Regarding the radius in the orbital velocity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the radius of an orbiting body and its velocity, particularly in the context of gravitational potential energy and the nature of gravity itself. Participants explore concepts from both classical and general relativity, examining how these theories explain orbital mechanics and energy dynamics without reaching a consensus.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the velocity of an orbiting body changes with its radius due to conservation of energy, noting that gravitational potential energy is negative and increases in magnitude as the radius decreases.
  • Others argue that a body moving past a planet and entering orbit should retain its initial velocity, suggesting that gravity is not a force but a geometrical deformation of spacetime.
  • Several participants question the definition and implications of gravitational potential energy, seeking clarification on its relationship with gravity and energy without relying on equations.
  • Some contributions emphasize that Newton's Law of Gravitation is a useful approximation but not entirely accurate, advocating for Einstein's General Relativity as the accepted model of gravity.
  • One participant describes a practical analogy involving dropping a steel ball bearing to illustrate how potential energy converts to kinetic energy, relating this to orbital mechanics.
  • A later reply introduces a mathematical perspective on the curvature of spacetime and its implications for orbital motion, suggesting that the concept of constant speed is complex in a curved spacetime framework.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of gravity, the role of gravitational potential energy, and the implications for orbital velocity. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on these topics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying interpretations of gravitational potential energy, differing views on the validity of Newtonian versus relativistic models, and the complexity of visualizing curved spacetime in relation to orbital dynamics.

DLeuPel
Messages
56
Reaction score
2
Would the velocity of a body which is orbiting another body change due to its radius to the center of gravity? If so, why? A body which moves passed a planet and starts orbiting it should have the same velocity it had before ,regarding the fact that it is orbiting a planet. Also, gravity isn’t really a force but the geometrical deformation of the fabric of space time. So really is like if you were riding your car in a tilted road so the car curves itself without the need of any forces acting upon it. The more the gravity the more the road is titled.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DLeuPel said:
Would the velocity of a body which is orbiting another body change due to its radius to the center of gravity?
Yes, because of conservation of energy. Gravitational potential energy is negative. Its magnitude increases with decreasing radius. The orbiting body's kinetic energy must increase in order to keep the total energy constant. You can observe this with bodies in elliptical orbits: they move fastest at the closest point to their central body, and slowest at the farthest point.
 
DLeuPel said:
Also, gravity isn’t really a force
Oh, isn't it ?
 
What is the gravitacional potencial energy? I’m not asking for the equations i just want to know what relation does gravity have with energy.
 
jtbell said:
Yes, because of conservation of energy. Gravitational potential energy is negative. Its magnitude increases with decreasing radius. The orbiting body's kinetic energy must increase in order to keep the total energy constant. You can observe this with bodies in elliptical orbits: they move fastest at the closest point to their central body, and slowest at the farthest point.
What is the gravitacional potencial energy? I’m not asking for the equations i just want to know what relation does gravity have with energy.
 
DLeuPel said:
Also, gravity isn’t really a force but the geometrical deformation of the fabric of space time.

The force of gravity is defined as F=(Gm1m2)/r^2. You've probably seen it modeled as a fabric/grid.
 
DLeuPel said:
What is the gravitacional potencial energy? I’m not asking for the equations i just want to know what relation does gravity have with energy.

GPE is inversely related to the radius and directly proportional to mass and gravitational constant.
 
osilmag said:
The force of gravity is defined as F=(Gm1m2)/r^2. You've probably seen it modeled as a fabric/grid.
Only according to Newton’s Law of Gravitation which is wrong. But we use his equations due to the fact that they are more simple to use and the solutions that they give us are very close to the real solution to gravity related problems. The accepted model of gravity is that of Einstein’s famous General Relativity. In which gravity is not a force but the presence of matter bending a fabric. Just like applying pressure to your bed and see how it sinks with your fist. Here she a link to an easy to see representation of gravity
 
DLeuPel said:
What is the gravitacional potencial energy? I’m not asking for the equations i just want to know what relation does gravity have with energy.
Energy is the potential to do work. Gravitational potential energy is therefore the ability for gravity to do work. In this case, applying a force to accelerate an object approaching another object.
Only according to Newton’s Law of Gravitation which is wrong.
Newton's Law of Gravitation is not "wrong" in a binary sense. It is highly accurate for most everyday purposes including the scenario you describe in this thread.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU
  • #10
DLeuPel said:
The accepted model of gravity is that of Einstein’s famous General Relativity. In which gravity is not a force...
It's not an interaction force in GR, but can still be modeled as an inertial force, based on which potential energy can be defined.

DLeuPel said:
...but the presence of matter bending a fabric. Just like applying pressure to your bed and see how it sinks with your fist. Here she a link to an easy to see representation of gravity
A very misleading analogy, as explained here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...the-force-of-gravitation.760793/#post-4791624

See this for a more relevant analogy:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/gravity-and-curved-space.917934/#post-5786330

DLeuPel said:
I’m not asking for the equations i just want to know what relation does gravity have with energy.
Equations is how relations are stated in physics.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
To understand gravitational Potential energy without using math, picture dropping a steel ball bearing on a plate of glass. Not a very heavy ball bearing, just a small one you could hold in your fingertips. If you drop it from a couple of inches, the glass vibrates, and you hear a sharp noise. Drop it from a couple of feet, and the noise will be much louder, and the bearing Will bounce. Drop it from 8 to 10 feet, and will break the glass. As you raise the bearing higher above the glass, you give it more potential to do work on the glass. When you release the bearing, that potential energy is converted into kinetic. As the bearing gets lower and lower, it’s speed increases. That is to say, it’s potential energy is converted into kinetic energy.

In orbital mechanics, this relationship works the same way. It is most easily seen in highly elliptical orbits. As the object “falls” closer to the center of gravity, it gains speed. After passing its closest point, it begins climbing again, and slowing down.
 
  • #12
DLeuPel said:
Would the velocity of a body which is orbiting another body change due to its radius to the center of gravity? If so, why? A body which moves passed a planet and starts orbiting it should have the same velocity it had before ,regarding the fact that it is orbiting a planet. Also, gravity isn’t really a force but the geometrical deformation of the fabric of space time. So really is like if you were riding your car in a tilted road so the car curves itself without the need of any forces acting upon it. The more the gravity the more the road is titled.

To answer the why question directly. Because, the curvature of spacetime outside a spherical object is described by:

##ds^2 = -(1- \frac{2M}{r})dt^2 + (1- \frac{2M}{r})^{-1}dr^2 + r^2(d\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta d\phi^2)##

Which leads to the "energy" equation of motion:

##E = \frac12(\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V(r)##

Where ##V(r)## is the effective potential. This is the same equation as in Newtonian gravity, but in GR this potential has an additional term. For planetary orbits about the Sun, for example, this additional term is negligible, so we have a valid Newtonian approximation.

You may be thinking (from your rubber sheet or road analogies) that space itself has a defined shape and compels an object to move in a specific physical path. One problem with these analogies is that it is spacetime that is curved. So, one of the dimensions on your rubber sheet should be the time dimension, which is not so easy to visualise.

Because spacetime (space and time) are curved, the notion of "constant speed" is not so clear cut. We (as outside observers, using our system of coordinates - centred on the Sun, say) measure a change in coordinate velocity - that is not measurable as an acceleration by the orbiting body itself.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K