How Do Satellites Stay in Orbit with Centripetal and Gravitational Forces?

AI Thread Summary
Satellites remain in orbit due to the balance between centripetal and gravitational forces, with gravity providing the necessary centripetal force that pulls the satellite towards Earth. While both forces act towards the Earth, the satellite is not in equilibrium; it is in a state of continuous acceleration. Centrifugal force is a pseudo force that arises in non-inertial frames of reference and does not exist in an inertial frame where Newton's laws apply. Kinematics describes the need for a net inward force for circular motion, while dynamics explains the source of that force, which is gravity in the case of satellites. Deviations from circular motion result in elliptical orbits, but the fundamental principles governing orbital mechanics remain consistent.
Elmorshedy
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I'm really confused I have learned at school that the satellite remains in it's orbit because it's in an equilibrium state due to Centripetal force and the gravitational force but how?
Doesn't the centripetal force and the the gravitational force both of them act toward the the earth?
And what is the role of the centrifugal force?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Centrifugal force acts away the center(frugal meaning to flee) while centripetal force acts towards the center(petel means to seek).

Centrifugal force is simply a pseudo force due to use of non inertial frame of reference
 
Elmorshedy said:
I'm really confused I have learned at school that the satellite remains in it's orbit because it's in an equilibrium state due to Centripetal force and the gravitational force but how?
A satellite in orbit is accelerating centripetally--towards the center of the earth--and thus requires a centripetal force. Gravity provides that force. (A satellite is not in equilibrium--it's accelerating.)
 
whats the difference between an inertial and non inertial frame of reference?>
 
Tricks67 said:
whats the difference between an inertial and non inertial frame of reference?>

An inertial frame of reference complies with Newton's laws of motion. This is the case for a non rotating system where the satellite orbits earth. The gravitational force between satellite and Earth is consistent with all three laws. In a rotating frame of reference the first two laws would be violated because the satellite is at rest even though the gravitational force is acting on it. If you assume the first two laws to be fulfilled you will get pseudo forces (e.g. centrifugal force) violating the third law.
 
Elmorshedy said:
I'm really confused I have learned at school that the satellite remains in it's orbit because it's in an equilibrium state due to Centripetal force and the gravitational force but how?
Doesn't the centripetal force and the the gravitational force both of them act toward the the earth?

For now, I'll consider just circular orbits. Kinematics tells us there must be some net force acting on the satellite that is directed radially inward: A centripetal force. Kinematics doesn't say anything about the source of the centripetal force that causes uniform circular motion. A rock tied to a string that is swung around in a circle, a train running on a circular track, a satellite in circular orbit: As far as kinematics is concerned, these are all uniform circular motion.

It is dynamics that explains the source of the force that causes the uniform circular motion. From kinematics, we can derive the magnitude of the centripetal force. The dynamical considerations must necessarily yield the exact same force. So in a sense, this is a "balance" -- but not in the context of Newton's third law. In the case of the orbiting satellite, kinematics says the centripetal force is mv^2/r while Newton's law of gravitation says the gravitational force is GMm/r^2. Equating these requires that v^2=GM/r. What if the dynamics say the force is something else? For example, what if the satellite is moving at some velocity other than the circular orbit velocity?

The answer is simple: You don't get a circular orbit. The satellite instead follows an ellipse, or a parabola, or a hyperbola. Explaining orbits in terms of centripetal force only works in the case of circular orbits. Circular orbits are nice fictions that make the behavior a bit easier to understand. In nature, there is no such thing as a perfectly circular orbit. Deviate one iota from the circular orbit conditions and you no longer have a circular orbit. You still do have an orbit, however. It's just not circular.
And what is the role of the centrifugal force?
In terms of looking at things from the perspective of an inertial frame of reference, there is no such role. There is no centrifugal force in an inertial frame.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top