Why Is Calculating Escape Velocity Different from Determining Orbital Speed?

AI Thread Summary
Calculating escape velocity differs from determining orbital speed due to the distinct conditions governing each scenario. The discussion highlights a misunderstanding where the participant equated the velocity needed for a circular orbit with escape velocity, which is incorrect. Escape velocity is the speed required to break free from a gravitational field, while orbital speed maintains a stable orbit. The participant's mathematical approach included flawed assumptions about constant acceleration, leading to an incorrect conclusion about the relationship between the two velocities. Clarification on these concepts is essential for a better understanding of planetary motion.
realitybugll
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
I tried finding the equation for terminal velocity in a broader attempt to understand planetary orbits better. According to wikipedia's two derivations (one of which i don't understand very well) I'm off by a factor of \sqrt 2. I would greatly appreciate help in finding my thinking/math mistake. Thanks in advance!

I was reading another thread on the same topic, and I think what I have calculated is the "velocity needed to keep the test particle in circular orbit of radius r" which is apparently different than "escape velocity".

I started off assuming that the planet is questions velocity vector is perpendicular to the force one, attracting it to the larger body whose movement in relation to the planet is negligible. So we should be talking about a circular orbit.

I thought that for every miniscule displacement towards the larger body there has to be a simultaneous one perpendicular such that the distance between the objects remains constant.

Mathematically, {r - d_1}^{2} + d_2^{2} = r^{2}

where d_1 is the displacement towards the larger body, d_2 is the displacement perpendicular to that resulting from the planets inherent velocity, and r is the radius or displacement between the objects.

d_1 can be substituted with \frac {at^2} {2} where a is the acceleration of the planet towards the larger body and t the time.

similarly d_1 can be substituted with vt where v is the planets escape velocity and t the time.

So rearranging and solving for v we get:

d_1 = \sqrt {2rd_2 - d_2^{2}} v = \frac {\sqrt {rat^{2} - {\frac {a^{2}t^{4}} {4}}}} {t}

and taking the limit of t, the time, as it tends to zero and thus minimizes the two theoretical displacements of the planet (that from the acceleration due the gravity of the larger planet and the perpendicular motion from its own velocity) making the curvature of the orbit more continuous and closer to circular, results in I think (I haven't really learned about limits)

v = \sqrt {ra} whereas it really is v = \sqrt {2ra}

note: I was reading another thread on the same topic, and I think what I have calculated is the "velocity needed to keep the test particle in circular orbit of radius r" which is apparently different than "escape velocity". I had been thinking they were the same, but I guess escape velocity refers to the velocity when elliptical orbits can't form (?).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, you do not understand escape velocity. Look it up. Also, saying that ##d_1=\frac{1}{2}at^2## is nonsense. It holds only when the acceleration of the mass is constant which is not the case here. It looks like your understanding of planetary orbits was limited when you posted this 9 years ago. I hope it has improved since then.
 
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