My calc prof would be so disappointed

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Archosaur
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding a more accurate equation for free fall that incorporates the inverse square relationship of gravity. Participants explore various approaches to derive this equation, including considerations of wind resistance and the application of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in deriving an equation for free fall in terms of time and distance, indicating a lack of practice.
  • Another participant suggests using the equation y = -(g/2)t^2 + y_0 as a "fake" equation and proposes incorporating wind resistance with a differential equation.
  • A third participant provides a detailed approach using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, discussing the transformation of forces and the integration of a separable differential equation.
  • Further elaboration includes the concept of conservation of energy and the integration of non-linear differential equations, with a note on the complexity of certain integrals involved.
  • A later reply expresses appreciation for the detailed explanation provided by another participant.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants present multiple approaches and models for solving the problem, with no consensus on a single "true" equation for free fall. The discussion remains exploratory and unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note potential sign errors and the complexity of certain integrals, indicating that assumptions about constant gravitational force may not hold in all scenarios.

Archosaur
Messages
333
Reaction score
4
I've been out of practice for one quarter now and it's already starting to show.

I've been thinking about gravity, and I wanted to find a "true" eq for freefall. (one that incorporates the inverse square relationship)

I instantly hit a wall, because I'm trying to find X in terms of T, from dV/dT in terms of X.

I can't even think of how to start this problem...

Any help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What's wrong with the "fake" one? y = -(g/2)t^2 + y_0. It has that relationship stuff you wanted. I suppose a more true eq would be if you consider wind resistance in the form of kv^2.

Then, dv/dt = kv^2 - g, an easy diff eq. Then once you have V, integrate it again.
 
It would help if you showed more of your work, but I can help get you started. In the event that you've already carried through with my suggestions, just let me (and others) know and we'll provide the help you need! :smile:

From Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, we know that

F = m\frac{dv}{dt} = -\frac{k}{x^2}

Using the chain rule, we know that \frac{dv}{dx}\frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{dv}{dt}, which we apply so that

F = mv\frac{dv}{dx} = -\frac{k}{x^2}

You should be able to solve that with a straight forward integration (don't forget the constant :wink:). After that, you'll end up with a differential equation of the form \frac{dx}{dt} = f(x), so it might be helpful if you remember that \frac{dt}{dx} = \frac{1}{dx/dt}. By the way, sorry if there are sign errors (I'm doing this off the top of my head). Good luck!
 
I presume you mean you want a formula for an object falling through a distance large enough that you cannot just assume that the force due to gravity is constant:
ma= m\frac{dv}{dt}= -\frac{GMm}{r^2}
We can, of course, immediately cancel the "m"s. Also, since v= dr/dt, we have, by the chain rule, that dv/dt= (dv/dr)(dr/dt)= v dv/dr. That is, we can change that equation in v, r, and t into an equation involving only v and r:
v\frac{dv}{dr}= - \frac{GM}{r^2}
which is a "separable differential equation".

v dv= -GM \frac{dr}{r^2}[/itex] <br /> which can be integrated:<br /> \frac{1}{2}v^2= \frac{GM}{r}+ C[/itex]&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; I doubt your calc prof would be all that disappointed. This is a technique, called &amp;quot;quadrature&amp;quot;, for solving non-linear differential equations that is not normally taught in a calculus course. Notice, by the way, that that equation can be rewritten&lt;br /&gt; \frac{1}{2}mv^2- \frac{GmM}{r}= mC&lt;br /&gt; and is basically &amp;quot;conservation of energy&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; If you take, as initial condition, that at t= 0, r(0)= R and v(0)= 0, an object falling from height R, we have &lt;br /&gt; \frac{1}{2}(0^2)= \frac{GM}{R}+ C&lt;br /&gt; so C= -GM/R and &lt;br /&gt; \frac{1}{2}v^2= \frac{GM}{r}-\frac{GM}{R}&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Now solve that for v:&lt;br /&gt; v^2= \frac{2GM}{r}- \frac{2GM}{R}&lt;br /&gt; so &lt;br /&gt; v= \frac{dr}{dt}= -\sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}- \frac{2GM}{R}}&lt;br /&gt; (I took the negative root because I am taking &amp;quot;+&amp;quot; velocity upward.)&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Integrate&lt;br /&gt; \int\frac{dr}{\sqrt{\frac{1}{r}- \frac{1}{R}}}= \sqrt{GM}t&lt;br /&gt; to find r as a function of t.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Your calc prof would also not be too disappointed if you could not do that integral. It is not integrable in terms of elementary functions. It is a type of &amp;quot;elliptic&amp;quot; integral, so called because it arises in finding the length of an arc of an ellipse. Since the general motion in an &amp;quot;inverse square&amp;quot; gravity field is along an ellipse, that should not be too surprising.
 
That was an amazing post, HallsofIvy. Thank you!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K