Calculating Planet Deceleration Due to Decreased Gravity

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bjarne
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orbit Velocity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of a sudden 10% decrease in gravitational force on a planet's orbital dynamics, specifically focusing on the calculations of deceleration and changes in orbital parameters. Participants explore theoretical scenarios, mathematical formulations, and the effects of gravitational changes on planetary motion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a 10% decrease in gravity would lead to a new orbit for the planet, with specific perihelion and aphelion distances and a longer orbital period.
  • Others argue that a decrease in gravity would cause the planet to fall closer to the Sun, resulting in a shorter orbital period.
  • One participant presents calculations for the new orbital velocity and semi-major axis based on the decreased gravitational force, suggesting that the energy conservation approach can be used to derive these parameters.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship between gravitational force and orbital velocity, with questions raised about why changes in radius affect these quantities differently.
  • Some participants express confusion over the correct expression for orbital energy, with references to the virial theorem and corrections noted for earlier statements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the consequences of a decrease in gravity, with no consensus reached on whether the orbital period would increase or decrease. The discussion includes multiple competing models and interpretations of gravitational effects on orbital dynamics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about instantaneous changes in gravity and the dependence on specific definitions of orbital parameters. Some mathematical steps remain unresolved, particularly in the context of energy calculations and their implications for orbital mechanics.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying celestial mechanics, gravitational physics, or anyone curious about the dynamics of planetary motion in response to changes in gravitational forces.

Bjarne
Messages
344
Reaction score
0
Let say gravity suddenly decreased 10%, - for instance due to tidal friction etc...
How fast would a planet decelerate? -
How can this be calculated?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
What effect would tidal friction have on gravity?

If you are asking what would happen to a planet's orbit if the gravity between it and the Sun suddenly(instantly) decreased by 10%, then it would enter a new orbit with its present distance at perihelion. For instance, the Earth would enter a orbit with a perihelion at 149.6 million km and an aphelion at 1.91 million km, with a period of 446.5 days.

In its climb to aphelion, it will slow to 23.5 km/sec from its present 30 km/sec, so in 223.25 days it will slow 6.5 km/sec. Off course it will regain that velocity as it falls back to perihelion.
 
Janus said:
What effect would tidal friction have on gravity?

If you are asking what would happen to a planet's orbit if the gravity between it and the Sun suddenly(instantly) decreased by 10%, then it would enter a new orbit with its present distance at perihelion. For instance, the Earth would enter a orbit with a perihelion at 149.6 million km and an aphelion at 1.91 million km, with a period of 446.5 days.

In its climb to aphelion, it will slow to 23.5 km/sec from its present 30 km/sec, so in 223.25 days it will slow 6.5 km/sec. Off course it will regain that velocity as it falls back to perihelion.


Thanks a lot.
Where did you got the (basis) data for the Earths, used above ?
 
If you are asking what would happen to a planet's orbit if the gravity between it and the Sun suddenly (instantly) decreased by 10%, then it would enter a new orbit with its present distance at perihelion. For instance, the Earth would enter a orbit with a perihelion at 149.6 million km and an aphelion at 1.91 million km, with a period of 446.5 days.

I guess it must be a mistake, because when gravity (suddenly) decrease, the Earth would fall closer to the Sun. (and hence a shorter period). Anyway I understand what you mean.

By the way:
When radius (in a gravitation field) increase 100 times,
then (off course) acceleration du to gravity decreases 10.000 times (r^2) (100*100)

BUT the orbit velocity only decreases 10 times, - why not more than that?
I wonder: why gravity is 1000 times weaker than the orbit velocity.
How is the orbit velocity and force of gravity "connected?"
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
I guess it must be a mistake, because when gravity (suddenly) decrease, the Earth would fall closer to the Sun. (and hence a shorter period). Anyway I understand what you mean.
No, the orbit would increase to a longer period. Consider this:

A gravity decrease of 10% is the equivalent of a mass decrease of 10% in the mass of the Sun. With my example of the Earth, the present orbital velocity is 30 km/sec. The circular orbital velocity at the present Earth-Sun distance for a Sun 90% of its present mass would
be

[tex]V_o = \sqrt{\frac{GM}{a}}[/tex]

where
a = 1.496e11 meters
M = 1.8e30 Kg (90% of solar mass)
G = 6.6733-11 m³/ kg/s²

This give an answer of 28.3 km/sec. Which is less than the Earth's velocity. This puts the Earth is the same situation as a body at the perihelion of an elliptical orbit.
To find the parameters of this orbit, we use energy conservation.

The energy of the Earth is the sum of its kinetic energy and gravitational potential or:

[tex]E = \frac{mv^2}{2}- \frac{GMm}{r}[/tex]

v = 30,000 m/s
"m" being the mass of the Earth
"r" being the Earth-sun distance (1.496e11 m)

The energy can also be expressed as:

[tex]E = - \frac{GMm}{2a}[/tex]

where "a" is the semi-major axis of the orbit, or average orbital distance.

Combining these two equations and solving for "a" gives us ~170 million km for the semi-major axis of the new orbit.

Taking the difference between the Earth's present distance and semi-major axis and adding this difference to the semi- major axis, gives us the new aphelion of the orbit.

Using

[tex]T = 2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{a^3}{GM}}[/tex]

we find the period of the orbit.

Using the vis a vis equation:

[tex]v^2=\mu\left({{2 \over{r}} - {1 \over{a}}}\right)[/tex]

we get the orbital velocity at aphelion.
By the way:
When radius (in a gravitation field) increase 100 times,
then (off course) acceleration du to gravity decreases 10.000 times (r^2) (100*100)

BUT the orbit velocity only decreases 10 times, - why not more than that?
I wonder: why gravity is 1000 times weaker than the orbit velocity.
How is the orbit velocity and force of gravity "connected?"

For a circular orbit, you can consider how much centripetal force is needed to maintain the circular path of the planet vs the gravitational force. ( do not put too much into this consideration as it is only useful when dealing with circular orbits.)

Thus centripetal force is found by

[tex]F_c = \frac{mv^2}{r}[/tex]

Note that as r increases, the velocity needed to keep the centripetal force constant also decreases.

Gravitational force is found by

[tex]F_g = \frac{GMm}{r^2}[/tex]

If we make Fc=Fg and solve for v we get:

[tex]v= \sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}[/tex]

Which is the equation I used above, where I used a for r.

Note that the orbital velocity decreases by the square-root of distance. All other things staying the same, a factor of 10 increase in orbit radius results in a factor of 3.16 decrease in orbital velocity, not a factor of 10 decrease.
 
Last edited:
Janus said:
The energy can also be expressed as:

[tex]E = - \frac{GMm}{a}[/tex]

where "a" is the semi-major axis of the orbit, or average orbital distance.

Isn't it

[tex]E = - \frac{GMm}{2a}[/tex]

?

The virial theorem states that

[tex] <br /> <E> = 1/2<U><br /> [/tex]

and it can be shown that

[tex] <U> = - \frac{GMm}{a}<br /> [/tex]
 
acr said:
Isn't it

[tex]E = - \frac{GMm}{2a}[/tex]

?

The virial theorem states that

[tex] <br /> <E> = 1/2<U><br /> [/tex]

and it can be shown that

[tex] <U> = - \frac{GMm}{a}<br /> [/tex]

Yes, a LaTex typo on my part. I will go back and fix it.
 
Thanks a lot.
That was really useful.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K