Calculate net gravitational field on the moon, without knowing its mass?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the net gravitational field at the Moon's center without knowing its mass. Participants clarify that the Moon's mass is not necessary for the calculations, as the problem asks for acceleration, which is independent of mass. They emphasize the importance of vector addition for gravitational forces from the Earth and Sun, correcting misunderstandings about treating these forces as scalars. The use of trigonometry and the Pythagorean theorem is suggested to resolve the forces accurately. Overall, the conversation highlights the application of gravitational principles and vector resolution in the context of celestial mechanics.
joey_oggie
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The Moon is 3.9*10^5 km from Earth's center and 1.5*10^8 km from the Sun's center. The masses of Earth and the Sun are 6*10^24 and 2*10^30 kg, respectively.

a. The ratio of the gravitational fields due to the Sun and Earth at the center of the moon is:
1) 2300
2) 230
3) 23
4) 2.3 < Correct answer

b. When the Moon is in its third quarter phase, its direction from Earth is a right angles to the Sun-Earth direction. The net gravitational field due to the Sun and Earth at the center of the Moon is?:
1) 6.4*10^-3 m/s^2
2) 6.4*10^-6 m/s^2
3) 6.4*10^-8 m/s^2
4) 6.4*10^-10 m/s^2

Homework Equations



Fg=G(m1*m2)/r^2


The Attempt at a Solution



I attached a picture of the diagram I drew. I tried to resolve the forces in the X-Y Coordinates but I didn't know what to do from there; I still didn't know the mass of the Moon so I couldn't get a pure answer like the ones given in the choices.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    13.5 KB · Views: 1,038
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't need to know the Moon's mass for any of these problems. If you can't see how to do these without knowing the Moon's mass, make up a value. Call it one kilogram, for example.
 
D H said:
You don't need to know the Moon's mass for any of these problems. If you can't see how to do these without knowing the Moon's mass, make up a value. Call it one kilogram, for example.

I must be doing something wrong because it gave me an answer not in the choices. I'm going to attach a photo (sorry about the quality I took it using my phone) of what I did. I'm not sure about the resolution part, there might be a mistake(s) there. Can you please take a loot it it and tell me where I went wrong? :)

Forgot to add, I'm talking about the 2nd requirement b, not a. (the one with the net gravitational field and 3rd phase). I didn't need the Moon's mass in the first part of the problem.
 

Attachments

  • 20012012179.jpg
    20012012179.jpg
    14 KB · Views: 537
You don't need the Moon's mass for the 2nd part of the problem, either. Look at the units on the choices. They are accelerations, not forces. Now look at Newton's second law and the law of gravitation. You can combine these two formulae to yield a formula for the acceleration of a subject body that is independent of the subject body's mass.

The question is asking for acceleration: A vector. How do you add vectors? You can't just add them like scalars, which is what you did.
 
D H said:
You don't need the Moon's mass for the 2nd part of the problem, either. Look at the units on the choices. They are accelerations, not forces. Now look at Newton's second law and the law of gravitation. You can combine these two formulae to yield a formula for the acceleration of a subject body that is independent of the subject body's mass.

The question is asking for acceleration: A vector. How do you add vectors? You can't just add them like scalars, which is what you did.

Ohhhh yeah, never noticed that part. So that part is understood, thanks!


About the resolution of the forces (or accelerations now) Fa and Fb, do I have to use the following formula?

R^2=X^2 + Y^2 (where R is the net gravitational force, X is the sum of components on X-axis, and Y is the sum of components on the Y-axis)

If yes, then I tried doing it now and I had no problems getting the value of Y but when calculating the sum of forces on the X-axis I couldn't get the Sin(theta) as I don't have the distance between Earth and the Sun. Can I use the calculator to get an approximate value of Theta using the Cos I already have?
 
joey_oggie said:
Ohhhh yeah, never noticed that part. So that part is understood, thanks!

About the resolution of the forces (or accelerations now) Fa and Fb, do I have to use the following formula?

R^2=X^2 + Y^2 (where R is the net gravitational force, X is the sum of components on X-axis, and Y is the sum of components on the Y-axis)

If yes, then I tried doing it now and I had no problems getting the value of Y but when calculating the sum of forces on the X-axis I couldn't get the Sin(theta) as I don't have the distance between Earth and the Sun. Can I use the calculator to get an approximate value of Theta using the Cos I already have?
Your 1st figure:

attachment.php?attachmentid=42850&d=1327009342.jpg


Using trig you will find that θ ≈ 89.851°

You can pretty well approximate it as a right angle.

If you use the Pythagorean Theorem to find the Sun to Earth distance, it is only about 507 km less than the Sun to Moon distance of 1.5×108 km of the hypotenuse.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top