Escape Velocity and the Motion of Two Massive Bodies

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of escape velocity in the context of two massive bodies, specifically questioning the validity of the escape velocity formula when one body is significantly more massive than the other. Participants explore the implications of this relationship on calculations and simulations, particularly in relation to different methods of accounting for gravitational interactions.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the escape velocity formula, V_e1 = (2GM1/r)**.5, remains valid when considering a more massive body (M2) and the changing distance (r) due to the motion of both bodies.
  • Another participant asserts that Kepler's method is inappropriate for this scenario as it assumes the escaping body is of negligible mass compared to the central body, which is not the case here.
  • A later reply introduces a more general escape velocity equation, V_e = √(2G(m1+m2)/r), suggesting that when the masses are comparable, this equation should be used instead.
  • It is noted that in many practical situations, one mass is much smaller than the other, allowing for simplifications in the calculations.
  • Participants discuss the implications of using different methods, such as Cowell's method, which accounts for the acceleration of both masses and yields different escape velocities compared to Kepler's method.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of the escape velocity formula in scenarios involving two massive bodies. There is no consensus on the best approach, and multiple competing views remain regarding the validity of different methods and equations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about mass ratios and the dependence on the chosen method for calculating escape velocity. The discussion highlights the complexity of gravitational interactions between two bodies and the need for careful consideration of their relative masses.

Conor Smith
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hey there,

If body 1, mass M1 has escape velocity V_e1 = (2GM1/r)**.5 but M2 is more massive than M1 is this relation still valid? In this case, the subordinate body really isn't the subordinate body so does this still hold? And r (distance b/t the two) changes not only due to the motion of M2 but the motion of M1 being dragged by M2 and I'm not sure this equation accounts for that change.

I guess my question is whether or not escape velocity accounts for the acceleration of the body being escaped from?

If it makes any difference, this question arose as I'm programming a simulation which when using Cowell's method (which accounts for the acceleration of both masses) yields an escape velocity much higher than when using Kepler's (which yields the accepted escape velocity, but the Kepler method also assumes one body to be of negligible mass, namely that the body at the center doesn't move).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Conor Smith said:
Hey there,

If body 1, mass M1 has escape velocity V_e1 = (2GM1/r)**.5 but M2 is more massive than M1 is this relation still valid? In this case, the subordinate body really isn't the subordinate body so does this still hold? And r (distance b/t the two) changes not only due to the motion of M2 but the motion of M1 being dragged by M2 and I'm not sure this equation accounts for that change.

I guess my question is whether or not escape velocity accounts for the acceleration of the body being escaped from?

If it makes any difference, this question arose as I'm programming a simulation which when using Cowell's method (which accounts for the acceleration of both masses) yields an escape velocity much higher than when using Kepler's (which yields the accepted escape velocity, but the Kepler method also assumes one body to be of negligible mass, namely that the body at the center doesn't move).
Yes, you're right. Kepler's method assumes that the body escaping is far less massive than the body it escapes. So, it appears you've answered your own question. Kepler's method is inappropriate because it assumes the lesser mass is the escaping mass. This is clearly stated in the assumptions of Kepler's laws. We don't say the Earth orbits the moon but we say the moon orbits the earth, and the Earth orbits the sun. So the velocity needed for the sun to escape the Earth gravitation is definitely not equal to the above formula. wherever the sun goes, the Earth follows.
 
Conor Smith said:
Hey there,

If body 1, mass M1 has escape velocity V_e1 = (2GM1/r)**.5 but M2 is more massive than M1 is this relation still valid? In this case, the subordinate body really isn't the subordinate body so does this still hold? And r (distance b/t the two) changes not only due to the motion of M2 but the motion of M1 being dragged by M2 and I'm not sure this equation accounts for that change.

I guess my question is whether or not escape velocity accounts for the acceleration of the body being escaped from?

If it makes any difference, this question arose as I'm programming a simulation which when using Cowell's method (which accounts for the acceleration of both masses) yields an escape velocity much higher than when using Kepler's (which yields the accepted escape velocity, but the Kepler method also assumes one body to be of negligible mass, namely that the body at the center doesn't move).

The more general escape velocity equation is

$$ V_e= \sqrt{ \frac{2G(m_1+m_2){r}} $$

In most real problems m2 is really small compared to m1, and m1 dominates the equation.
If the two masses are more comparable in size, then you need to use the general equation and if m2 is much much more massive than m1 you can just use it in the equation. Ve is just the velocity that the two masses would have to be moving relative to each other.
 
Ah! That clears things up nicely. Thank you both!
 
Adding missing '}' to @Janus' LaTex: $$ V_e= \sqrt{ \frac{2G(m_1+m_2)}{r} }$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K