I Astrodynamics Question: Derivation of Sp. Orbital Energy?

AdrianGriff
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
So this should be coming easily, but for some reason I can't seem to grasp why or how this is being done:

So say we have equation:
0 = a + (μ/r3) r , where μ = G(M+m) or ≈ GM and M >> m.

According to this book, the first step to finding ξ, the Specific Mechanical/Orbital Energy they dot multiplied the vector v through the equation above like so:

v ⋅ a + v ⋅ (μ/r3) r = 0

And just below that, there is:

va + (μ/r3) rv = 0

So basically, my question is:
Why do all the vectors turn into scalars, considering that the dot product cannot actually be performed because we do not know the components of those variable vectors?

Should it not just stay as the equation with vectors?
Or why does a ⋅ v not equal a1v1 + a2v2?

Thank you!
- Adrian
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The sign in the last equation is wrong.

a and r point in opposite directions. You know ##\vec v \cdot \vec a = v a \cos(theta)## where ##\theta## is the angle between them. For v and r the corresponding angle is ##\pi - \theta##, and ##\cos(\pi-\theta) = -\cos(\theta)##.
 
mfb said:
The sign in the last equation is wrong.

a and r point in opposite directions. You know ##\vec v \cdot \vec a = v a \cos(theta)## where ##\theta## is the angle between them. For v and r the corresponding angle is ##\pi - \theta##, and ##\cos(\pi-\theta) = -\cos(\theta)##.
I assure you that my equations are true to the text, perhaps the text is incorrect? It happens.

Nevertheless, if ##\vec v \cdot \vec a = v a \cos(\theta)##, does it not follow that ##\cos(\theta) = 0## because ##\theta = \pi/2##, where the vectors are orthogonal as velocity is tangent, and acceleration is towards the center of the orbit? And thus ##||a||||b||## will conclude to zero as well?

Also the same result arises with ##\pi - \theta## where ##\theta = \pi/2## and ##\pi - \pi/2 = \pi/2## again.
 
The angle is pi/2 only for circular orbits. The formulas here are more general.
In this special case the last equation is true, of course, but adding zero twice is not very interesting.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top