Another conservation of momentum question, but this one involves gravity

AI Thread Summary
Momentum is conserved in the baseball-Moon system due to the equal and opposite forces they exert on each other. When the baseball is thrown upwards, it gains momentum in the upward direction, while the Moon experiences an equal and opposite change in momentum. Although the baseball's individual momentum changes as it ascends and descends, the overall momentum of the system remains constant. The Moon gains momentum in the direction opposite to the baseball's initial throw. Understanding these interactions clarifies how momentum conservation applies in gravitational contexts.
kashiark
Messages
210
Reaction score
0
If you throw a baseball up on the moon, and it comes down, how is momentum conserved?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Momentum of the "baseball-Moon" system will be conserved, but the momentum of the baseball alone would not.
 
How? I don't understand.
 
kashiark said:
How? I don't understand.
How what? What specifically don't you understand?

What are the conditions under which momentum is conserved?
 
Does the moon gain momentum in the direction the ball was going?
 
The moon and baseball exert equal and opposite forces on each other. If one gains momentum in one direction, the other must lose momentum in that same direction (or gain it in the opposite direction).
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Conservation of momentum and conservation of energy details
Replies
30
Views
3K
I When are the initial and final momentums the same (conserved)?
Replies
16
Views
2K
I Conservation of Angular Momentum vs a gyro at the North Pole
Replies
16
Views
1K
I Conservation of angular momentum during collisions
Replies
3
Views
3K
B Why is KE not conserved when momentum is?
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
I Angular Momentum problem v2 (mass moving inward or outward)
Replies
5
Views
2K
B Conservation of Momentum for system of particles
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
B Conservation of momentum in a closed system
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Conservation of angular momentum -- spinning a bicycle wheel in space
Replies
2
Views
2K
Conservation of linear and angular momentum
Replies
9
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top