Tangential Velocity and the Moon

AI Thread Summary
Tangential velocity refers to the speed at which an object moves along its orbital path, allowing it to continuously "miss" the Earth despite gravitational pull. The Moon, like a cannonball shot from a high mountain, has sufficient tangential velocity to maintain its orbit around the Earth rather than falling directly into it. As the Moon moves forward, it is simultaneously pulled downward by Earth's gravity, resulting in a perpetual free-fall towards Earth while maintaining its orbital path. This concept illustrates how objects in orbit, including the Moon, are in a constant state of falling towards the Earth but with enough horizontal velocity to avoid collision. Understanding tangential velocity is crucial for comprehending the dynamics of celestial orbits.
AbsoluteZer0
Messages
124
Reaction score
1
Hi,

I've been doing a bit of independent study on Gravitation. What I find confusing is why the moon doesn't fall straight into the earth. I know that the moon has tangential velocity, but what exactly is tangential velocity? How does it apply to the moon not falling into the earth?

Thanks,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=89113

Or, to put it another way,

Let's take the hypothetical situation where the Moon is moving to the "left", being pulled towards the Earth, which is "behind" it.

The Moon will move forward (attraction towards the Earth), but by the time it's done that, it's gone significantly to the left, and the direction of attraction's changed.

And we're faced with exactly the same situation.
 
AbsoluteZer0 said:
How does it apply to the moon not falling into the earth?
The Moon is falling toward the Earth. Perpetually.

One way to envision orbits is via Newton's cannon. Imagine a very tall mountain, one so tall it rises out of the atmosphere. Now imagine a very powerful cannon atop this mountain. The muzzle velocity of the cannonball depends on the amount of shot put into the cannon.

Put just a little shot in the cannon and the cannonball will fall to Earth along what appears to be a parabolic trajectory. Add a bit more shot and the cannonball will still fall to Earth, but with ever more shot it becomes obvious that this parabolic trajectory is but an approximation. A better model is a segment of an ellipse.

The cannonball hits the Earth further and further from the mountain as the muzzle velocity increases. With just the right muzzle velocity, the cannonball will hit the Earth at a point diametrically opposed to the mountain. Now what happens if you add just a bit more shot to the cannon? The answer is that the cannonball will go all the way around the Earth. If the cannon is moved out of the way in the ~90 minutes it takes for the cannonball to go around the Earth, it will keep following this path forever. The cannonball is in orbit about the Earth.
 
D H said:
The Moon is falling toward the Earth. Perpetually.

One way to envision orbits is via Newton's cannon. Imagine a very tall mountain, one so tall it rises out of the atmosphere. Now imagine a very powerful cannon atop this mountain. The muzzle velocity of the cannonball depends on the amount of shot put into the cannon.

Put just a little shot in the cannon and the cannonball will fall to Earth along what appears to be a parabolic trajectory. Add a bit more shot and the cannonball will still fall to Earth, but with ever more shot it becomes obvious that this parabolic trajectory is but an approximation. A better model is a segment of an ellipse.

The cannonball hits the Earth further and further from the mountain as the muzzle velocity increases. With just the right muzzle velocity, the cannonball will hit the Earth at a point diametrically opposed to the mountain. Now what happens if you add just a bit more shot to the cannon? The answer is that the cannonball will go all the way around the Earth. If the cannon is moved out of the way in the ~90 minutes it takes for the cannonball to go around the Earth, it will keep following this path forever. The cannonball is in orbit about the Earth.

So, hypothetically, if the cannonball needs to be shot at 1000 m/s to start orbiting the Earth then 1000 m/s is the tangential velocity?
 
Imagine standing on a cliff, say 10 feet back from the edge, and throwing a rock over the edge. From the time the rock leaves your hand, the only force acting on the rock is gravity which acts straight down. But the rock does not go straight down- the downwar force causes an acceleration downward which then causes motion downward. But all this time the rock is moving forward due to the forward velocity you gave. The rock does go downward, of course, but not until after it has "missed" the edge of the cliff.

The same thing happens with the moon (or any satellite)- it is pulled downward but with the additional forward motion, the moon just keeps "missing" the earth.
 
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