Potential energy turned into kinetic

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the distance an object, initially at rest at 1 AU from the sun, travels after one week due to gravitational forces. The user attempts to equate gravitational potential energy with kinetic energy but faces confusion regarding the validity of this approach. Participants suggest using either the force equation to derive a function for distance over time or applying conservation of energy principles to simplify the calculations. Both methods are deemed valid, with emphasis on remembering initial conditions for velocity and position. The conversation highlights the importance of correctly applying physical principles in gravitational scenarios.
cragar
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


We have an object with much smaller mass than compared to the sun.
This object is at rest when released at 1AU from the sun. After a week how far is the mass from the sun.

The Attempt at a Solution


So I look at the gravitational potential energy and set it equal to kinetic energy.
\frac{-GMm}{r}=\frac{m(v)^2}{2}
the v should be an r dot. now I take the square root of both sides. and then multiply both sides by dt then move the r from the left side to the right side and then integrate bothe sides. this will give me r(t). and then for the bounds I use r=1au and then I can solve for r final. after using t=0 and t=1 week for the time. i will put the time in seconds. this seems somewhat reasonable.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why would the kinetic energy equal the gravitational potential? There is nothing saying this has to be the case (furthermore, the potential is only defined up to an arbitrary constant) and in particular it does not make sense in your case since the potential is strictly negative and kinetic energy non negative.

You can go one of two ways:
1. Write down the force equation and solve for r as a function of time.
2. Use conservation of energy (this will save you one integration)
 
for the force equation would I use F=ma and set it equal to the gravitational force.
For conservation of energy would I say that kinetic plus potential is a constant.
 
Yes, both would be correct approaches so I suggest you try doing either of those and return with the result. For the second approach, remember that ##v = -\dot r## and (for both approaches) that ##v(t=0) = 0## and ##r(t=0) = R_\oplus##.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top