Geometry to work out how fast a bullet would have to travel to

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the speed a bullet must travel to overcome gravity and maintain a circular path around the Earth, one can use the centripetal force equation, which is mv²/r, where m is mass, v is speed, and r is the Earth's radius. By setting this centripetal force equal to the gravitational force (9.81 m/s²), the required speed can be derived. The discussion also touches on using geometry to visualize this problem, although some participants express uncertainty about how triangles would aid in the calculation. References to Feynman's lectures suggest that geometric methods can provide insights, albeit with some complexity. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the interplay between geometry and physics in solving this problem.
Hazzattack
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Hi guys, i was wondering how you calculate how fast a bullet would have to travel to 'overcome' gravity, i.e if it didn't hit anything (and discluding air resistance for now).
Mapping the Earth as a circle and knowing things such as the radius of the Earth and gravity acts on the bullet at 9.81 m/s^2 - how would i draw the triangles inside the circle to calculate the speed the bullet needs to travel to continue moving around the Earth (i.e the surface drops off at the same rate as the acceleration of gravity).

I wanted to solve the problem using geometry - which I'm aware would be a crude approximation. I couldn't find anything helpful via searching the internet, just continuous about which hits the ground first... blablabla.

Thanks a lot for any help,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you familiar with the equation for centripetal force, i.e. the force required to keep an object moving in a circular path at constant speed? That force is \frac{mv^2}{r}, where m is the object's mass, v is it's speed, and r is the radius of the circular path.

Set that force equal to the gravitational force acting on the object -- since it is gravity that provides the necessary force -- and then you can figure out what v is.

p.s. I am not sure how drawing triangles would help out here.
 
Last edited:
There is a way of deriving mv²/r geometrically, which does involve triangles. It involves taking a limit as the final step, but it's a pretty simple proof. Could that be part of what OP is referring to?
 
I am familiar with it, and admittedly, your way of solving the problem is far simpler. I found it in feynmanns lectures, chapter 7 I think, just after he talks about keplers laws. He solves this problem via geometry, but I found the calculation a little confusing (not due to its complexity). I'll take a picture of it later and upload it. Thanks for the responses.
 
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top