How can we improve the accuracy of acceleration calculations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter salamander
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Acceleration
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on improving the accuracy of acceleration calculations related to an object falling from a height, specifically a rock. The key point is the need to account for the increasing gravitational attraction as the object approaches Earth, described by the equation g=MG/r^2. Participants suggest setting up a differential equation that relates distance from Earth to acceleration and solving it using the chain rule. The integration leads to an expression for velocity as a function of distance, highlighting the conservation of energy principle. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the non-linear nature of the equations involved in these calculations.
salamander
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Hi! I'm quite new here, and I'm not sure wheter this is to go here or in the math section, so I'll just post it here since i guess nobody really care anyway.

I've been thinking of this for a while, but I can't seem to get it right. (I'm not that good at maths but I'm learning.)

Concider dropping a rock from a rather high altitude down to the ground. Now, using Newtonian theory, find an expression for the rocks' velocity as a function of time, that includes the fact that the gravitational attraction must become greater as the distance to Earth shrinks.

Can somebody give me a hint?

I know g=MG/r^2
What confuses me is how to integrate time in this expression,
since r=r0-gt^2/2

Finally, I don't know why but i just like these guys:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to set up a differential equation relating the distance from the Earth to the acceleration and solve it.
 
Letting r be the distance from the center of the earth,
m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}= \frac{-GmM}{r^2}

That's a non-linear differential equation but we can use the fact that t does not appear explicitely in it: Let v= dr/dt. Then (chain rule):
\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}= \frac{dv}{dt}= \frac{dr}{dt}\frac{dv}{dr}= v\frac{dv}{dr}
so the differential equation becomes
v\frac{dv}{dr}= \frac{-GM}{r^2} and then separate:
v dv= -GM \frac{dr}{r^2}. Integrating:
\frac{1}{2}v^2= \frac{GM}{r}+ C.

(Notice that that first integral is the same as
\frac{1}{2}v^2- GM/r= C, conservation of energy, since the first term is kinetic energy and the second potential energy.)

That is the same as v= \frac{dr}{dt}= \sqrt{2\frac{GM}{r}+ C} which is also integrable. You can use the fact that GM/r02= g (r0 is the radius of the earth) to simplify.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top