# Path of a projectile with a non-constant gravity

• ForceBoy
In summary, the equation for the height of a projectile on Earth after ##t ## seconds is## h = -4.9t^{2}+vt+c##
ForceBoy
The typical equation for the height of a projectile on Earth after ##t ## seconds is

## h = -4.9t^{2}+vt+c##

where ##v## is the velocity of the projectile and ##c## the initial height.

This is nice and all but what happens if the height is very large? The leading coefficient of the equation above is half of the acceleration due to gravity on earth. The gravitational force between two objects of given masses is a function of the distance between the objects. If a ball is thrown into the air, the higher it gets, the less it slows down due to gravity.

I assume the distance between our projectile and the Earth is the height of the projectile. Then the equation becomes

## h = -\frac{Gm_{earth}}{2h^{2}}t^{2}+vt+c ##

My problem is the graph of the equation. In terms of x and y,

## y = -\frac{C}{y^{2}} x^2+vx ##

where v is a constant and C is a constant (too keep the equation general for projectiles on any planet and to avoid doing some arithmetic).

When I graph, with C and v being greater than zero, the positive part of the graph, in the first quadrant, never seems to intersect the x axis. Intuitively I believe the graph would intersect the x axis, showing there is some time for which the projectile lands. If the projectile never lands, the acceleration must be too small to keep the projectile bound. But when I make C larger, the graph just seems to grow, to expand.

So my question is whether my equation makes physical sense considering the graph suggests it doesn't (to me).

Thank you.

Last edited:
One problem you have with your formula: $$g = -\frac{Gm_{earth}}{2h^{2}}$$ it should really be $$g = -\frac{Gm_{earth}}{2r^{2}}$$ where r is the distance between the centers of mass (from center of mass of rocket to center of mass of the Earth), not just the height above the ground.

Another thing, this formula for height comes from integrating the acceleration twice, but g is no longer a constant, which cannot just be pulled out of the integrand. This makes solving much more difficult.

How far from Earth's surface were you planning for it to go?

Last edited:
As general background knowledge you may also be interested to know that if you model a free falling projectile (with no air resistance) with varying gravity (using Newton's law of gravity) you effectively end up with elliptical trajectories when modeled on a round Earth (or more generally a Kepler orbit), compared to the parabolic trajectories you already know from when the projectile is modeled with constant gravity on a flat Earth.

Also, one can still model trajectories with varying gravity using flat Earth, but if speeds become significant (comparable to orbital speeds, or equivalent, that curvature of Earth becomes significant compared to the range of the trajectory) then it becomes necessary to include the (fictitious) effect of centrifugal force as well. For sub-orbital trajectories the effect of varying (Newtonian) gravity usually has much less effect on the trajectory than the effect of curving Earth, when compared to a simple parabolic trajectory on a flat Earth. In long range artillery calculations for instance, I believe you would include curvature and other effects (like the Coriolis effect, another fictitious force) long before starting to include effects of reduced gravity. In some cases, like for atmospheric models, the effect of reduced gravity is included by replacing geometric height with geopotential height.

scottdave
scottdave said:
One problem you have with your formula:

g=−Gmearth2h2g=−Gmearth2h2​

g = -\frac{Gm_{earth}}{2h^{2}} it should really be

g=−Gmearth2r2g=−Gmearth2r2​

g = -\frac{Gm_{earth}}{2r^{2}} where r is the distance between the centers of mass (from center of mass of rocket to center of mass of the Earth), not just the height above the ground.

Okay. Then my distance to the center of the planet will be some ##q## and my ##g## should be

##g = -\frac{Gm_{planet}}{(h+q)^{2}} ##
scottdave said:
Another thing, this formula for height comes from integrating the acceleration twice, but g is no longer a constant, which cannot just be pulled out of the integrand. This makes solving much more difficult.

Then, would my final equation come from the following?

## h(t) =\int\int\frac{Gm_{planet}}{(h(t)+q)^{2}} dt^{2} ##

And if this is so, how could I solve considering that the integrals are nested inside each other infinitely? Because ##h## is equal to the whole integral but appears inside it.

## h(t) =\int\int\frac{Gm_{planet}}{(\int\int\frac{Gm_{planet}}{\int\int\frac{Gm_{planet}}{(...+q)^{2}} dt^{2}+q)^{2}} dt^{2})+q)^{2}} dt^{2} ##

Filip Larsen said:
As general background knowledge you may also be interested to know that if you model a free falling projectile (with no air resistance) with varying gravity (using Newton's law of gravity) you effectively end up with elliptical trajectories when modeled on a round Earth (or more generally a Kepler orbit), compared to the parabolic trajectories you already know from when the projectile is modeled with constant gravity on a flat Earth.
So, the trajectories, the parabolic ones we learn in class, are just approximations of the real elliptical trajectories?

ForceBoy said:
So, the trajectories, the parabolic ones we learn in class, are just approximations of the real elliptical trajectories?

The short answer is yes, indeed. In the given context, the parabola is an approximation to the above-ground part of a sub-orbital elliptical trajectory.

However, note that both types of trajectories is a result of modeling free fall with no air resistance, so for problems involving projectiles moving through parts of the atmosphere the models quickly ends up being a fair bit more complicated, even to the point where numerical integration becomes the only feasible way of finding a trajectory solution (i.e. a closed or analytical solution is not possible or tractable). Such a situation could for instance be calculating the precise trajectory of a lifting-body vehicle reentering the atmosphere from orbital speeds, or calculating the precise helical trajectory of a spinning artillery shell (external ballistics).

I will keep this in mind as I learn more. While it may not be immediately relevant, it's bound to be in the future.

## 1. What is the path of a projectile with non-constant gravity?

The path of a projectile with non-constant gravity is a curved trajectory that is influenced by the changing gravitational force acting on the projectile. This can occur when the gravitational field is not uniform or when the projectile is in motion.

## 2. How does non-constant gravity affect the motion of a projectile?

Non-constant gravity can cause the motion of a projectile to be more complex and unpredictable compared to a constant gravity situation. This is because the gravitational force is changing over time, leading to changes in the projectile's velocity and trajectory.

## 3. What factors can cause non-constant gravity in a projectile's path?

Non-constant gravity can be caused by various factors such as the rotation of the Earth, the presence of other massive objects, and air resistance. These factors can create variations in the gravitational force that acts on the projectile.

## 4. How can the path of a projectile with non-constant gravity be calculated?

The path of a projectile with non-constant gravity can be calculated using mathematical equations and principles of projectile motion. This involves considering the changing gravitational force and other factors that may affect the projectile's motion.

## 5. What are some real-life examples of projectiles with non-constant gravity?

Some real-life examples of projectiles with non-constant gravity include a ball being thrown on a rotating merry-go-round, a rocket launching from Earth, and a satellite orbiting around a planet. In each of these scenarios, the gravitational force acting on the projectile is not constant, leading to a curved path.

• Mechanics
Replies
18
Views
2K
• Mechanics
Replies
49
Views
2K
• Mechanics
Replies
17
Views
17K
• Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
• Mechanics
Replies
2
Views
907
• Mechanics
Replies
7
Views
2K
• Mechanics
Replies
14
Views
2K
• Mechanics
Replies
5
Views
1K
• Mechanics
Replies
6
Views
1K
• Mechanics
Replies
8
Views
1K