The force of gravity from the sun will be weaker

AI Thread Summary
If the gravitational force from the sun followed an inverse cube law instead of the inverse square law, the force would indeed be weaker, affecting planetary motion. The period of a planet would become proportional to the square of the distance, which could lead to a decrease in the length of the year. However, the stability of orbits, particularly elliptical ones, remains uncertain, as the new gravitational constant (G) would influence orbital dynamics. While the question presents a hypothetical scenario, it suggests that orbits could still be stable but may allow for easier escape velocities. Overall, the implications of such a change in gravitational law would significantly alter our understanding of celestial mechanics.
ritwik06
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
Nature decides that instead of inverse square law for gravitational forces the law will be inverse cube law. In that case what among the following will be true?
a) The force of gravity from the sun will be weaker
b) The period of the planet will be proportional to the square of the distance
c)the length of the year will decrase.
d) The rotaion speed of Earth will decrease?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you think?
 
(d) depends on what the speed of rotation is to begin with.

(a) and (c) end up depending on what the new value of G is (given a fixed set of units, before and after Nature changes her mind) since it would have to be a different value with different dimensional. if the new G was just right, and the Earth was in a circular orbit, it's possible that the graviational force from the sun and the length of year could remain unchanged.

but i am not sure that the orbit (or any orbit) would be stable. particularly an elliptal orbit.
 
This question is annoying because it's so made up, but I don't really think that the new dimensions of G would pose a problem. I also think that orbits would be stable (including eliptical orbits). It would just be easier to escape (and therefore the orbits could not be as eliptical). Now part B is easy to solve--just figure it out by assuming a circular orbit, and set gravitational force equal to centripital force.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top