Position of a body moving by Newtons Univ. Law. of Grav., at a point in time

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around coding a simulation of two bodies, specifically the Sun and Earth, using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. The challenge arises when linking the animation to a real clock source, requiring the calculation of acceleration, velocity, and position vectors at an arbitrary future point in time. The conversation touches on the need for definite integration to determine these vectors over a time interval. Additionally, it highlights the complexity of calculating the position in elliptical orbits using conservation of angular momentum, as opposed to simpler circular orbits. The overall focus is on finding a method to accurately simulate the motion of celestial bodies over time.
amn
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I am trying to code a simulation that pins two bodies against each other and animates their motion. I am using Sun and Earth as example, with preset positions and velocities, and Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation formula. It all works quite alright, up until I have decided to link my animation to a real clock source, which immediately presented the problem of obtaining acceleration, velocity and position vectors not just iteratively as I was used to, but at an arbitrary point in the future. We're talking delta-T here. I am not sure how to approach this problem.

Formally, say I have masses, position, acceleration, velocity vectors for both bodies and want to calculate position after a time interval T in the future.

Will there be definite integration involved?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
amn said:
Hi all,

I am trying to code a simulation that pins two bodies against each other and animates their motion. I am using Sun and Earth as example, with preset positions and velocities, and Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation formula. It all works quite alright, up until I have decided to link my animation to a real clock source, which immediately presented the problem of obtaining acceleration, velocity and position vectors not just iteratively as I was used to, but at an arbitrary point in the future. We're talking delta-T here. I am not sure how to approach this problem.

Formally, say I have masses, position, acceleration, velocity vectors for both bodies and want to calculate position after a time interval T in the future.

Will there be definite integration involved?
The orbit can be described in polar co-ordinates of radius and angle by the following equation:

r = a(1 - e^2)/(1 + e\cos(\theta))

where r is the distance from the focus of the ellipse (ie. the position of the sun), a is the semi-major axis of the orbit, e is the eccentricity of the orbit and \theta is the angle through which the planet has moved since perigee (minimum r).

It is easy to find the angle as a function of t for a circular orbit (e = 0 => r = a for all \theta). It just becomes:

(r,\theta) = 2\pi at/T

where T is the period of the orbit and t is the time after perigee.

It is much more difficult for elliptical orbits (e>0). To determine \theta at a given time one has to use conservation of angular momentum. L = mvr where L is constant (same for all time). The planet sweeps out equal areas in the orbital plane in equal times. It is a difficult calculation.

AM
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top