B Capture in a 2-body system (not)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the impossibility of a celestial body, such as the sun, capturing an object on a hyperbolic trajectory without the influence of a third body. The argument emphasizes the conservation of energy, asserting that hyperbolic orbits cannot spontaneously transition into elliptical ones. Participants express frustration over the challenge of engaging with those who reject fundamental physical principles like energy conservation. The need for a reputable article to support these claims is highlighted, as well as the difficulty of productive discussions when basic concepts are denied. Ultimately, the conversation underscores the importance of accepting established physics to facilitate meaningful dialogue.
DaveC426913
Gold Member
Messages
23,830
Reaction score
7,814
I'm having a ... "discussion" on another forum about capture and ejection of bodies.

My opponents believe that, for one example, the sun can capture an object that has entered the SS from outside its g-well (i.e. on a hyperbolic trajectory) - without requiring a third body to steal its energy.

I've tried every angle I can think of, including showing them the conservation of energy, even while being converted from gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy and back again.

Of course I can't find anything online that describes how something can't be done; I can only find examples of how it does happen (involving said third body) - which always leaves room for "ya but"s.

An article would be way better than my own simple assertions. Ideally, I'd like to find a reputable article that describes why hyperbolic orbits don't spontaneously turn into elliptical orbits.(and vice versa). (And of course, heavy of exposition, light on maths).
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Have you tried just solving the equations of motion? Or given the phase diagram for the radial coordinate?
 
Showing it using conservation laws really should be all it takes. The concepts, models and calculations are all simple and really do establish that capture in the given situation is just as impossible as other situations that breaks conservation of energy. If the other part in your discussion is not willing to accept this argument, then he must be having issues with some of the assumptions, like the gravitational energy model or the concept or validity of conservation of energy, and perhaps you can identify which and try address this?

In my experience it is rather difficult to have productive discussion about physical concepts with people who seem to be in denial about something very basic like the validity of conservation of energy, so until that principle and its obvious consequences are accepted I tend to stay away from such discussions. Granted, people not trained in this may still claim they know and accept all the basic principles of physics and then still go invent some magical exceptions to these basic principles when it comes to the situation they want to discuss. And this is then where it seems proper to do like you did with your post and call out for a good teacher to please provide some magic words that would undo the other magic. In any case, sorry if all I just said is bleeding obvious and good luck with your discussion :smile:
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top