Motion due to gravity without neglecting varying distance

  • Thread starter Thread starter omberlo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Motion
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the motion of a mass m2 towards a mass m1 under the influence of gravity, considering the varying distance and gravitational force as m2 approaches m1. The original poster attempts to derive equations for displacement, velocity, and acceleration using Newton's law of gravitation, but realizes that the distance r is a function of time, complicating the integration process. Suggestions include using numerical methods for approximation and applying the chain rule to simplify the integration. The conversation highlights the complexity of the problem and the need for careful consideration of the changing variables involved. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the challenges of solving this gravitational motion problem accurately.
omberlo
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone. In an attempt to brush up my Calculus skills and apply them to a physics problem, I made up an excercise which I tried to solve, but got stuck in the process. I'll write my attempt at a solution and I'd be grateful if someone could correct my approach and maybe even help me finish solving it.

The idea is to calculate the motion of a mass m2 towards a mass m1 due to the gravitational force (Newtonian's formulation), but without neglecting the effect of the varying distance, and thus the varying gravitational force, as m2 moves towards m1.

This are the framework conditions of the problem:
- we have two masses m1 and m2 that are distant r0 at the beginning.
- Both masses have a velocity of 0 at the beginning.
- m1 >> m2 so we only consider the displacement of m2 towards m1 when defining the distance. We neglect the displacement of m1 towards m2.
- we use Newtonian's formulation of gravity, i.e. ## F_G = \frac{Gm_1m_2}{r^2} ##
- we use the standard formulation of velocity and not the relativistic one.

The goal is to calculate the displacement, velocity and acceleration of m2 as functions of time.
Again, this is mostly a calculus exercise, so please accept the above approximations, no matter how incorrect they may be.

This is how I tried to tackle the problem:

> The mass m2 is affected by an acceleration equal to ## a = \frac{F_G}{m_2} ##(1) due to gravity.

> Substituting FG with Newton's law and cancelling out the mass term yields: ## a = \frac{Gm_1}{r^2} ##(2)

> Now I want to calculate the velocity. Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with respect to time, meaning that ## a = \frac{dv}{dt} ##(3)

> Substituting this expression of acceleration in equation (2) yields: ## \frac{dv}{dt} = \frac{Gm_1}{r^2} ##(4)

> Now we have to integrate both sides of the equation over time: ## \int \frac{dv}{dt}\, dt = \int \frac{Gm_1}{r^2} \, dt ##(5)

> On my first attempt, this yielded ## v = \frac{Gm_1t}{r^2} ##(6) . I ran an approximated calculation using excel, and noticed that this formula for the velocity was only correct for low velocities. As the time and velocity increased, the calculated velocity was distancing more and more from the correct value. I then realized that given the way I've defined the problem, r, the distance between the two masses, is a function of time, as it changes over time, and thus cannot be treated as a constant when performing the integral.

> The distance between the two masses is decreasing as m2 moves towards m1, and is equal to ## r(s) = r_0 - s ##(7), where s is the total displacement of m2 towards m1. Now I have an expression for r as a function of s, but I need one as a function of t in order to integrate it over time.

> The definition of velocity is ## v = \frac{ds}{dt} ##(8) and by integrating both terms over time we have ## s(t) = \int v\,dt ##(9). Substituting s from equation (9) in equation (7) we have ## r(t) = r_0 - \int v\,dt ##(10)

> Substituting (10) in (5) we have ## \int \frac{dv}{dt}\, dt = \int \frac{Gm_1}{(r_0 - \int v\,dt)^2} \, dt ##

Here I stopped. First of all, are the calculation steps correct up to this point? Secondly, is there a way to solve the above integral and conclude the exercise?

Any help is much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that your steps are not incorrect thus far, and your methods solvent (so long as there are only two masses involved). But it certainly would be easier to use numerical approximation to solve this.
 
Oh jeeze. This problem is even more difficult than I thought. You might want to wait for someone who really knows what they are talking about.
 
omberlo said:
The idea is to calculate the motion of a mass m2 towards a mass m1 due to the gravitational force (Newtonian's formulation), but without neglecting the effect of the varying distance, and thus the varying gravitational force, as m2 moves towards m1.
I'm sure this has been discussed here before. Try the search function. If I remember correctly, the simplest solution was by treating the trajectories as degenerated orbits and applying Keppler's Laws.
 
omberlo said:
> Substituting this expression of acceleration in equation (2) yields: ## \frac{dv}{dt} = \frac{Gm_1}{r^2} ##(4)

> Now we have to integrate both sides of the equation over time: ## \int \frac{dv}{dt}\, dt = \int \frac{Gm_1}{r^2} \, dt ##(5)

> On my first attempt, this yielded ## v = \frac{Gm_1t}{r^2} ##(6) . I ran an approximated calculation using excel, and noticed that this formula for the velocity was only correct for low velocities. As the time and velocity increased, the calculated velocity was distancing more and more from the correct value. I then realized that given the way I've defined the problem, r, the distance between the two masses, is a function of time, as it changes over time, and thus cannot be treated as a constant when performing the integral.

> The distance between the two masses is decreasing as m2 moves towards m1, and is equal to ## r(s) = r_0 - s ##(7), where s is the total displacement of m2 towards m1. Now I have an expression for r as a function of s, but I need one as a function of t in order to integrate it over time.

> The definition of velocity is ## v = \frac{ds}{dt} ##(8) and by integrating both terms over time we have ## s(t) = \int v\,dt ##(9). Substituting s from equation (9) in equation (7) we have ## r(t) = r_0 - \int v\,dt ##(10)

> Substituting (10) in (5) we have ## \int \frac{dv}{dt}\, dt = \int \frac{Gm_1}{(r_0 - \int v\,dt)^2} \, dt ##

Here I stopped. First of all, are the calculation steps correct up to this point? Secondly, is there a way to solve the above integral and conclude the exercise?

Any help is much appreciated.

Looks OK but you may find it easier to use the chain rule:
dv/dt = (ds/dt) (dv/ds)
so:
v(dv/ds) = Gm/s^2
leaves a more manageable integral:
∫ v dv = ∫ Gm/s^2 ds
But still a lot of work to do after that!
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top