What Does Kepler's Third Law of Planetary Motion Mean?

AI Thread Summary
Kepler's Third Law of Planetary Motion states that the square of a planet's orbital period is proportional to the cube of its average distance from the sun. This means that planets farther from the sun take longer to complete their orbits compared to those closer to it. The law illustrates a consistent relationship between a planet's distance from the sun and its orbital speed. Understanding this law helps explain the dynamics of planetary motion in our solar system. Overall, it highlights the predictable nature of orbits based on distance from the sun.
Xiphas
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Can someone explain keplar's third law of planetary motion to me without the math and not to technically, just what does it mean?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The square of the time period of a planet's orbit (i.e. the square of the time the planet takes to orbit the sun) is proportional to the cube of the average distance between the planet and the sun.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Tusi discovering laws of planetary motion before Kepler?
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Making a "Planetary Gear Set" using a 3D printer and PLA material
Replies
4
Views
2K
B Proof of inverse square law for gravitation?
Replies
18
Views
2K
B Rotation is absolute, linear motion is relative?
2
Replies
74
Views
4K
Is Newton's third law valid for rotation / Torque?
Replies
23
Views
4K
I Which version of the Kepler Problem is correct?
Replies
4
Views
1K
I Extending Newton's laws -- Is the concept of force still defined?
Replies
35
Views
4K
I The centripetal acceleration of the planets in our solar system
Replies
19
Views
3K
How did Kepler derive his laws WITHOUT law of gravitation?
Replies
11
Views
2K
Why does water not follow the law of motion?
Replies
18
Views
17K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top