Gravitational Plot: Accuracy Checked

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Invutil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravitational Plot
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the accuracy of gravitational motion plots and the equations governing gravity, particularly in the context of free fall and planetary motion. Participants explore the implications of using constant versus variable acceleration in gravitational equations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents equations for gravity and motion, questioning their correctness.
  • Another participant argues that the first equation assumes constant acceleration, while the second does not, suggesting a need for clarification on the problem context.
  • A request for explanation is made regarding the third equation and the associated graphs.
  • A participant attempts to clarify their approach to plotting gravity in free fall, introducing integrals and variables related to gravitational force.
  • Concerns are raised about mixing equations for constant and variable forces, with an emphasis on the complexity of the latter.
  • One participant inquires about the applicability of formulas at negative radius values, referencing concepts like Kerr black holes and the interpretation of trajectories in such contexts.
  • Another participant suggests that the equations are oversimplified and emphasizes the need for numerical integration for variable acceleration scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness of using constant acceleration formulas in the context of gravitational motion, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of the equations presented, particularly regarding the assumptions of constant acceleration and the complexities involved in variable gravitational forces.

Invutil
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Is this the correct plot of gravity and motion?

x(t) = x0 + v0 t + 1/2 a t^2

F = G m1 m2 / r^2

x(t) = x0 + v0 t + t^2 / (x2 - x(t))^2
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-11-05 at 4.27.18 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2015-11-05 at 4.27.18 PM.png
    27.3 KB · Views: 458
  • Screen Shot 2015-11-05 at 5.11.56 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2015-11-05 at 5.11.56 PM.png
    42.8 KB · Views: 494
Physics news on Phys.org
No. The first equation assumes that the acceleration is a constant. The second equation does not give a constant acceleration, so you cannot use the acceleration from the second in the first equation I don't know where you got equ 3 from. Perhaps if you stated the problem?
 
Can you explain what you're trying to do? I don't understand the third equation, nor the graphs.
 
I'm just plotting gravity free-fall.

r = (x2 - x) for x2 > x where x2 is the coordinate of mass 2

Is this correct?

x(t) = x0 + int from {0} to {t} ( v0 t + 1/2 a0 t^2 + int from {0} to {t} ( 1/2 t^2 da/dt ) dt ) dt

a0 = F/m1
a0 = G m2 / r0^2
r0 = (x2 - x0)

x(t) = x0 + int from {0} to {t} ( v0 t + 1/2 G m2 t^2 / (x2-x0)^2 + int from {0} to {t} ( d( 1/2 t^2 G m2 / (x2 - x(t))^2 )/dt ) dt ) dt

I can't get this to plot, but should there be anything special at negative radius values?
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 12.40.43 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 12.40.43 PM.png
    32.2 KB · Views: 453
You seem to be mixing up two different gravitational equations: one for a constant force (valid, for example, near the surface of the Earth); and one for a variable force (valid, for example, for planetary motion).

The first of these is mathematically simple; the second is mathematically much more complicated.
 
I guess I'm dealing with planetary scales so radius comes into effect. Is there a formula I can use? Is there anything special that happens at negative radius, like, a Kerr black hole, using a Newtonian equation? Would the constant-acceleration formula generally be correct, as it is a Taylor expansion? If so, how do you interpret the trajectory after r < 0?
 
Invutil said:
I guess I'm dealing with planetary scales so radius comes into effect. Is there a formula I can use? Is there anything special that happens at negative radius, like, a Kerr black hole, using a Newtonian equation? Would the constant-acceleration formula generally be correct, as it is a Taylor expansion? If so, how do you interpret the trajectory after r < 0?

It depends how much maths you know. The planetary motion equation leads to a second-order differential equation, from which Kepler's laws can be deduced. For free fall, say of an asteroid towards the Earth, the equation can be solved with some difficulty.
 
I think you are trying to over-simplify the problem. Your equations are still valid only for constant acceleration. Planetary motion, including that of asteroids, is described using universal gravitation for the force, and the acceleration is not constant. If you want to use the constant acceleration formula, than you have to numerically integrate the equations of motion, using short intervals of time, during which you assume that the acceleration is constant. That becomes a job to be done by a computer, and not a simple formula into which you can substitute numbers.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K