How is gravitational acceleration affected with distance?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a physics problem regarding how long it would take Earth to fall into the Sun if it were on a straight path at 1 AU, without the laws of inertia. Two potential solutions are proposed: one using Kepler's third law and another involving gravitational acceleration calculations, which becomes complex without integral calculus. The participant expresses difficulty in understanding the necessary mathematical concepts and seeks guidance on finding a formula for the solution using integration. They note that their teacher aims to teach integration earlier to their group, which focuses on astronomy. The conversation highlights the challenges of applying advanced mathematics to gravitational problems in astronomy.
Unteroffizier
Messages
28
Reaction score
3
Note: I didn't really know where to put this. It isn't a specific problem, but I've been asked by my physics teacher, who decided to give me and a few others an individual physics course of sorts, to find the means of solving similar problems. It's the first problem he assigned us, since we're focusing on astronomy. I'm not studying in an English-speaking country, so my terminology might be a bit off.

1)
So, here's the problem, exactly as it was given, during my actual independent astronomy course (away from our engineering school):
If the Earth is orbiting at a distance of precisely 1AU from the Sun, how long will it take it to fall into the Sun along a straight path (if the laws of inertia do not apply)?

2) There are two solutions to this problem, one of which I cannot use. Our physics teacher will also attempt to guide us through integral calculus early so that we can simplify these problems.

Equation for solution a) T1^2/T2^2 = a1^3/a2^3 (Kepler's third law)

3) The steps of solution a)

1) Create an imaginary object, for which a = 0.5AU applies. e (eccentricity) = approaching 1. In other words, aphelium 1 goes through Earth's center, while aphelium 2 goes through the center of the Sun. The orbital path is eccentric enough to be considered a straight line.
2) Find this object's orbital period by means of 1/x^2 = 1/0.5^3
3) X/2 = approximately 0.165y
It would take Earth approximately 0.165 years to fall into the Sun under given circumstances.

Now, the problem with this result is the fact that it's not perfectly accurate, and it requires some pretty strange twists to achieve.

Steps of solution b)

1) Take gravitational acceleration at 1AU.
2) Take gravitational acceleration at r = approaching 1AU.
3) etc.. Infinite calculations. Can't solve the area under a curved line without severe simplification, which would in turn ruin result accuracy. Unsolvable within reasonable timespan.

We were told that it can be solved with the use of integral calculus by integrating. Problem is, we can't integrate. He's teaching us to do so, but asked us to find the formula for the solution of this problem with the use of integral calculus.

Since I don't know this, and he gave us no restrictions in regards to the sources of our information, I ask if anyone could help me out. He wants us to present a formula, so that he can teach us how it works later. Not sure why he doesn't give it to us himself, but it is what it is, and he probably has his reasons.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Danke!

I appreciate your response. Looked over the equation, got lost pretty quick. Looks like it's way above my mathematical level, to be honest. However, I see the word "differential equation", so this is differential calculus? I'm supposed to find the method involving integration, because the main goal is to teach us to integrate earlier than the other, less astronomy-oriented students.

Or am I just looking at it wrong?
 
Unteroffizier said:
Danke!

I appreciate your response. Looked over the equation, got lost pretty quick. Looks like it's way above my mathematical level, to be honest. However, I see the word "differential equation", so this is differential calculus? I'm supposed to find the method involving integration, because the main goal is to teach us to integrate earlier than the other, less astronomy-oriented students.

Or am I just looking at it wrong?

Some alternative approaches are here

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/63590/integrating-radial-free-fall-in-Newtonian-gravity

Solving differential equation is, essentially, a form of integration.
 
  • Like
Likes Unteroffizier
Ah, I see. Well then, I'll give it a closer look.

Thanks for the links! I'll put them to good use.
 
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