Real gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the complexities of gravitational potential energy and its conversion to kinetic energy, particularly at varying distances and with different object densities. The correct gravitational force equation is highlighted as Fg=GmM1M2/(r+s)², but complications arise when considering free fall and the changing force. Participants debate the correct interpretation of limits, especially as both r and s approach zero, and the implications for energy equations when dealing with non-spherical bodies. There is also a correction regarding the integral involved in calculating kinetic energy changes. The conversation emphasizes the need for accurate definitions and adjustments when working with gravitational equations involving finite-sized objects.
omiros
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
This isn't a homework problem, but something that has being buzzing in my head.

I've been thinking about it cause at huge distances from Earth g changes and also in what happens for really dense objected and small things could change too.

The real equation for gravity no matter which body we are talking about with a spherical symmetry, is Fg=GmM1M2/(r+s)2,
with r = the radius of the main body and s = the distance of the body from the surface of the other one.

Let's consider M1the main one and M2the one that can be viewed as a particle. We know that ΔK = -∫s0Fds , however the force is chaning all through the 'free fall' and makes things more complicated.

The solution that I find is Fg=GmM1M2s/(r2+rs)

Where do I need the help?
I don't know if this is the right solution and I also don't know how to interprete the limiting cases, like limr→0 and lims→0 at the same time(in the center).
What are all the 3 different equations that describe the variance of the force?
Also could someone transform the energy equations if both bodies are 'big' but with different radius(not same r or mass)?
What energy do they have before they collide?
What would happen if they were like earth? (not spherical, with equations)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your integral is incorrect. The integral of -1/(r+s)^2 is 1/(r+s)
 
I am sorry. That is my mistake. I meant ΔK not Fgwith limits s and 0
 
Last edited:
This does not change the fact that your integral is wrong.

with r = the radius of the main body and s = the distance of the body from the surface of the other one.
That does not work if both objects have a finite size. The denominator has to be the distance between the central points of the objects. It is convenient to use r for this distance, if you use other definitions you have to adjust the denominator to get the same result.
As long as the spherical objects do not overlap, this formula is true independent of the sizes and distances of the objects.

What would happen if they were like earth? (not spherical, with equations)
You need a multipole expansion or numerical simulations.
 
mfb said:
This does not change the fact that your integral is wrong.

Did you try to solve it before you say it was wrong? If you simplify the two fractions that you get, this is the result.
 
Oh sorry, I was confused as you used s for integration limits and as variable at the same time.
Okay, the result looks good.
Where is the point in taking the limit s->0 (i.e. not lifting the body at all) then? The limit for r,s->0 will depend on the way they go to zero.
 

Thread 'Average velocity as a weighted mean'

Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
View full post »

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »

Similar threads

Gravitational potential energy -- Why is it always negative?
Replies
10
Views
3K
I Change of coordinates in a potential energy field
Replies
2
Views
1K
I How to interpret this definition of potential energy?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Question About Potential Energy
Replies
3
Views
2K
Two separate "gravitational potential energy" equations?
Replies
11
Views
3K
A non-spherical Earth's gravitational potential?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Gravitational Potential Reference Point
Replies
6
Views
2K
Internal forces converting kinetic into potential energy (vice versa)
Replies
10
Views
2K
Gravitational potential energy and continuous matter
Replies
2
Views
1K
Potential Energy and Potential -- Systems versus Particles
Replies
6
Views
11K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top