Motion due to gravity without neglecting varying distance

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter omberlo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Motion
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the motion of a mass m2 towards a mass m1 due to gravitational force, specifically addressing the effects of varying distance and gravitational force as m2 moves closer to m1. The focus is on applying calculus to derive displacement, velocity, and acceleration as functions of time, while considering the complexities introduced by the changing distance.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant outlines their approach to the problem, detailing the initial conditions and the equations derived from Newton's law of gravitation.
  • Another participant suggests that while the steps taken are not incorrect, numerical approximation might be a more straightforward method for solving the problem.
  • A different participant expresses concern about the complexity of the problem and suggests waiting for input from someone with more expertise.
  • Another participant references previous discussions on similar problems, suggesting that treating the trajectories as degenerated orbits and applying Kepler's Laws may provide a simpler solution.
  • One participant proposes using the chain rule to simplify the integration process, indicating that this could lead to a more manageable integral, although acknowledging that significant work remains.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to solve the problem. There are multiple competing views regarding the methods to be used, including numerical approximation and analytical approaches, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the dependence on the assumption that only two masses are involved and the complexity introduced by the changing distance, which affects the gravitational force. The discussion also highlights the challenge of integrating expressions that involve time-dependent variables.

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 exercise 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!
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K