Breaking down forces in three dimensions.

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Yevgeni
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimensions Forces
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implementation of gravitational forces in a three-dimensional space simulator. Participants explore how to break down gravitational forces into their respective components along the Cartesian axes, addressing both theoretical and practical aspects of the calculation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks guidance on calculating gravitational forces between two objects in three-dimensional space, specifically how to decompose these forces into three axes.
  • Another participant provides the formula for gravitational force, detailing how to express it in vector form and break it down into its components along the x, y, and z axes.
  • A participant expresses confusion regarding the nature of gravitational force, questioning whether it is an inverse square or inverse cube relationship.
  • Another participant reassures that the gravitational relationship is indeed inverse square, clarifying that the vector representation includes directionality, which is managed by normalizing the vector.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is some confusion regarding the nature of the gravitational relationship, with one participant questioning the inverse cube aspect while others clarify that it remains an inverse square relationship. The discussion reflects differing levels of understanding and interpretation of the gravitational force equations.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not fully resolved the confusion regarding the inverse square versus inverse cube relationship, and there are assumptions about the understanding of vector normalization that have not been explicitly addressed.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in programming simulations involving gravitational physics, as well as those looking to deepen their understanding of vector decomposition in three dimensions.

Yevgeni
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello! This is my first post but definitely not my last.

I am programming a space simulator and my first problem to solve is to make gravitation work properly.

If I have two objects at arbitrary positions in three dimensional space I can calculate the net force between them in a straight line, but that does me no good for a Cartesian coordinate system. How do I break the forces down into three axes? I have found how to do this with two axes, but I can't apply this logic to three for some reason. Once I solve this problem I will put a "star" and a "planet" into my simulator and let you all know if I can make a stable orbit with this solution.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The classical law of gravitation is F=G m1 m2 R/|R|^3 where F and R are vectors, so you represent them as F=[Fx, Fy, Fz] and R=[Rx, Ry, Rz]. F is the force on particle 1 (or 2) and R is the vector from particle 1 (or 2) to particle 2 (or 1). |R| is the absolute value of R which equals sqrt(Rx^2+Ry^2+Rz^2). So you really have three equations:

Fx = G m1 m2 Rx/|R|^3
Fy = G m1 m2 Ry/|R|^3
Fz = G m1 m2 Rz/|R|^3
 
This is exactly what I was looking for! I'm slightly confused, though. Isn't gravitation an inverse square relationship as opposed to inverse cube relationship?

At any rate, I'll plug this into my program and let you know my results.
 
Calculate the magnitude of that vector and see what you get. :smile:
 
Yevgeni said:
This is exactly what I was looking for! I'm slightly confused, though. Isn't gravitation an inverse square relationship as opposed to inverse cube relationship?

At any rate, I'll plug this into my program and let you know my results.

This is still inverse square, there is that R on top too. Its just that you have to specify the direction too, and to do that you multiply by R/|R| which is just one unit long
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 114 ·
4
Replies
114
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K