Stability of Orbits: Understand Gravitational & Kinetic Energy

  • Thread starter Thread starter DuckAmuck
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orbits Stability
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding stable orbits using energy equations and gravitational dynamics. It starts with the basic energy equation E = K + U, where kinetic energy K and gravitational energy U are defined. The stability of an orbit is analyzed by considering a slight perturbation to the orbiting object's radius, leading to adjustments in velocity and energy. The user encounters a discrepancy in their calculations, suspecting a missing factor of two in their derivation. The conversation highlights that stable orbits can be slightly elliptical, which complicates the application of the circular orbit equation v = sqrt(GM/r).
DuckAmuck
Messages
238
Reaction score
40
So I saw a video on youtube: http://youtu.be/uhS8K4gFu4s

And so I thought I'd try to understand the whole stable orbit thing.

So first you have a simple energy equation of E = K + U.

K = (1/2)mv^2 (kinetic energy)
U = -GMm/r^2 (gravitational energy)

r = radius of orbit
v = velocity of orbiting object
M = mass of center object
m = mass of orbiting object

And we want it to be a stable orbit in the first place, so we have:
v=sqrt(GM/r)

Now, let's say we slightly bump the object in orbit. So r -> r + s, where s is much less than r.
(also w is much less than v)

So we can adjust the stable orbit equation:

v=sqrt(GM/r)

v+w = sqrt(GM/(r+s))

approximate for small distances:

v+w = sqrt(GM/r)(1-s/(2r))

So then, you can subtract the original equation out and have:
w = -sqrt(GM/r)s/(2r)
This makes sense directionally, if you bump the orbiting object inwards, the velocity with increase.

So now, back to the energy equation: E = K + U
Since it's a stable orbit being bumped only slightly, you expect it to be able to eventually return to the same state, so E can't change.

So initially you have:

E = (1/2)mv^2 - GMm/r^2

Then apply the bump:

E' = ((1/2)mv^2 )(1+2w/v) - (GMm/r^2 )(1-s/r)

This then reduces to the form:

E' = E + mvw + (GMm/r^2 )s

Since E' must equal E, the two extra terms should add to zero:

E' = E + (mv)sqrt(GM/r)(-s/(2r)) + (GMm/r^2 )s

E' = E + (-1/2)(GMm/r^2 )s + (GMm/r^2 )s

So I am doing something wrong. I have a missing factor of two somewhere, but I don't know why.

If you guys can help, it will be appreciated. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Stable orbit need not be circular. So if you bump it a little, it can become slightly elliptic and v=sqrt(GM/r) no longer holds. I think that's where things go wrong with your derivation.

Best check of orbit stability is looking at effective potential.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top