Proving Velocity Vector Orthogonal to Position Vector on Sphere Surface

  • Thread starter Thread starter jessawells
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sphere Surface
AI Thread Summary
A point travels along the surface of a sphere if its velocity vector is orthogonal to its position vector, which can be proven using vector calculus. The sphere's equation, x² + y² + z² = R², can be differentiated with respect to time to establish this relationship. The resulting expression involves a dot product between the velocity and position vectors, demonstrating their orthogonality. The discussion also suggests considering the application of curl to the position vector field of the sphere as an alternative approach. Ultimately, understanding this relationship is crucial for analyzing motion on spherical surfaces.
jessawells
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
can someone help me with this problem:

"show that a point is traveling along the surface of a sphere if and only if its velocity vector is orthogonal to its position vector."

I know that it is true intuitively - since in centripetal motion, the velocity is always directed toward the center. but how do you prove this using vector calculus?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jessawells said:
can someone help me with this problem:

"show that a point is traveling along the surface of a sphere if and only if its velocity vector is orthogonal to its position vector."

I know that it is true intuitively - since in centripetal motion, the velocity is always directed toward the center. but how do you prove this using vector calculus?

Then your "intuition" is way off. A point moving along the surface of a sphere is not in "centripetal motion" and the velocity vector is not directed toward the center!

You can assume that your sphere is centered at the origin and, so, has equation x2+ y2+ z2= R2. Differentiate that with respect to time (using the chain rule) and break the result into a dot product of velocity vector with position vector.
 
Couldn't the OP just apply curl to the position vector (field) of the sphere? It's seems more in the spirit of vector calculus.
 
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