Gravitational Potential Energy question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the gravitational potential energy (GPE) of two planets, PICA-9 and PICA-10, orbiting the star PIC-2A, which has the same mass as the Sun. The user has determined the orbital distances and velocities but is unsure how to proceed with the GPE calculation without the planets' masses. The appropriate formula for GPE is confirmed to be PE = -GMm/r, while the mgh formula is deemed unsuitable for this context. It is noted that the masses of the planets are essential for calculating GPE, but the information provided does not allow for their determination. The conversation highlights the challenge of incomplete information in physics problems.
stefiex
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello! I'm having some problems with a question that my professor has given me. Below is the question. I have already figured out the planet's orbital and angular-orbital velocities, but included that part due to the fact that some information was included.
PICA-9 and PIC-10 are planets orbiting its star, PIC-2A. Find each of the planet's orbital and
angular-orbital velocity if PIC-2A has the same mass as our Sun, PICA-9 is 1.0 A.U. away from
the star and PICA-10 is 5.5 times further than PICA-9. What are the gravitational potential
energies of each planet with respect to the star?


Homework Equations


Since everything must be in m/kg form, I have figured out that:
Distance from PICA-9 and PICA-2A is 1.50X1011m
Distance from PICA-10 and PICA-2A is 8.22X1011m
PICA-2A mass is 1.989X1030kg
G=6.67X10-11


The Attempt at a Solution


Since the formula for GPE given to me is -GMm/r (G=gravity in space, M="the anchor" mass, m=orbiting object's mass, and r=the distance between the planets), I wasn't sure if PE=mgh would be a helpful formula in this case. Would finding the kinetic energy be helpful as well? How would I find the mass of the planets?
Thanks for reading!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello stefiex and welcome to PF!

Stick with PE = -GMm/r. PE = mgh is only an approximation that is valid when m is near the surface of a planet or star.

Unfortunately, you will not be able to calculate PE without knowing the masses of the planets and there is no way to deduce those masses from the information given.
 
That's what I thought. My teacher is notorious for forgetting information needed to complete the problem. Thanks for taking the time to look at it!
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top