Escape Velocity and the Motion of Two Massive Bodies

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of the escape velocity formula V_e1 = (2GM1/r)**0.5 when two massive bodies are involved, particularly when M2 is more massive than M1. It is clarified that Kepler's method, which assumes one body is negligible in mass, is inappropriate for this scenario, as it does not account for the mutual gravitational influence of both bodies. The general escape velocity equation V_e = sqrt(2G(m1+m2)/r) is recommended for cases where the masses are comparable. The conversation highlights the importance of considering both bodies' motions in simulations, particularly when using Cowell's method, which yields higher escape velocities than Kepler's approach. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for accurate modeling in gravitational simulations.
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: $$ V_e= \sqrt{ \frac{2G(m_1+m_2)}{r} }$$
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top