbits and the conditions that lead to different outcomes, such as collision or escape, but there is no explicit consensus on the original question.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of orbits and the rarity of perfectly circular paths, emphasizing the role of initial velocities and gravitational interactions. There is an acknowledgment of the limitations in observing events where objects collide or escape, which may influence the perception of orbits as a common occurrence.

bengaltiger14
Messages
135
Reaction score
0
Is it because the moon is actually falling in free fall TOWARDS the Earth but it is moving in a circular path the same as the Earth's path??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Essentially, the moon is moving so fast, that it travels past the curve of the Earth before it would strike. Imagine if you threw a baseball at 20,000 mph... so it would fly off, and as it fell, the Earth would curve, so it would never actually strike the ground.

You could ask the same question of the planets orbitting around the sun, by the way
 
bengaltiger14 said:
Is it because the moon is actually falling in free fall TOWARDS the Earth but it is moving in a circular path the same as the Earth's path??
All moving objects in the vicinity of Earth travel in an elliptical orbit around the Earth's center of mass unless atmospheric drag or some other force sucks energy out of the orbit. How close the objects come to the Earth's center of mass is the key. If the closest point in its orbit happens to be below the Earth's surface, it hits the ground.

The Moon is traveling fast enough that it's closest point is well outside the Earth's atmosphere. The more energy (kinetic and potential energy combined) an object has, the larger the orbit, and the further the object stays from Earth. So it's a balance between speed and position - a object closer to the Earth has to travel faster to keep it's closest point outside the atmosphere than an object that starts out far away.

While virtually all orbits are elliptical (the odds of an object's orbit being perfectly circular and staying perfectly circular are virtually nil), the Moon's orbit is almost circular.
 
BobG said:
While virtually all orbits are elliptical (the odds of an object's orbit being perfectly circular and staying perfectly circular are virtually nil), the Moon's orbit is almost circular.
I think this is missing the OP's point.

I think an answer that would benefit him is why things orbit at all.


An orbit is merely a very specific set of circumstances that can befall two objects that interact.

All objects have some sort of initial velocity wrt other objects. There are three general cases:

1] The relative velocity is large, while the gravitational attraction is small.
The two objects, as they near each other at high speeds, will influence each other gravitationally - they'll deflect their straight paths towards each other. But their v is so high that they pass each other and continue away from each other. (This is a one-time occurrence, the two bodies pass and never see each other again. Not a lot of real-world examples for that reason.)

2] The relative velocity is small while the gravitational attraction is large.
The gravity of the two objects overcomes their velocity and they collide. (Any impact is a good example such as Meteorites)

3] The relative velocity is nicely balanced with the gravitational attraction.
The objects come near each other, swing around, and neither collide nor escape. They do a dance aorund each other for a short or even very long time. (Examples include all planets orbiting stars, all moons orbiting planets, etc.)


It is important to note that these two forces - gravitational attraction and relative velocity - are not necessarily unrelated. For example, the planets and the Sun formed out of the same rotating disc of dust and gas. Anything that didn't succumb to 1] or 2] ended up as 3]. So it's no coincidence that the planets orbit the sun just right.

This is also why - despite 3] being the most finely-balanced of the three cases (which would suggest it's the rarest) - it is, in fact, quite a common occurrence in our universe.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
This is also why - despite 3] being the most finely-balanced of the three cases (which would suggest it's the rarest) - it is, in fact, quite a common occurrence in our universe.

On the other hand, if things have struck or escaped from each other, they're no longer around for us to witness, so it makes sense we would see orbitting (I feel like I'm mispelling that...) more than anything else
 
Office_Shredder said:
On the other hand, if things have struck or escaped from each other, they're no longer around for us to witness, so it makes sense we would see orbitting (I feel like I'm mispelling that...) more than anything else
I made this point in 1]. But there's no dirth of examples of 2] - despite them being one-time events.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K