Can any object with positive mechanical energy collide earth?

In summary, objects with positive mechanical energy in an attractive force field move along a hyperbolic path and those with zero energy move along a parabolic path. This is because our universe is structured in a way that allows these paths to occur. Objects with negative energy move along an elliptic path and this can be explained by the sum of potential and kinetic energy on impact being greater than zero. The paths of objects are defined by the mathematical form of conic sections, which are solved by the equation of motion under the influence of an inverse square law force. However, this does not fully explain why these paths occur and there is always a "why" question that follows. Kepler did not use the energy method to derive his laws because it was
  • #1
AbhiFromXtraZ
45
0
Object with positive mechanical energy in an attractive force field moves along a hyperbolic path and whose energy is zero, moves along parabolic path...isn't it?...But why?...Can't any object with ve energy move along the line joining centre of force?...If its radial component of kinetic energy is greater than effective potential energy? Then? If I'm right then spatial object can collide earth...
Please ellaborate conceptually and help me out...
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Object with positive mechanical energy in an attractive force field moves along a hyperbolic path and whose energy is zero, moves along parabolic path...isn't it?
Right.
But why?
Because our universe just looks that way.
Can't any object with ve energy move along the line joining centre of force?
Those are "special cases" of parabolas and hyperbolas. Usually straight lines are not called in this way, but that is just a naming convention.
 
  • #3
The sum of Potential and Kinetic energy (total energy), on impact can be greater than Zero. All that's necessary is that it was given a big enough kick, whilst way out in space, in the direction of Earth, so that it hits the Earth with more than the escape velocity for an object being launched from the Earth's surface. So its KE (always positive) will be greater than its Potential Energy (negative).
 
  • #4
Couldn't get it clearly. Can you please explain why the paths of objects are hyperbolic, parabolic and elliptic for energies positive, zero and negative respectively?
 
  • #5
  • #6
AbhiFromXtraZ said:
Couldn't get it clearly. Can you please explain why the paths of objects are hyperbolic, parabolic and elliptic for energies positive, zero and negative respectively?

I assume you know the mathematical form of the different conic sections. The 'reason' they turn out to be the paths of ideal orbits is very mathematical and they are what you get by solving the equation of motion of a body under the influence of an inverse square law force. The conic sections are not arm waving shapes and can't really be derived in an arm waving way. The Maths does it perfectly in very few lines.
I got a lot of google hits when I searched with terms like orbit, gravity, hyperbola etc.
This one may be interesting.
 
  • #7
Thanks a lot...actually I already read the mathematical explanation...To totally get it I have to study more...
Anyway thanks to all for responding...
 
  • #8
Well...finally after a google search for ''how did kepler derive his first law'', I could find how kepler did it... Although I couldn't understand totally...but I'm satisfied because he didn't use the Energy condition...By Brahe's observation data and his trial and error, he could successfully do it...
Here is the website...
http://math.berkeley.edu/~robin/Kepler/
 
  • #9
Dear old Kepler didn't use the Energy method because no one was aware of the Laws of Gravitation at the time. He was just fitting the simplest mathematical model to the observations - really smart. I am left breathless by the early astronomers did with their very basic observation techniques (+ lots of total dedication).
 
  • #10
Ya...absolutely...but one thing is that Kepler just explained the nature of orbits. He didn't explain why the nature is so. Now a days we have lots of mathematics for that. But these mathematics could not satisfy me...Hope they will...
 
  • #11
AbhiFromXtraZ said:
Ya...absolutely...but one thing is that Kepler just explained the nature of orbits. He didn't explain why the nature is so. Now a days we have lots of mathematics for that. But these mathematics could not satisfy me...Hope they will...

Our math does a wonderful job of showing HOW many phenomena work, but it will never show WHY they work. The answer to a "why" question is always another "why" question.

You can say that the mathematical laws of motion show why planets have elliptical orbits but then you have to ask why to those laws work? You can get to general relativity and say that they work because of curved space-time, but you have to ask, why is space-time curved? The bottom question in the chain is always another "why" question.
 
  • #12
phinds said:
Our math does a wonderful job of showing HOW many phenomena work, but it will never show WHY they work. The answer to a "why" question is always another "why" question.

You can say that the mathematical laws of motion show why planets have elliptical orbits but then you have to ask why to those laws work? You can get to general relativity and say that they work because of curved space-time, but you have to ask, why is space-time curved? The bottom question in the chain is always another "why" question.


Totally agree with you...There is always a ''Why?''. But some times some answer to 'why' satisfies us and we don't ask further 'why'.
Although I have not read Relativity...so I think I have to wait until I gather sufficient knowledge...
 

1. Can an object with positive mechanical energy collide with Earth?

Yes, an object with positive mechanical energy can collide with Earth. In fact, this is a common occurrence with meteoroids and other space debris.

2. What factors determine whether an object with positive mechanical energy will collide with Earth?

The main factors that determine whether an object with positive mechanical energy will collide with Earth are the object's trajectory and the gravitational pull of Earth. If the object is on a collision course with Earth and is within Earth's gravitational pull, it will likely collide with Earth.

3. What happens when an object with positive mechanical energy collides with Earth?

The impact of an object with positive mechanical energy colliding with Earth can vary depending on the size and speed of the object. It can range from creating a small crater to causing significant destruction, such as the impact of a large asteroid.

4. Is it possible for an object with positive mechanical energy to collide with Earth without causing any damage?

Yes, it is possible for an object with positive mechanical energy to collide with Earth without causing any damage. This can occur if the object is small enough and/or traveling at a low enough speed. In some cases, the object may completely burn up in Earth's atmosphere before reaching the surface.

5. How often do objects with positive mechanical energy collide with Earth?

The frequency of objects with positive mechanical energy colliding with Earth can vary. Small objects, such as meteoroids, collide with Earth more frequently than larger objects. NASA estimates that about 100 tons of space debris reaches Earth's surface each day, but most of it burns up in the atmosphere before reaching the ground.

Similar threads

Gravitational potential energy -- Why is it always negative?
    • Mechanics
Replies
10
Views
1K
Side kick on a falling object, mechanical energy and work
    • Mechanics
Replies
16
Views
2K
Conservative forces and conservation of mechanical energy
    • Mechanics
Replies
11
Views
2K
Question About Potential Energy
    • Mechanics
Replies
3
Views
1K
Springs: Can they be used to conserve energy?
    • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
2
Views
659
Conceptual Questions on Mechanics
    • Mechanics
Replies
2
Views
3K
Potential energy in the presence of two fields
    • Mechanics
Replies
18
Views
2K
I Exploring the Flexibility of Coordinates in Euler-Lagrange Equations
    • Mechanics
Replies
5
Views
871
Unraveling the Concept of Energy Position in Classical Physics
    • Mechanics
2
Replies
61
Views
5K
I The far reaching ramifications of the work-energy theorem
    • Classical Physics
Replies
31
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top