Find the distance from the sun to the planet known the orbital period problem

AI Thread Summary
To find the distance from the sun to a planet with an orbital period of 27 years, the problem requires a proper application of Kepler's third law or Newton's law of universal gravitation. The initial attempt incorrectly calculated the radius using the circumference formula, resulting in a distance of 4.29 years instead of kilometers. The discussion highlights the need for additional information, such as the mass of the sun or the distance of another planet, to apply the correct formula. Without this context, it's unclear which method will yield the correct distance. Accurate calculations are essential for determining the actual distance in kilometers.
subopolois
Messages
81
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


the problem asks to find the distance from the sun to a planet. the only information the question gives the the orbital period of 27 years and asks for the answer in km.


Homework Equations


c= (2)(pi)(r)


The Attempt at a Solution


assuming the planet revolves around the sun, i was assuming this is a simple problem using the circumference of a circle and solver for r to get the radius which is also the distance to the sun. here's my attempt.
c=(2)(pi)(r)
27=(2)(pi)(r)
r= 27/(2)(pi)
r= 4.29

thats my solution, but is seems really close to the sun, 4.29 km. have i done something wrong? can someone help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Take a look at units - your result is 4.29 years, not kilometers. So obviously there is something wrong.

This is either application of Kepler's third law (but then you need infomation about some other planet distance and period) or of Newton's law of universal gravitation combined with equations of motion (but then you need mass of the Sun). Not knowing in what context this question has been asked it is not possible to decide which approach will be correct (although they will both give the same result, as Kepler's laws can be derived from Newton's law).
 
yup it is calculatet in years not in km
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top