Freefall of an object in Space (towards earth)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the final velocity of an object falling towards Earth from a specific altitude. The original poster believes their professor made an error in the calculation, arriving at a final velocity of 435 m/s, while they calculated 695 m/s. The conversation highlights the importance of correctly canceling mass in gravitational equations and clarifies that the calculations should account for the object's starting position above the atmosphere. Additionally, it is noted that the difference in gravitational force at the two altitudes is negligible for this problem. The participants agree that both the professor's and the poster's answers are incorrect for the scenario described.
LiorSh
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Hi guys,

My professor showed us in class how to find the final velocity of an object as it hits the the atmosphere of earth(Rf=6.37e6) and I think he might have made a mistake. I have been trying to solve the same problem but I get different answer than the one my professor showed in class.
The Ri=6.37e6 + 10^5. Vi=0.

The way I solved it - 1/2mvf^2 −GmM/Rf=−GmM/Ri (I canceled out the m)
My answer is 695 m/s.

It seems like my professor didn't cancel out the first m and he got 435 or something around that number.
I wonder if there is a reason why he didn't cancel the first m, or rather he just forgot to do so.

Thank you so much!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You might want to check your values for "G" and for "M." If your prof came up with 435, you've both missed something.
 
My answer is 695, not 435. I think my professor canceled out the m from the right side but didn't from the left side of the equation.
the G = 6.67e-11
M = 5.98e24
m= 10 kg - but we canceled it out anyway so it doesn't matter.
 
LiorSh said:
the final velocity of an object as it hits the the atmosphere of earth

Hits the atmosphere of the Earth starting from where? "Free-fall" makes it sound like the object is falling in from infinity, but your calculation doesn't make sense for that problem. The formula you're using looks like you're trying to calculate the speed of an object dropped from the top of the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth (if there were no air resistance), and in that case Bystander is right - neither your 695 m/sec nor the professor's 435 m/sec is close.

As an aside: The difference between ##(6.37\times{10}^6)^2## and ##(6.37\times{10}^6+1\times{10}^5)^2## is so small as to be irrelevant (especially with only one significant digit in the atmospheric thickness) that you can save yourself some work and take the gravitational force to be the same at both altitudes.
 
I see what you did there, I have no idea why the professor solved it this way then. that's how he showed in class. the the object is moving towards Earth from that distance and we need to figure out what would be the speed when Rf= 6.37e6 meters. (starting from the Ri=6.37e6+10^5).
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top