Finding time required via force equation

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on resolving a problem involving force equations and the calculation of time required for planetary motion. Participants identify errors in velocity calculations, noting that the velocity at the origin is infinite due to division by zero in definite integrals. The conversation also references Kepler's Third Law, explaining that the time of revolution for an elongated elliptical orbit is equivalent to that of a circular orbit with the same semi-major axis. The relationship between the distances in an ellipse and the time period of revolution is emphasized, highlighting the connection to Newton's Third Law. Overall, the thread explores the mathematical intricacies of planetary motion and the implications of various equations.
shanepitts
Messages
84
Reaction score
1
The problem, relevant equations, and my attempt at a solution are all shown on both attached images.
Not sure where the π and and extra (1/4)1/2 is coming from.
Also, I noticed that my final result, in the attemp at a solution should be t=(mb3/4k)1/2, no negative sign.
image.jpg
image.jpg
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your velocity calculation is wrong. That definite integral will give the velocity at the origin (which will be infinite), but for the next step you need the velocity at an arbitrary distance x.
 
  • Like
Likes shanepitts
haruspex said:
Your velocity calculation is wrong. That definite integral will give the velocity at the origin (which will be infinite), but for the next step you need the velocity at an arbitrary distance x.

Thanks for the quick reply, but not to seem to ignorant in relation to using definite integrals, why would the velocity be infinite at origin?
 
shanepitts said:
Thanks for the quick reply, but not to seem to ignorant in relation to using definite integrals, why would the velocity be infinite at origin?
What did the indefinite integral look like? What happened when you applied the x=0 bound?
 
  • Like
Likes shanepitts
haruspex said:
What did the indefinite integral look like? What happened when you applied the x=0 bound?

so obvious, it gets divided by zero; it Is undefined.

Thanks again
 
shanepitts said:

Such problem can be solved by using Kepler's Third Law. This is planetary motion, only the ellipse is very-very elongated. Still, the time of revolution is the same as along an equivalent circle, with radius equal to the semi-mayor axis of this orbit.
From the definition of ellipse, the sum of the distances between the planet and the foci is equal to the mayor axis, 2a. And it is the same as ##2\sqrt{f^2+b^2} where b is half of the minor axis.
If you make the ellipse narrower and narrower, at the limit of b=0, you get that a=f. The semi-mayor axis is equal to the distance of a focus from the centre. The planet starts from one focus and arrives to the Sun at the other focus in half of the time period.
According to Newton's Third Law, the time period is the same as that on a circle, with the same radius as the semi-mayor axis of the distorted ellipse.
The initial distance between planet and Sun is d = 2a. What is the time period along a circular orbit with radius d/2?
fallingtime.JPG
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
935
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K