Proportion Problem Dealing with Moon's Period

  • Thread starter Thread starter PeachBanana
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Period
AI Thread Summary
If the moon were four times its current distance from Earth, its orbital period would increase significantly. The relationship between the period (T) and distance (r) is given by T being directly proportional to r raised to the power of 3/2. By applying this proportionality, the calculation shows that the new period would be approximately 32 weeks. The discussion also touches on the method of setting up equations to solve for the new period using initial and final values. Overall, the correct answer to the problem is confirmed to be 32 weeks.
PeachBanana
Messages
189
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



18. If the moon were four times the distance from the Earth than it currently is, the amount of time it would take to go around the Earth would be roughly (the current orbital period of the moon is about four weeks)

A. 8 weeks
B. 11 Weeks
C. 16 Weeks
D. 32 Weeks
E. 64 Weeks

Homework Equations



T is directly proportional to (r)^3/2

The Attempt at a Solution



I absolutely am awful at problems that deal strictly with proportions.

T = (4)^(3/2)
(4)^(3/2) = 8 weeks

Since the coefficient in front of "T" is "one," should I multiply four by eight since the problem states the period of the moon is about four weeks long?

Also, is there a maximum number of times a person can post in one day? I feel like I post a lot.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have no idea about a maximum number of votes, but who cares anyway!

Proportions are okay if you think about them in a good way (as with most things). Personally I like to introduce a constant so the statement "T is directly proportional to (r)^3/2" I would write as
T \propto r^{3/2}
then
T = C r^{3/2}

then you also have an equation for when the distance changes, using primes

T' = C r'^{3/2}

Now you are left with two coupled equations (see that C remains the same!) and a relation

r'=4r

By solving for T' you will see some cancellation which will you an answer.

I think doing it the method you have tried is possible. I get 32 if that helps.
 
You might find it easier to set up your ratios as an equation. If T is proportional to r3/2, then ignoring constants of proportionality write:

##T^2 \propto r^3##

Then if you have initial and final values (one or more of which may be unknowns), then you might write:

## T1^2 \propto r1^3 ##
## T2^2 \propto r2^3 ##

Dividing one relation by the other:

## \frac{T1^2}{T2^2} = \frac{r1^3}{r2^3}##

Substitute in the things you know and solve for what you want.
 
gash789 said:
I have no idea about a maximum number of votes, but who cares anyway!

Proportions are okay if you think about them in a good way (as with most things). Personally I like to introduce a constant so the statement "T is directly proportional to (r)^3/2" I would write as
T \propto r^{3/2}
then
T = C r^{3/2}

then you also have an equation for when the distance changes, using primes

T' = C r'^{3/2}

Now you are left with two coupled equations (see that C remains the same!) and a relation

r'=4r

By solving for T' you will see some cancellation which will you an answer.

I think doing it the method you have tried is possible. I get 32 if that helps.

Do you mind explicitly explaining how you went from T' = C r'^{3/2}

to r'=4r ? I also got 32, which is the correct answer, but I'm still just a tad bit confused.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top