MHB Finding Orbit Type with Energy Equation

Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
How does one use the energy equation to determine the type of orbit?
$$
E = \frac{v^2}{2} - \frac{\mu}{r}
$$
where $\mu = G(m_1+m_2)$ and
$$
\mathbf{r} = \begin{pmatrix}
-4069.503\\
2861.786\\
4483.608
\end{pmatrix}\text{km},\quad
\mathbf{v} = \begin{pmatrix}
-5.114\\
-5.691\\
-1.000
\end{pmatrix}\text{km/sec}
$$
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
As I understand it, $E=0$ is parabolic, $E>0$ is hyperbolic, and $E<0$ is elliptic. If $v^{2}r=\mu$, then it's circular.
 
Ackbach said:
As I understand it, $E=0$ is parabolic, $E>0$ is hyperbolic, and $E<0$ is elliptic. If $v^{2}r=\mu$, then it's circular.

My issue was I didn't have a mu term.
 
dwsmith said:
How does one use the energy equation to determine the type of orbit?
$$
E = \frac{v^2}{2} - \frac{\mu}{r}
$$
where $\mu = G(m_1+m_2)$ and
$$
\mathbf{r} = \begin{pmatrix}
-4069.503\\
2861.786\\
4483.608
\end{pmatrix}\text{km},\quad
\mathbf{v} = \begin{pmatrix}
-5.114\\
-5.691\\
-1.000
\end{pmatrix}\text{km/sec}
$$
I'm confused about two things:
1. You are missing an "m" from the kinetic energy term.

2. You defined \mu in your original post. Is this a result you are supposed to derive perhaps?

-Dan
 
topsquark said:
I'm confused about two things:
1. You are missing an "m" from the kinetic energy term.

2. You defined \mu in your original post. Is this a result you are supposed to derive perhaps?

-Dan

Later on I was told what mu is for this problem so I was able to do it.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top