Freefall from a great height, changing g

  • Thread starter Thread starter bitrex
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Freefall Height
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the complexities of calculating freefall from significant heights where gravitational acceleration (g) is not constant. The user seeks to understand how to modify the standard kinematic equation y(t) = 1/2gt^2 when considering the variable nature of g, described by the equation g = G*M1*M2/r^2. The solution involves integrating the gravitational force equation and applying calculus concepts, particularly the chain rule, to derive a separable differential equation for velocity and height.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of kinematics equations for falling bodies
  • Familiarity with Newton's law of universal gravitation
  • Basic calculus concepts, including integration and differentiation
  • Knowledge of differential equations and their applications
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of gravitational force using F = G*M1*M2/r^2
  • Learn about separable differential equations and their solutions
  • Explore elliptic integrals and their significance in physics
  • Investigate the implications of variable gravitational acceleration in astrophysics
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching introductory physics, and anyone interested in advanced kinematics and gravitational theory.

bitrex
Messages
190
Reaction score
0
This isn't a homework problem exactly - I'm attempting to teach myself introductory physics and there's a question that's bugging me. The kinematics equations that I've seen so far for falling bodies all assume that little g is a constant, i.e. the distance of the fall of the object from its initial height above the Earth is small enough that delta g is zero. My question is how the equation would change for freefall where the starting height was far enough that little g was changing during the fall?

Homework Equations



y(t) = 1/2gt^2, g = G*M1*M2/r^2

The Attempt at a Solution



My best guess is that instead of using little g as a constant, i'd integrate F = G*M1*M2/r^2 over the distance traveled and somehow plug that into the equation instead, but my knowledge of both calculus and physics is too shaky to know if I'm on the right track. Can anyone help?

Many thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, that's (almost) exactly right- the gravitational force is given by F= -GM1M2/r2 (don't forget the "-". We are measuring r upward but the force is downward). Since we still have "force= mass*acceleration", if M2[/sup] is the mass of the falling object, then acceleration = -GM1/r2. Acceleration is, of course, the derivative of speed with respect to time so we have to integrate, not with respect to the distance but with respect to time. Since the distance does appear in the formula, we have the "differential equation"
[tex]\frac{dv}{dt}= -\frac{GM_1}{r^2}[/tex]

One thing that makes that complicated is that it is the derivative of v on the left side but we have only r on the right. Since v= dr/dt, we have to use the chain rule to write dv/dt= (dr/dt)(dv/dr)= vdv/dr. Now the equation is
[tex]v\frac{dv}{dr}= -\frac{GM_1}{r^2}[/tex]

That is what is called a "separable equation" since we can "separate" the variables v and r:
[tex]v dv= -\frac{GM_1}{r^2}dr[/tex]
and then integrate both sides:
[tex]\frac{1}{2}v^2= \frac{GM_1}{r}+ C[/tex]
Giving the initial height and speed we could solve for the constant C.

Once we've done that, since v= dr/dt, we have
[tex]dr/dt= \sqrt{2\frac{GM_1}{r}+ C}[/tex]

While that is also a "separable" equation and can be written as
[tex]\frac{dr}{\sqrt{2\frac{GM_1}{r}+ C}}= dt[/itex]<br /> the left side does not have an "elementary" integral. It gives what is called an "elliptic integral" (obviously related to the elliptic orbits of planets) though special cases can be easy to solve.[/tex]
 
Ah, that helps a lot. Thank you!
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
4K