A quick question about Elliptical/Circular Orbit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Parto0o
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orbit
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on why the expression 1/2Iω^2 is not suitable for calculating the kinetic energy of a planet in an elliptical orbit. It explains that the kinetic energy depends on both radial and tangential velocity components, represented by the formula Ek=mv^2/2, which incorporates both v_r and v_θ. The angular velocity ω only relates to the tangential component, leading to different kinetic energies for objects with the same radius and tangential speed but varying radial speeds. The correct expression for instantaneous kinetic energy in an elliptical orbit is Ek=1/2(m)(v_r^2+v_θ^2), which aligns with circular motion when radial velocity is zero. Understanding these relationships clarifies the limitations of using the circular motion formula for elliptical orbits.
Parto0o
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone.

So I got this question in a test, but I'm not exactly sure about the answer.

Q: For a planet moving in an elliptical orbit, why is 1/2Iω^2 not the correct expression for its kinetic energy?

Thanks a lot in advance.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
How did you answer that question? Or were you so not sure that you had to leave it blank? You'll get much more helpful answers if we know how much you already know.
 
I think I have no idea about it. I already know the basic formulas, but cannot relate them to this question.
 
Parto0o said:
I think I have no idea about it. I already know the basic formulas, but cannot relate them to this question.

OK, then here's one way of thinking about it. At any given moment, the velocity vector of the orbiting object can be written as the sum of radial and tangential components. The kinetic energy depends on both (to be precise, ##E_k=mv^2/2=\frac{m}{2}\sqrt{v_r^2+v_\theta^2}##). The angular velocity depends only on the tangential component (##\omega=v_\theta/r##).

Just by looking those relationships, you can see that if two different objects have the same ##r## and ##v_\theta## they will have the same ##\omega## but can still have different ##v_r## values and hence different kinetic energies. Therefore, you will get different relationships between ##\omega## and kinetic energy for different values of ##v_r##. The formula you quote doesn't have that property so it can only be correct for a particular value of ##v_r##; that value is zero, which describes uniform circular motion.
 
Nugatory said:
OK, then here's one way of thinking about it. At any given moment, the velocity vector of the orbiting object can be written as the sum of radial and tangential components. The kinetic energy depends on both (to be precise, ##E_k=mv^2/2=\frac{m}{2}\sqrt{v_r^2+v_\theta^2}##). The angular velocity depends only on the tangential component (##\omega=v_\theta/r##).

Just by looking those relationships, you can see that if two different objects have the same ##r## and ##v_\theta## they will have the same ##\omega## but can still have different ##v_r## values and hence different kinetic energies. Therefore, you will get different relationships between ##\omega## and kinetic energy for different values of ##v_r##. The formula you quote doesn't have that property so it can only be correct for a particular value of ##v_r##; that value is zero, which describes uniform circular motion.

Good explanation, Nugatory; but the final answer for instantaneous Kinetic energy in elliptical orbit should be...

##E_k=mv^2/2=\frac{m}{2}[\sqrt{v_r^2+v_\theta^2}]^2=\frac{m}{2}({v_r^2+v_\theta^2})##

Because the resultant velocity vector itself, ##\sqrt{v_r^2+v_\theta^2}##,must be squared...
Thus the final answer, ##\frac{m}{2}({v_r^2+v_\theta^2})##, reveals that a zero radial velocity gives the correct kinetic energy for circular orbit.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...

Similar threads

Back
Top