Distance from earth an object would have to fall from to reach speed x

  • Thread starter Thread starter cawthorne
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth Fall Speed
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the distance an object must fall from above Earth's surface to reach a specific speed, neglecting air resistance. The user explores gravitational acceleration using the formula a = G * Me/r^2 and attempts to integrate this to derive a velocity equation in terms of distance. Initial calculations led to incorrect results, prompting a reevaluation of integration steps and the introduction of a factor of 2, which is crucial for kinetic energy equations. Ultimately, the user clarifies their understanding of the integration process and acknowledges the importance of constant factors in deriving accurate equations. The conversation emphasizes the mathematical intricacies involved in gravitational physics.
cawthorne
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
big G = G = 6.674E-11 N(m/Kg)^2

Mass of Earth = Me = 5.972E24 Kg

Radius of Earth = Rsurface = Rs = 6.371E6 metres

THIS IS NOT HOMEWORK

Okay so I was interested to know how you would work out the distance you'd need drop an object from (above the Earth's surface), for it to reach a given speed (neglecting air resistance).

Here's what I've got so far:

We know Force = F = G *(Mass of object 1 * Mass of object 2)/radius^2 = G * Mm/r^2

F = mass * acceleration = m*a

F/m = a

a = G * m/r^2

This is an equation for the acceleration of the object at any distance away from the centre of the Earth (considering Earth as a point mass for distances < Rs), taking into account the inverse square law of gravity.

Right now it would be handy to have a in terms of t, so we could integrate to get an equation for v = velocity (units m/s). But instead we have it in terms of r (units metres).

So I thought I might be able to integrate a in terms of r away to get something with the units (m/s)^2, which I thought might give us v^2. which we could square root to get an equation for v in terms of r? But I wasn't sure if that is correct/if I had overlooked some concept which means it isn't giving me what I wanted.

Here's the integration I did:

a = G * Me/r^2

v^2 = G * (integralOf(m/r^2)dr for the range lower limit = Rs to upper limit = r) = G * ([-(Me/r)] for the range Rs to r)

so v^2 = G * (-Me/r - (Me/Rs) = G * Me*(r - Rs)/(r * Rs)

so v = Sqroot( G * Me *(r - Rs)/(r * Rs) )

with a rearrangement

( (r*Rs) * v^2 )/(G*Me) - r = -Rs

r * ( (Rs*v^2)/(G*Me) ) - 1 ) = -Rs

r = -Rs/( ( (Rs*v^2)/(G*Me) ) - 1 ) )

Now I have tested this out and it wasn't correct (too far out to be correct when I compared it for the constant acceleration model given by the suvat equations).

But I did notice that if you do this (using suvat equations):

a = 9.81 acceleration

s = r = displacement in metres

u - start velocity = 0 m/s (metres per second)

v^2 = 0^2 + 2*a*s

v = Sqroot(2*a*s) you obviously get the right answer for constant acceleration, but what they're doing here is multiplying a by a distance vector to get v^2, which makes me think my decision to integrated above should have been okay (since integration find the area under a curve, which is like multiplication of the axes).

Then I noticed that if you divide the right hand side of that suvate equation by Sqroot(2), you get extremely similar answers to my previous equation:

v = Sqroot( G * Me *(r - Rs)/(r * Rs) )

So I multiplied the RHS of my variable acceleration equation by Sqroot(2) and it seems to be right. But I'm not sure where I went wrong in the first place!

New equation:

v = Sqroot(2 * G * Me *(r - Rs)/(r * Rs) )

So I do the rearrangement for r again and get (thinking it will work this time):

r = -Rs/( ( (Rs*v^2)/(2*G*Me) ) - 1 ) )

Now it works! That value of r is including the Earth's radius, so you need to minus 6.371E6 to get the distance about the Earth surface :).

What I actually want help with READ :P:

BUT I'm still not sure where that factor of 2 came from. I think it may have come from the integration, but the power of r in my initial equation for acceleration, was -2, which you increase to -1, then divide by the new power (being -1, not 2). Any clarification will be appreciated. Thanks!

EDIT:

Okay so I thought I'd also have a go at trying to find out the true gravitational potential energy, considering the inverse square nature of gravity.

I just subbed the equation for v^2 into KE = 1/2 * m * v^2 :).

So true GPE = 1/2 * m * (2 * G * Me *(r - Rs)/(r * Rs) ). If you want it relative to the centre of the Earth make Rs 0, or if just for when the object hits the Earth's surface make Rs = 6.371E6 :).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
"So I thought I might be able to integrate a in terms of r away to get something with the units (m/s)^2, which I thought might give us v^2. which we could square root to get an equation for v in terms of r? But I wasn't sure if that is correct/if I had overlooked some concept which means it isn't giving me what I wanted."

Sure. But remember that for EVERY dimensionless constant "k", the quantity k*v^2 has the right dimensions!

Thus, without knowing which "k" is the right one, you won't get the right answer.The factor 1/2 is the one appearing in the quantity called "kinetic energy",
 
arildno said:
"So I thought I might be able to integrate a in terms of r away to get something with the units (m/s)^2, which I thought might give us v^2. which we could square root to get an equation for v in terms of r? But I wasn't sure if that is correct/if I had overlooked some concept which means it isn't giving me what I wanted."

Sure. But remember that for EVERY dimensionless constant "k", the quantity k*v^2 has the right dimensions!

Thus, without knowing which "k" is the right one, you won't get the right answer.The factor 1/2 is the one appearing in the quantity called "kinetic energy",

Thanks for the reply. I'm still not sure where I went wrong. I'd have thought that is my acceleration equation was correct, then as long as I integrated everything properly my v^2 equation should still be correct, because I'd have though that the division part of integrating would have sorted out any constant factors?

Also where is the 1/2 that is appearing you speed of? It is a factor of 2 that appears, which is the reciprocal of 1/2. But I haven't used the KE equation. I know that KE = 1/2 m v^2 can be derived using F = ma, which I did use.

Any more explanation would be appreciated :).
 
Here's the integration I did:

a = G * Me/r^2

v^2 = G * (integralOf(m/r^2)dr for the range lower limit = Rs to upper limit = r) = G * ([-(Me/r)] for the range Rs to r)

so v^2 = G * (-Me/r - (Me/Rs) = G * Me*(r - Rs)/(r * Rs)

Step by step

a = GM/r^{2}

a dr = GM dr / r^{2}

a = dv/dt

Subst and re-arrange

vdv = GM/r^{2} dr

Integrate, yielding

v^{2}/2 = -GM/r

v^{2} = -2GM/r


Now you have the 2 ( and the square root of 2 )

Take your limits or r from r1 to r2 where r1>r2 and you should come up to your good equation.
 
256bits said:
Step by step

a = GM/r^{2}

a dr = GM dr / r^{2}

a = dv/dt

Subst and re-arrange

vdv = GM/r^{2} dr

Integrate, yielding

v^{2}/2 = -GM/r

v^{2} = -2GM/r


Now you have the 2 ( and the square root of 2 )

Take your limits or r from r1 to r2 where r1>r2 and you should come up to your good equation.

Thank you very much! So my mistake was to presume that I could jump from:

a dr ----> v^2

because the units matched up :P. Well this was fun and definitely helped me brush up on my maths :)!

Regards, Greg.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top