B Understanding the Lagrange Points: What's Going Wrong with L2 and L3?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the stability of the Lagrange points, particularly L2 and L3, in the Earth-Sun system. Participants clarify that while L1, L2, and L3 are unstable equilibrium points due to the gravitational influences of both the Sun and Earth, L4 and L5 are stable, allowing for the presence of natural satellites. The concept of a rotating system introduces fictitious centrifugal forces that affect stability. It is noted that a third body must be significantly lighter than Earth to avoid influencing its orbit. Overall, understanding the dynamics of these points reveals the complexities of gravitational interactions in a rotating frame.
Imager
Gold Member
Messages
112
Reaction score
61
The Wiki article shows 5 Lagrange points. I can “see” how the points L1, L4 and L5 points would be balanced by the gravitation of the two bodies, but not the L2 and L3.

For L2 and L3, it looks to me like the combination of the Sun’s and Earth’s gravity increase pull and make less stable. So where am I going wrong?

upload_2016-7-2_9-49-42.png


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point
 
Space news on Phys.org
You are forgetting that this is a rotating system. Consequently, there is also a contribution from the ficticious centrifugal force in the rotating frame.
 
  • Like
Likes Imager
Orodruin said:
You are forgetting that this is a rotating system. Consequently, there is also a contribution from the ficticious centrifugal force in the rotating frame.

So I could think of it like another small planet in orbit around the sun?
 
Imager said:
So I could think of it like another small planet in orbit around the sun?
Essentially. The "big" thing here is that the presence of the second large body (the Earth) has the effect that at the angular velocity only is the same at a few points. In other places, the gravitational effect of the Earth will destabilise the orbit.

Edit: Also note that this third body needs to be significantly lighter than the Earth in order not to influence the Earth orbit as well.
 
  • Like
Likes Imager
Imager said:
The Wiki article shows 5 Lagrange points. I can “see” how the points L1, L4 and L5 points would be balanced by the gravitation of the two bodies, but not the L2 and L3.

For L2 and L3, it looks to me like the combination of the Sun’s and Earth’s gravity increase pull and make less stable. So where am I going wrong?
L1, L2, and L3 are all unstable equilibrium points. You can park a satellite there, if you're careful, but it won't stay forever: it will eventually get kicked out of the orbit. It's rare to find natural satellites at these points. L4 and L5 are stable, so there's lots of asteroids and whatnot around those Lagrange points.
 
  • Like
Likes Imager
Great answers, thank you!

Another proof that my intuition gets it backwards when in come to Physics and my golf swing.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top