General question about center of mass

AI Thread Summary
The center of mass (CM) of a uniform ring is located at its geometric center, regardless of whether it is suspended above the Earth or in space. When calculating gravitational forces, the ring cannot be treated as a point mass at its CM due to its extended nature; the gravitational field must consider the contributions from each part of the ring. In scenarios where the ring is in space with a satellite orbiting its CM, touching the ring will not cause the satellite to adjust its orbit significantly. The effective gravitational center can differ based on the proximity of other masses, as illustrated by the example of the Earth-Moon system. Understanding these principles is crucial for accurate gravitational calculations involving extended objects.
frozenguy
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
I hope this is the right section.

consider the CM of a uniform ring. Suspend that ring by light cables above the earth, by a crane maybe?

Where is the rings center of mass now? If this system was in space (crane, cables, ring), the CM would be somewhere else right?

If the ring was out in space, and had a satellite orbiting its CM, and I come up to it and touch the ring, won't the satellite adjust its orbit?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
frozenguy said:
consider the CM of a uniform ring. Suspend that ring by light cables above the earth, by a crane maybe?

Where is the rings center of mass now? If this system was in space (crane, cables, ring), the CM would be somewhere else right?
The CM of the ring is right at its center.

If the ring was out in space, and had a satellite orbiting its CM,
What do you mean? For the purposes of calculating gravitational forces, you can't treat the ring as if its mass were concentrated at its CM, if that's what you're thinking.
 
The effective gravitational centre of mass would only be at the centre of the ring if observed from an infinite distance away.
 
Doc Al said:
The CM of the ring is right at its center.
Is that because they are strings attaching the ring to the crane? If it were light rods, then the CM would change right?


Doc Al said:
What do you mean? For the purposes of calculating gravitational forces, you can't treat the ring as if its mass were concentrated at its CM, if that's what you're thinking.

Why can't you use the CM for gravitational calculations?
 
frozenguy said:
Is that because they are strings attaching the ring to the crane? If it were light rods, then the CM would change right?
Why would it change? Think of the CM as being the average location of the object's mass. The CM of the ring will always be right at its center.

Why can't you use the CM for gravitational calculations?
That's only good when the object can be treated as a point mass (for example, if you are very far away from it, as sophiecentaur said) or if it has a spherically symmetric mass distribution. In general, the gravitational field of an extended object can only be found by adding up the field from each of its pieces. In the case of a ring, that field will not look like the field of a point mass located at the ring's center.
 
frozenguy said:
Why can't you use the CM for gravitational calculations?

To answer that question consider this example. The Centre of Mass of the Earth and Moon is somewhere below the Earth's surface. If you are standing on the Moon and you drop a hammer, it falls towards your feet - not towards the centre of mass of Moon and Earth. The nearby(smaller) mass of the Moon counts more than the distant Centre of Mass in that particular gravitational calculation.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
3K
2
Replies
52
Views
7K
Replies
57
Views
5K
2
Replies
96
Views
10K
Back
Top