Gravity & Velocity: Instantaneous or Average Velocity?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Izzhov
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Velocity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of an equation related to gravitational attraction and its implications for instantaneous versus average velocity. Participants explore the mathematical formulation of kinetic energy in the context of two masses and the effects of gravity, considering both classical and relativistic perspectives.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an equation for velocity derived from gravitational attraction and questions whether it represents instantaneous or average velocity.
  • Another participant corrects the initial equation, asserting that the integral should involve the gravitational force and suggests that the corrected equation represents instantaneous speed at a specific radius.
  • There is a proposal to modify the equation to account for the gravitational force of the smaller mass on the larger mass, leading to further discussion on kinetic energy distribution.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of understanding the derivation of the equation based on conservation of energy before making modifications.
  • Questions arise about how kinetic energy would be distributed between the two masses, with considerations of their relative sizes affecting the distribution.
  • A later reply confirms that the distribution of kinetic energy depends on the mass ratio, with specific calculations suggested for the energy each mass would receive based on conservation principles.
  • Another participant introduces a relativistic perspective, suggesting that classical mechanics may not fully address the complexities of the situation.
  • Corrections and clarifications are made throughout the discussion, with participants acknowledging errors in their previous statements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct formulation of the equations and the implications for kinetic energy distribution. There is no clear consensus on the best approach to modify the original equation or the interpretation of velocity.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include unresolved assumptions about the mass ratios and the conditions under which the equations apply. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of classical versus relativistic mechanics.

Izzhov
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
I recently saw the equation v= \sqrt{2 \int_{r_1}^{r_2} \frac{GM}{r}} (G=gravitational constant, M=larger mass, r=radius). I know it has to do with the velocity of an object attracted by a larger object's gravity, which is pulling it a distance r_2-r_1 taking into account the change in force of gravity. My question is: does this equation represent the instantaneous velocity at r1 or the average velocity? Also, how can this equation be changed to include the force of gravity of the smaller object on the larger one?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Edited: Please note my correction to the original equation!​

Firstly, that equation is not quite right. The integral (under the square root sign) should be:
\int_{r_1}^{r_2} \frac{GM}{r^2} dr = \left[ - \frac{GM}{r} \right]_{r_1}^{r_2}

So your equation should read:
v= \sqrt{2 \int_{r_1}^{r_2} \frac{GM}{r^2} dr}

Izzhov said:
My question is: does this equation represent the instantaneous velocity at r1 or the average velocity?
The corrected equation represents the instantaneous speed of the falling object at r1, assuming it started from rest at r2 (where r2 > r1).
Also, how can this equation be changed to include the force of gravity of the smaller object on the larger one?
The integral comes from calculating the increase in KE of the two mass system. If the smaller mass is a tiny fraction of the larger's mass, then all that energy becomes KE of the smaller mass--as in the given equation for v. (That's where that equation comes from.) But if you want to include the motion of the larger mass as well, you'll have to distribute that KE across both masses and apply conservation of momentum to find the relative speed of the masses.
 
Last edited:
Doc Al said:
But if you want to include the motion of the larger mass as well, you'll have to distribute that KE across both masses and apply conservation of momentum to find the relative speed of the masses.

So, if I wanted to include the KE that the smaller mass' force of gravity produces, would the new equation be v= \sqrt{2 \int_{r_1}^{r_2} \frac{GMm}{r}} where m is the smaller mass?
 
Edited: Please note my corrections!​

No. Check and you'll see that the units don't match across that equation.

Before you worry about modifying the original equation, first understand how it was obtained; it starts with this statement of conservation of energy:
\frac{1}{2}mv^2 = \int_{r_1}^{r_2} \frac{GMm}{r^2} dr
 
Last edited:
Would the KE be distributed evenly?
 
None of these problems would come up if you were thinking about it relativistically >.<. Equating (1/2)mv^2 as KE makes it obvious to me this is classical mechanics...As to your last post: It depends on your frame of reference :p

EDIT: MY BAD! Classical Physics section >.< Sorry
 
Oops... that equation as stated is incorrect

Note to Izzhov: I just realized (last night, after logging off) that there is an error in your original equation, which I have let propagate into my own. :redface: D'oh! So I will revise my answers accordingly. Stay tuned. (Same basic idea, though; perhaps you just miscopied the equation.)

Edited: Please note my corrections in posts 2 and 4!​
 
Last edited:
Izzhov said:
Would the KE be distributed evenly?
The distribution of KE depends on the relative size of the masses. If they were equal, then the KE would be distributed evenly. If they were wildly different, like a bowling ball or rocket compared to the earth, then the bowling ball or rocket would get just about all of the KE. (That's the assumption made in your orginal equation.)

The key is that both energy and momentum must be conserved. If the two masses start from rest, their initial--and final--momentum must be zero.
 
So essentially what you're saying is that if \int_{r_1}^{r_2} \frac{GMm}{r^2} dr is the KE, then \frac{M}{M+m} \ast \int_{r_1}^{r_2} \frac{GMm}{r^2} dr is the amount of KE that the smaller mass gets, and \frac{m}{M+m} \ast \int_{r_1}^{r_2} \frac{GMm}{r^2} dr is the larger mass's KE, and that this can be derived using conservation of momentum. Is this correct?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Exactly right!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K