Gravity and the Speed of Gravitational Influence

In summary, the conversation discusses the effects of Earth's gravitational pull on objects in space. It is believed that gravitational disturbances travel at the speed of light, but this has not yet been fully confirmed. However, the Newtonian idea that gravitational disturbances propagate instantly has been disproven. The conversation also touches on the concept of escape velocity, which is the minimum velocity required for an object to break free from the gravitational influence of another object. At the surface of the Earth, escape velocity is approximately 11 km/s, but at a distance of 100,000 Earth radii, it is only about 35 m/s. The conversation also mentions that a rocket traveling at 100 mph would eventually break free from Earth's gravitational pull if it continued at
  • #1
jgravatt
The Earth has a gravitational pull that attracts things to it correct? If we launced a rocket from Earth and said rocket was
traveling from the ground to space at, oh let's say, 100 miles per hour (or kilometers - it really doesn't matter). Given the slow speed of the rocket, it would never leave orbit correct? If that is the case, can we say that the gravitational influence of the Earth negatively exceeds the speed of the rocket, or in other words, exceeds the speed of the rocket in the opposite direction? Obviously, the Earth's gravitational influence is not as great as something larger (such as the Sun) or something physically different (such as a black hole). Using the same idea, light being the rocket and a black hole being the Earth, can it be said that the black hole's gravitational influence negatively exceeds the velocity of light? I'm sure it's not that simple, but what I would like to know is if the speed of gravitational influence (given a large enough object) would be considered FTL?

Jeremy
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I would (caveat: rather ignorantly) say no. I have heard that it is believed that the speed of gravitation is c. I have heard that the supporting evidence is the upper limit on the mass of the graviton, but I have also heard that the graviton has not yet been observed, so I don't know what that would mean. At any rate, the reason I say no, is that, in the case of a BH, space-time still looks like it always does in geodesic coordinates. And that's what it comes down to: the choice of coordinates. Just because something looks weird in a particular coordinate system (i.e. light cannot escape) doesn't mean that it is a good representation, or even true. It is just that, near a BH, space-time gets so messed up that you can't extend your flat coordinate system out very far and you realize the curved-ness more easily.
 
  • #3
I don't know what you mean by "negatively exceeds." I also don't know what you mean about a 100 mph rocket that would "never leave orbit" -- a 100 mph rocket would never reach orbit.

- Warren
 
  • #4
By negatively exceeds, I mean exceed the speed of the rocket in the opposite direction. Example: If a rocket is traveling east at 100 miles per hour and the gravitational influence (or just gravitation pull) of some object keeps it from continuing east or better yet, pulls it back west, could you say that the gravitational influence of that object exceeds the speed of the rocket - slowing it down to the point where the rocket stops and begins traveling in the opposite direction.

I used the 100 mile per hour rocket as an example because it would not leave Earth and never reach orbit. In other words, would the Earth's gravitational influence appear to be greater than the speed of the rocket? Sorry, I probably should have clarified that.

Thanks for responding.

Jeremy
 
  • #5
Yes, general relativity predicts that gravitational disturbances travel at the speed of light. Recent experiments seem to confirm this prediction, but the case has by no means been totally closed on the issue.

In any event, the Newtonian idea that gravitational disturbances propagate everywhere instantaneously is at odds with quite a bit of modern, experimentally-supported physics and is almost assuredly incorrect.

- Warren
 
  • #6
Originally posted by chroot
I don't know what you mean by "negatively exceeds." I also don't know what you mean about a 100 mph rocket that would "never leave orbit" -- a 100 mph rocket would never reach orbit.

- Warren
However, with a source of thrust able to provide a steady 100mph speed perpendicular to the surface, it would leave Earth's gravitational influence eventually.
 
  • #7
Originally posted by russ_watters
However, with a source of thrust able to provide a steady 100mph speed perpendicular to the surface, it would leave Earth's gravitational influence eventually.
That's true, but that's a pretty degenerate "orbit."

- Warren
 
  • #8
Originally posted by russ_watters
However, with a source of thrust able to provide a steady 100mph speed perpendicular to the surface, it would leave Earth's gravitational influence eventually.
I was just thinking about this. Good point. If the rocket goes 100 mph, then it goes 100 mph (I'm assuming at sea level?). As it rises higher and higher, with the same amount of thrust, it will actually increase its speed (I'm of course assuming that all of this discussion is wrt the Earth's surface). Maybe jgravatt can clarify what is meant by this 100 mph rocket, specifically why it couldn't escape the Earth's gravity if it continued at 100 mph (wrt the surface of the earth).
 
  • #9
Sorry about the confusion. I was ignorantly thinking that something traveling at such a slow speed would never break the Earth gravitational pull. Is there an equation that I could use to determine what minimum velocity would be required to break free of an objects gravitational influence?

Jeremy
 
  • #10
Originally posted by jgravatt
Sorry about the confusion. I was ignorantly thinking that something traveling at such a slow speed would never break the Earth gravitational pull. Is there an equation that I could use to determine what minimum velocity would be required to break free of an objects gravitational influence?

Jeremy
To leave the Earth completely (and be able to turn off the engine and not immediately fall back), a spacecraft would have to reach escape velocity, defined here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vesc.html

At the surface of the Earth, escape velocity is ~11 km/sec.

At a distance of 100,000 Earth radii, 637 810 000 000 m (4.26 AU), escape velocity is only ~35 m/s.

If the craft traveled at 100 mph (44.7 m/s) for about 450 years, it would be free of the Earth's gravitational influence.

(back of the envelope calculation)

- Warren
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Update: more precision. At 100 mph, the craft would be free at a distance of 2.66 AU. It would take the craft 283 years.

- Warren
 
  • #12
Originally posted by chroot
Update: more precision. At 100 mph, the craft would be free at a distance of 2.66 AU. It would take the craft 283 years.

- Warren

Dang! There goes my super-charged Chevy experiment. Too much gas for the tank
 
  • #13
Originally posted by chroot
That's true, but that's a pretty degenerate "orbit."

- Warren
Yeah, I'm not saying its a good idea or anything.

And thanks for the escape velocity calculation - I was thinking about it, but you know about me and math and the restraining order thing...

Today I was talking on the phone with a contractor and I subtracted 2.9 from 10 and got 6.1.
 

FAQ: Gravity and the Speed of Gravitational Influence

1. What is gravity?

Gravity is a fundamental force of nature that causes objects with mass to be attracted to each other. It is responsible for keeping planets in orbit around stars and for keeping our feet on the ground.

2. How does gravity affect objects?

Gravity affects objects by pulling them towards each other. The strength of this pull depends on the masses of the objects and the distance between them. The larger the masses and the closer the distance, the stronger the gravitational force.

3. Can gravity be turned off or reversed?

No, gravity cannot be turned off or reversed. It is a fundamental force of nature and is always present. However, its effects can be counteracted by other forces, such as the force of thrust from a rocket.

4. What is FTL?

FTL stands for "faster-than-light" and refers to the concept of traveling at speeds faster than the speed of light. This is currently not possible according to the laws of physics, but some theories suggest that it may be possible through the manipulation of space-time.

5. Can FTL travel be achieved using gravity?

Currently, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that FTL travel can be achieved using gravity. However, some theories propose using the bending of space-time through the use of massive objects, such as black holes, to travel faster than the speed of light. This is still a highly debated and hypothetical concept.

Similar threads

I Velocity of a given planet relative to the Galactic Center
Replies
22
Views
3K
B 'A Brief History of Time' question on gravity
Replies
4
Views
1K
B The Sun's Influence on the Moon's Orbit: Is it Negligible?
Replies
4
Views
1K
B Why do stars experience gravity more than its mass?
Replies
30
Views
4K
Exploring Earth's Gravitational Influence: Escape Velocity and the Karman Line
Replies
17
Views
2K
I FTL Travel: The Matryoshka Paradox
Replies
6
Views
1K
I Vera Rubin's research
Replies
8
Views
744
B Questions about the Universe: Positive & negative fields and effects
Replies
4
Views
3K
I Could Gravity Ever Be Negative?
Replies
8
Views
5K
B Do Gravitational Slingshots cause G-forces
Replies
6
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top