Question on Orbital Motion and Conservation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the energy dynamics of the moon's orbital motion around Earth, emphasizing that gravity itself does not require energy to exert a force. The moon's orbit, while slightly elliptical, maintains a balance of potential and kinetic energy without necessitating a continuous energy source. The concept of work is clarified, stating that energy is only expended when a force moves an object in the direction of that force. In a hypothetical circular orbit, the gravitational force acts at a right angle to the moon's motion, resulting in no energy change. Additionally, the Earth experiences a minor loss of angular momentum to the moon due to their mutual gravitational interaction.
BigMacnFries
To make the moon deviate from it's straight line path requires a force and I assume this force requires energy. Considering the mass of the moon and the billions of years it has been orbiting the Earth this seems like a tremendous amount of energy expended. With regard to the conservation of energy law where does this energy come from?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The exertion of a force does not require energy. The Earth simply pulls on the moon because that's what gravity does. That in itself does not require any energy source.
 
Further, for an object to remain at the same distance (roughly) from earth, it remains in a condition of constant potential energy. In actuality, the orbit is slightly elliptical, leading to an exchange of potential and kinetic energy during every orbit.
 
Galileo said:
The exertion of a force does not require energy. The Earth simply pulls on the moon because that's what gravity does. That in itself does not require any energy source.

if i may be a little more anal in this explanation, energy (or "work") is expended only when the force moves an object along the same direction of the force. this is what the dot-product is about in defining work or energy. you can break up the movement vector into two componets: one that is aligned with the force (or in the opposite direction) and one component that is at a right angle with the force. the componet of motion that is aligned with the force will have some change of energy associated with it. the component that is at 90o with the force will have no change of energy associated with it. if the moon was orbiting in a circular orbit (it isn't, but let's say it is), then the force of gravity with the Earth and the motion of the moon are always at a right angle.
 
If you look at it in the curved-spacetime approach to gravity, the moon is moving in a straight line. The mass of Earth provides the curvature. IIRC, the Earth actually loses a tiny amount of angular momentum to the moon, due to mutual attraction (tides and whatnot). It's out of my area, though, so I'd appreciate some additional input myself.
 
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...
Back
Top