Falling time for a free falling object through large distances

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the time it takes for a free-falling object to traverse large distances in weak gravitational fields. Participants explore various mathematical approaches and integrals related to gravitational acceleration and the motion of falling objects.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formula for the time of free fall, derived from gravitational acceleration, but expresses uncertainty about its validity.
  • Another participant points out the need for a definite integral and corrects the sign of acceleration, suggesting that the acceleration is directed towards the mass.
  • Some participants reference previous threads discussing similar problems, particularly focusing on the time it takes for two objects to collide, and mention the relevance of intermediate formulas for velocity.
  • A participant seeks clarification on an integration method used in a previous solution, specifically regarding the integral involving square roots.
  • Another participant provides a detailed substitution method for solving the integral, demonstrating a specific approach to the problem.
  • There are multiple references to different substitution methods for integrals, indicating varying approaches to the same mathematical challenge.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct approach to the problem, with no consensus reached on the validity of the initial formula or the integration methods discussed. Multiple competing views remain regarding the integration techniques and the implications for the time of free fall.

Contextual Notes

Some participants indicate limitations in their calculus skills, which may affect their ability to follow or contribute to the mathematical discussions. There are unresolved steps in the integration processes mentioned, and the discussion includes various assumptions about the conditions of the falling objects.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in gravitational physics, mathematical modeling of motion, or those seeking to understand the complexities of integrating equations of motion in varying gravitational fields.

Vicara
Messages
38
Reaction score
4
Well, first of all i want to apologize about my english skills hahaha
I have been trying to calculate a time formula for free falling object through large distances (or weak gravitational fields) and my results don´t have much sense (I test my results in a quite realistic game called Algodoo)
What I have calculated is

g(r) = G⋅(M/r2) and as g = dv/dt = dv/dr ⋅ dr/dv = dv/dr ⋅ v

we got

∫v⋅dv = ∫G⋅M/r2 = 0.5⋅v2 = G⋅M⋅(-1/r)

v(r) = √(2⋅G⋅M⋅(-1/r)) = dr/dt now we integrate both sides ∫dt = ∫1/[ √(2⋅G⋅M⋅(-1/r) ] ⋅dr

and finally

t = t0 + (2/3)⋅√(r3/-2⋅G⋅M)

Please tell me what is wrong or if what i´m doing makes sense
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First, sign: a = -GM/r2: acceleration is towards the mass.
Second, you need a definite integral: ∫-G⋅M/r2 = GM(1/r - 1/r0)
 
mjc123 said:
First, sign: a = -GM/r2: acceleration is towards the mass.
Second, you need a definite integral: ∫-G⋅M/r2 = GM(1/r - 1/r0)

Well, I have done that and now i have something that I don't know how to integrate (I´m actually not very good at calculus)

https://ibb.co/dhztfv

Sorry for the photo :/
 
There are a few old threads about this. Note that these threads are considering the time it takes for two objects to collide (both objects accelerate towards each other), but it seems they have similar intermediate formula for velocity, M for the one object case, (m1+m2) for the two object case. For the 2 object case, if m1 >> m2, then the sum (m1+m2) ~= m1, so let M = m1. Some of these consider point objects others consider objects with non-zero radius.

See post #11 for a Kepler's law approach and post #19 for the approach used here:

Non constant accelleration equation(s)

Using a different substitution here, and also allowing for non-zero radius objects:

Rectilinear motion of two attracting masses

See post #66, #68, and #73 for examples of both substitutions:

time-of-a-falling-object-when-the-force-of-gravity-isnt-constant
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vicara
rcgldr said:
There are a few old threads about this. Note that these threads are considering the time it takes for two objects to collide (both objects accelerate towards each other), but it seems they have similar intermediate formula for velocity, M for the one object case, (m1+m2) for the two object case. For the 2 object case, if m1 >> m2, then the sum (m1+m2) ~= m1, so let M = m1. Some of these consider point objects others consider objects with non-zero radius.

Non constant accelleration equation(s)

Using a different substitution here, and also allowing for non-zero radius objects:

Rectilinear motion of two attracting masses

See post #66, #68, and #73 for examples of both substitutions:

time-of-a-falling-object-when-the-force-of-gravity-isnt-constant
Oh, thanks! :bow:

Now I will spend a few hours trying to understand that hahaha but I´m sure that it will be worth :D
 
rcgldr said:
There are a few old threads about this. Note that these threads are considering the time it takes for two objects to collide (both objects accelerate towards each other), but it seems they have similar intermediate formula for velocity, M for the one object case, (m1+m2) for the two object case. For the 2 object case, if m1 >> m2, then the sum (m1+m2) ~= m1, so let M = m1. Some of these consider point objects others consider objects with non-zero radius.

See post #11 for a Kepler's law approach and post #19 for the approach used here:

Non constant accelleration equation(s)

Using a different substitution here, and also allowing for non-zero radius objects:

Rectilinear motion of two attracting masses

See post #66, #68, and #73 for examples of both substitutions:

time-of-a-falling-object-when-the-force-of-gravity-isnt-constant
Hi again
There is something that I don't understand in the solution of the problem (the part after "using arildno's method") which integrating method did you use to solve sqrt (r/r0-r) dr?
 
I guess you have the integral
$$I=\int \mathrm{d} r \sqrt{\frac{r}{r_0-r}}.$$
Let's try the substitution
$$r=r_0 \cos^2 u.$$
Then you have
$$\mathrm{d} r= -2r_0 \sin u \cos u$$
and thus
$$I=-2r_0 \int \mathrm{d}u \cos^2 u.$$
Now we have
$$\cos(2u)=\cos^2 u - \sin^2 u=2 \cos^2 u-1 \; \Rightarrow \; \cos^2 u=\frac{1+\cos(2u)}{2}$$
and thus
$$I=-r_0 \left [u+\frac{1}{2}\sin(2 u) \right]=-r_0 (u+\sin u \cos u)=-r_0 \left [\arccos \left (\sqrt{r/r_0} \right)+\sqrt{(r/r_0-r^2/r_0^2)} \right].$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vicara
vanhees71 said:
I guess you have the integral
$$I=\int \mathrm{d} r \sqrt{\frac{r}{r_0-r}}.$$
Let's try the substitution
$$r=r_0 \cos^2 u.$$
Then you have
$$\mathrm{d} r= -2r_0 \sin u \cos u$$
and thus
$$I=-2r_0 \int \mathrm{d}u \cos^2 u.$$
Now we have
$$\cos(2u)=\cos^2 u - \sin^2 u=2 \cos^2 u-1 \; \Rightarrow \; \cos^2 u=\frac{1+\cos(2u)}{2}$$
and thus
$$I=-r_0 \left [u+\frac{1}{2}\sin(2 u) \right]=-r_0 (u+\sin u \cos u)=-r_0 \left [\arccos \left (\sqrt{r/r_0} \right)+\sqrt{(r/r_0-r^2/r_0^2)} \right].$$
ohhhh, okey, now i got it hahaha
Thanks to all ^^
 
Vicara said:
There is something that I don't understand in the solution of the problem (the part after "using arildno's method") which integrating method did you use to solve sqrt (r/r0-r) dr?
The prior threads showed two different substitutions. The arildno substitution is:

$$u = \sqrt{\frac{r}{r_0-r}}$$

That post then solves for r and then takes dr to end up with:

$$dr = \frac{2 r_0 u \ du}{(1 + u^2)^2}$$

This results in :

$$\sqrt{\frac{r}{r_0-r}}\ dr = \frac{2 r_0 u^2 \ du}{(1 + u^2)^2}$$
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K