How would the path of a satellite be affected by the gravitational constant decreasing? [closed]
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
An artificial satellite is moving around the surface of earth. If the magnitude of the gravitational constant starts decreasing at a constant rate, then what would the effect on the path of the satellite be?
homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity orbital-motion satellites
closed as off-topic by John Rennie, StephenG, Dale, AccidentalFourierTransform, Chris Nov 24 at 22:44
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" – John Rennie, StephenG, Dale, AccidentalFourierTransform
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
An artificial satellite is moving around the surface of earth. If the magnitude of the gravitational constant starts decreasing at a constant rate, then what would the effect on the path of the satellite be?
homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity orbital-motion satellites
closed as off-topic by John Rennie, StephenG, Dale, AccidentalFourierTransform, Chris Nov 24 at 22:44
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" – John Rennie, StephenG, Dale, AccidentalFourierTransform
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
An artificial satellite is moving around the surface of earth. If the magnitude of the gravitational constant starts decreasing at a constant rate, then what would the effect on the path of the satellite be?
homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity orbital-motion satellites
An artificial satellite is moving around the surface of earth. If the magnitude of the gravitational constant starts decreasing at a constant rate, then what would the effect on the path of the satellite be?
homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity orbital-motion satellites
homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity orbital-motion satellites
edited Nov 24 at 23:13
Community♦
1
1
asked Nov 24 at 16:15
Madhav Nair
151
151
closed as off-topic by John Rennie, StephenG, Dale, AccidentalFourierTransform, Chris Nov 24 at 22:44
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" – John Rennie, StephenG, Dale, AccidentalFourierTransform
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as off-topic by John Rennie, StephenG, Dale, AccidentalFourierTransform, Chris Nov 24 at 22:44
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" – John Rennie, StephenG, Dale, AccidentalFourierTransform
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
$letom=omega$
If $G$ varies very slowly, we can use the adiabatic invariants
theorem. In present problem angular momentum is an adiabatic invariant.
Therefore we have
$$L = mu r^2 om = mathrm{const.}$$
where $mu$ is reduced mass:
$$mu = {M,m over M + m}.$$
Then $om=k/r^2$, with $k$ some constant. Third Kepler's law says
$$om^2 r^3 = G,(M + m)$$
and substituting for $om$
$${k^2 over r} = G,(M + m)$$
i.e.
$$r propto {1 over G}.$$
Conclusion: if $G$ decreases, $r$ increases.
1
What would be the justification for why $L$ is an adiabatic invariant?
– N. Steinle
Nov 24 at 21:23
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The Satelite Motion can be represented in polar coordinate $r(t)$ and $varphi(t)$
The equations of motion are:
${frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}r left( t right) -r left( t right)
left( {frac {d}{dt}}varphi left( t right) right) ^{2}=-mu,
left( r left( t right) right) ^{-2}
$
$r left( t right) {frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}varphi left( t right)
+2, left( {frac {d}{dt}}r left( t right) right) {frac {d}{dt}}
varphi left( t right) =0
$
$mu$ is proportional to $G$ and $r$ is the satellite radius
We simulate the satellite path ($x=r,cos(varphi),,y=r,sin(varphi)$) with various values of $mu$
Result: If $mupropto G$ decreases, the satellite path increases
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
It will spiral outward.
The simple way to think of an orbit is to consider how long it would take to fall from that distance to the ground. Now give your satellite enough speed "to the side" that by the time it falls that distance it's now to the side of the planet. So the Hitchhiker's Guide is correct, flying is simply throwing yourself at the ground and missing.
So what does this have to do with your question? Well lets say you just instantly make the Earth disappear and its gravity goes to zero. In that case the satellite will still have that sideways velocity you gave it originally. So it will simply fly off into space.
Now thing about just removing half the mass of the Earth. In that case you won't fall as fast, so you'll have too much sideways velocity, and you'll fly off into space - just in a different path.
So if you reduce it smoothly, the orbit will grow larger and larger until the satellite has too much momentum and it just keeps going off into space, when it reaches the new escape velocity.
Note that this consideration only considers the Earth' G changing. Given the orders of magnitude difference in masses between the Earth and any "simple" satellite, even the Moon, the same change to the G of the satellite has little effect on the end result.
Apparently my conclusion agrees with yours. Unfortunately I wasn't able to understand a single word of it.
– Elio Fabri
Nov 24 at 17:09
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Let's assume $G$ decreases until it reaches zero, and then stops changing. The way the path looks depends on how quickly $G$ decreases. If the rate of decrease is rapid enough that it takes less than one orbital period (defined before $G$ started changing) to reach zero, you wouldn't really call it a spiral--it's more just a line, curving a bit at first, and then straightening out.
If the rate of decrease is such that it takes about four orbital periods for $G$ to reach zero, the satellite makes a full revolution during that time, ending up heading off on a straight path parallel to the one it was on when $G$ started changing. I'd say it's fair to call the path a spiral for any rate of decrease slower than this. (Well, it's a spiral while $G$ is changing; it's obviously a straight line once $G$ is zero.) If you're good at differential equations, you can presumably show these behaviors analytically; I did it numerically.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
To confirm the hypotheses published by Maury and Elio, we consider the satellite motion model, in which we set $G(t)=1-t/100$
$x''(t) = -G(t)x(t)/(x^2 + y^2)^{3/2}$,
$y''(t) = -G(t)y(t)/(x^2 + y^2)^{3/2}$,
$x(0) = 1, x'(0) = 0, y(0) = 0, y'(0) = 1$.
The results of numerical integration are shown in Fig. 1. Indeed, the satellite spirals away from the Earth, and up to $t=50$, the dependence is observed $R(t)=1/G(t)$.
If the gravitational constant changes very quickly down to zero, as Ben51 suggests, then setting $G(t)=1-at,t<1/a, G(t)=0, tge 1/a$ we find the dependence of the radius on time for different $a$. In this case, we observe a rectilinear motion at $G = 0$.
New contributor
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
$letom=omega$
If $G$ varies very slowly, we can use the adiabatic invariants
theorem. In present problem angular momentum is an adiabatic invariant.
Therefore we have
$$L = mu r^2 om = mathrm{const.}$$
where $mu$ is reduced mass:
$$mu = {M,m over M + m}.$$
Then $om=k/r^2$, with $k$ some constant. Third Kepler's law says
$$om^2 r^3 = G,(M + m)$$
and substituting for $om$
$${k^2 over r} = G,(M + m)$$
i.e.
$$r propto {1 over G}.$$
Conclusion: if $G$ decreases, $r$ increases.
1
What would be the justification for why $L$ is an adiabatic invariant?
– N. Steinle
Nov 24 at 21:23
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
$letom=omega$
If $G$ varies very slowly, we can use the adiabatic invariants
theorem. In present problem angular momentum is an adiabatic invariant.
Therefore we have
$$L = mu r^2 om = mathrm{const.}$$
where $mu$ is reduced mass:
$$mu = {M,m over M + m}.$$
Then $om=k/r^2$, with $k$ some constant. Third Kepler's law says
$$om^2 r^3 = G,(M + m)$$
and substituting for $om$
$${k^2 over r} = G,(M + m)$$
i.e.
$$r propto {1 over G}.$$
Conclusion: if $G$ decreases, $r$ increases.
1
What would be the justification for why $L$ is an adiabatic invariant?
– N. Steinle
Nov 24 at 21:23
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
$letom=omega$
If $G$ varies very slowly, we can use the adiabatic invariants
theorem. In present problem angular momentum is an adiabatic invariant.
Therefore we have
$$L = mu r^2 om = mathrm{const.}$$
where $mu$ is reduced mass:
$$mu = {M,m over M + m}.$$
Then $om=k/r^2$, with $k$ some constant. Third Kepler's law says
$$om^2 r^3 = G,(M + m)$$
and substituting for $om$
$${k^2 over r} = G,(M + m)$$
i.e.
$$r propto {1 over G}.$$
Conclusion: if $G$ decreases, $r$ increases.
$letom=omega$
If $G$ varies very slowly, we can use the adiabatic invariants
theorem. In present problem angular momentum is an adiabatic invariant.
Therefore we have
$$L = mu r^2 om = mathrm{const.}$$
where $mu$ is reduced mass:
$$mu = {M,m over M + m}.$$
Then $om=k/r^2$, with $k$ some constant. Third Kepler's law says
$$om^2 r^3 = G,(M + m)$$
and substituting for $om$
$${k^2 over r} = G,(M + m)$$
i.e.
$$r propto {1 over G}.$$
Conclusion: if $G$ decreases, $r$ increases.
answered Nov 24 at 17:05
Elio Fabri
1,704111
1,704111
1
What would be the justification for why $L$ is an adiabatic invariant?
– N. Steinle
Nov 24 at 21:23
add a comment |
1
What would be the justification for why $L$ is an adiabatic invariant?
– N. Steinle
Nov 24 at 21:23
1
1
What would be the justification for why $L$ is an adiabatic invariant?
– N. Steinle
Nov 24 at 21:23
What would be the justification for why $L$ is an adiabatic invariant?
– N. Steinle
Nov 24 at 21:23
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The Satelite Motion can be represented in polar coordinate $r(t)$ and $varphi(t)$
The equations of motion are:
${frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}r left( t right) -r left( t right)
left( {frac {d}{dt}}varphi left( t right) right) ^{2}=-mu,
left( r left( t right) right) ^{-2}
$
$r left( t right) {frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}varphi left( t right)
+2, left( {frac {d}{dt}}r left( t right) right) {frac {d}{dt}}
varphi left( t right) =0
$
$mu$ is proportional to $G$ and $r$ is the satellite radius
We simulate the satellite path ($x=r,cos(varphi),,y=r,sin(varphi)$) with various values of $mu$
Result: If $mupropto G$ decreases, the satellite path increases
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The Satelite Motion can be represented in polar coordinate $r(t)$ and $varphi(t)$
The equations of motion are:
${frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}r left( t right) -r left( t right)
left( {frac {d}{dt}}varphi left( t right) right) ^{2}=-mu,
left( r left( t right) right) ^{-2}
$
$r left( t right) {frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}varphi left( t right)
+2, left( {frac {d}{dt}}r left( t right) right) {frac {d}{dt}}
varphi left( t right) =0
$
$mu$ is proportional to $G$ and $r$ is the satellite radius
We simulate the satellite path ($x=r,cos(varphi),,y=r,sin(varphi)$) with various values of $mu$
Result: If $mupropto G$ decreases, the satellite path increases
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The Satelite Motion can be represented in polar coordinate $r(t)$ and $varphi(t)$
The equations of motion are:
${frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}r left( t right) -r left( t right)
left( {frac {d}{dt}}varphi left( t right) right) ^{2}=-mu,
left( r left( t right) right) ^{-2}
$
$r left( t right) {frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}varphi left( t right)
+2, left( {frac {d}{dt}}r left( t right) right) {frac {d}{dt}}
varphi left( t right) =0
$
$mu$ is proportional to $G$ and $r$ is the satellite radius
We simulate the satellite path ($x=r,cos(varphi),,y=r,sin(varphi)$) with various values of $mu$
Result: If $mupropto G$ decreases, the satellite path increases
The Satelite Motion can be represented in polar coordinate $r(t)$ and $varphi(t)$
The equations of motion are:
${frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}r left( t right) -r left( t right)
left( {frac {d}{dt}}varphi left( t right) right) ^{2}=-mu,
left( r left( t right) right) ^{-2}
$
$r left( t right) {frac {d^{2}}{d{t}^{2}}}varphi left( t right)
+2, left( {frac {d}{dt}}r left( t right) right) {frac {d}{dt}}
varphi left( t right) =0
$
$mu$ is proportional to $G$ and $r$ is the satellite radius
We simulate the satellite path ($x=r,cos(varphi),,y=r,sin(varphi)$) with various values of $mu$
Result: If $mupropto G$ decreases, the satellite path increases
edited Nov 24 at 21:16
answered Nov 24 at 21:09
Eli
43716
43716
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
It will spiral outward.
The simple way to think of an orbit is to consider how long it would take to fall from that distance to the ground. Now give your satellite enough speed "to the side" that by the time it falls that distance it's now to the side of the planet. So the Hitchhiker's Guide is correct, flying is simply throwing yourself at the ground and missing.
So what does this have to do with your question? Well lets say you just instantly make the Earth disappear and its gravity goes to zero. In that case the satellite will still have that sideways velocity you gave it originally. So it will simply fly off into space.
Now thing about just removing half the mass of the Earth. In that case you won't fall as fast, so you'll have too much sideways velocity, and you'll fly off into space - just in a different path.
So if you reduce it smoothly, the orbit will grow larger and larger until the satellite has too much momentum and it just keeps going off into space, when it reaches the new escape velocity.
Note that this consideration only considers the Earth' G changing. Given the orders of magnitude difference in masses between the Earth and any "simple" satellite, even the Moon, the same change to the G of the satellite has little effect on the end result.
Apparently my conclusion agrees with yours. Unfortunately I wasn't able to understand a single word of it.
– Elio Fabri
Nov 24 at 17:09
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
It will spiral outward.
The simple way to think of an orbit is to consider how long it would take to fall from that distance to the ground. Now give your satellite enough speed "to the side" that by the time it falls that distance it's now to the side of the planet. So the Hitchhiker's Guide is correct, flying is simply throwing yourself at the ground and missing.
So what does this have to do with your question? Well lets say you just instantly make the Earth disappear and its gravity goes to zero. In that case the satellite will still have that sideways velocity you gave it originally. So it will simply fly off into space.
Now thing about just removing half the mass of the Earth. In that case you won't fall as fast, so you'll have too much sideways velocity, and you'll fly off into space - just in a different path.
So if you reduce it smoothly, the orbit will grow larger and larger until the satellite has too much momentum and it just keeps going off into space, when it reaches the new escape velocity.
Note that this consideration only considers the Earth' G changing. Given the orders of magnitude difference in masses between the Earth and any "simple" satellite, even the Moon, the same change to the G of the satellite has little effect on the end result.
Apparently my conclusion agrees with yours. Unfortunately I wasn't able to understand a single word of it.
– Elio Fabri
Nov 24 at 17:09
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
It will spiral outward.
The simple way to think of an orbit is to consider how long it would take to fall from that distance to the ground. Now give your satellite enough speed "to the side" that by the time it falls that distance it's now to the side of the planet. So the Hitchhiker's Guide is correct, flying is simply throwing yourself at the ground and missing.
So what does this have to do with your question? Well lets say you just instantly make the Earth disappear and its gravity goes to zero. In that case the satellite will still have that sideways velocity you gave it originally. So it will simply fly off into space.
Now thing about just removing half the mass of the Earth. In that case you won't fall as fast, so you'll have too much sideways velocity, and you'll fly off into space - just in a different path.
So if you reduce it smoothly, the orbit will grow larger and larger until the satellite has too much momentum and it just keeps going off into space, when it reaches the new escape velocity.
Note that this consideration only considers the Earth' G changing. Given the orders of magnitude difference in masses between the Earth and any "simple" satellite, even the Moon, the same change to the G of the satellite has little effect on the end result.
It will spiral outward.
The simple way to think of an orbit is to consider how long it would take to fall from that distance to the ground. Now give your satellite enough speed "to the side" that by the time it falls that distance it's now to the side of the planet. So the Hitchhiker's Guide is correct, flying is simply throwing yourself at the ground and missing.
So what does this have to do with your question? Well lets say you just instantly make the Earth disappear and its gravity goes to zero. In that case the satellite will still have that sideways velocity you gave it originally. So it will simply fly off into space.
Now thing about just removing half the mass of the Earth. In that case you won't fall as fast, so you'll have too much sideways velocity, and you'll fly off into space - just in a different path.
So if you reduce it smoothly, the orbit will grow larger and larger until the satellite has too much momentum and it just keeps going off into space, when it reaches the new escape velocity.
Note that this consideration only considers the Earth' G changing. Given the orders of magnitude difference in masses between the Earth and any "simple" satellite, even the Moon, the same change to the G of the satellite has little effect on the end result.
answered Nov 24 at 16:34
Maury Markowitz
3,324523
3,324523
Apparently my conclusion agrees with yours. Unfortunately I wasn't able to understand a single word of it.
– Elio Fabri
Nov 24 at 17:09
add a comment |
Apparently my conclusion agrees with yours. Unfortunately I wasn't able to understand a single word of it.
– Elio Fabri
Nov 24 at 17:09
Apparently my conclusion agrees with yours. Unfortunately I wasn't able to understand a single word of it.
– Elio Fabri
Nov 24 at 17:09
Apparently my conclusion agrees with yours. Unfortunately I wasn't able to understand a single word of it.
– Elio Fabri
Nov 24 at 17:09
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Let's assume $G$ decreases until it reaches zero, and then stops changing. The way the path looks depends on how quickly $G$ decreases. If the rate of decrease is rapid enough that it takes less than one orbital period (defined before $G$ started changing) to reach zero, you wouldn't really call it a spiral--it's more just a line, curving a bit at first, and then straightening out.
If the rate of decrease is such that it takes about four orbital periods for $G$ to reach zero, the satellite makes a full revolution during that time, ending up heading off on a straight path parallel to the one it was on when $G$ started changing. I'd say it's fair to call the path a spiral for any rate of decrease slower than this. (Well, it's a spiral while $G$ is changing; it's obviously a straight line once $G$ is zero.) If you're good at differential equations, you can presumably show these behaviors analytically; I did it numerically.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Let's assume $G$ decreases until it reaches zero, and then stops changing. The way the path looks depends on how quickly $G$ decreases. If the rate of decrease is rapid enough that it takes less than one orbital period (defined before $G$ started changing) to reach zero, you wouldn't really call it a spiral--it's more just a line, curving a bit at first, and then straightening out.
If the rate of decrease is such that it takes about four orbital periods for $G$ to reach zero, the satellite makes a full revolution during that time, ending up heading off on a straight path parallel to the one it was on when $G$ started changing. I'd say it's fair to call the path a spiral for any rate of decrease slower than this. (Well, it's a spiral while $G$ is changing; it's obviously a straight line once $G$ is zero.) If you're good at differential equations, you can presumably show these behaviors analytically; I did it numerically.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Let's assume $G$ decreases until it reaches zero, and then stops changing. The way the path looks depends on how quickly $G$ decreases. If the rate of decrease is rapid enough that it takes less than one orbital period (defined before $G$ started changing) to reach zero, you wouldn't really call it a spiral--it's more just a line, curving a bit at first, and then straightening out.
If the rate of decrease is such that it takes about four orbital periods for $G$ to reach zero, the satellite makes a full revolution during that time, ending up heading off on a straight path parallel to the one it was on when $G$ started changing. I'd say it's fair to call the path a spiral for any rate of decrease slower than this. (Well, it's a spiral while $G$ is changing; it's obviously a straight line once $G$ is zero.) If you're good at differential equations, you can presumably show these behaviors analytically; I did it numerically.
Let's assume $G$ decreases until it reaches zero, and then stops changing. The way the path looks depends on how quickly $G$ decreases. If the rate of decrease is rapid enough that it takes less than one orbital period (defined before $G$ started changing) to reach zero, you wouldn't really call it a spiral--it's more just a line, curving a bit at first, and then straightening out.
If the rate of decrease is such that it takes about four orbital periods for $G$ to reach zero, the satellite makes a full revolution during that time, ending up heading off on a straight path parallel to the one it was on when $G$ started changing. I'd say it's fair to call the path a spiral for any rate of decrease slower than this. (Well, it's a spiral while $G$ is changing; it's obviously a straight line once $G$ is zero.) If you're good at differential equations, you can presumably show these behaviors analytically; I did it numerically.
answered Nov 24 at 18:12
Ben51
3,167525
3,167525
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
To confirm the hypotheses published by Maury and Elio, we consider the satellite motion model, in which we set $G(t)=1-t/100$
$x''(t) = -G(t)x(t)/(x^2 + y^2)^{3/2}$,
$y''(t) = -G(t)y(t)/(x^2 + y^2)^{3/2}$,
$x(0) = 1, x'(0) = 0, y(0) = 0, y'(0) = 1$.
The results of numerical integration are shown in Fig. 1. Indeed, the satellite spirals away from the Earth, and up to $t=50$, the dependence is observed $R(t)=1/G(t)$.
If the gravitational constant changes very quickly down to zero, as Ben51 suggests, then setting $G(t)=1-at,t<1/a, G(t)=0, tge 1/a$ we find the dependence of the radius on time for different $a$. In this case, we observe a rectilinear motion at $G = 0$.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
To confirm the hypotheses published by Maury and Elio, we consider the satellite motion model, in which we set $G(t)=1-t/100$
$x''(t) = -G(t)x(t)/(x^2 + y^2)^{3/2}$,
$y''(t) = -G(t)y(t)/(x^2 + y^2)^{3/2}$,
$x(0) = 1, x'(0) = 0, y(0) = 0, y'(0) = 1$.
The results of numerical integration are shown in Fig. 1. Indeed, the satellite spirals away from the Earth, and up to $t=50$, the dependence is observed $R(t)=1/G(t)$.
If the gravitational constant changes very quickly down to zero, as Ben51 suggests, then setting $G(t)=1-at,t<1/a, G(t)=0, tge 1/a$ we find the dependence of the radius on time for different $a$. In this case, we observe a rectilinear motion at $G = 0$.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
To confirm the hypotheses published by Maury and Elio, we consider the satellite motion model, in which we set $G(t)=1-t/100$
$x''(t) = -G(t)x(t)/(x^2 + y^2)^{3/2}$,
$y''(t) = -G(t)y(t)/(x^2 + y^2)^{3/2}$,
$x(0) = 1, x'(0) = 0, y(0) = 0, y'(0) = 1$.
The results of numerical integration are shown in Fig. 1. Indeed, the satellite spirals away from the Earth, and up to $t=50$, the dependence is observed $R(t)=1/G(t)$.
If the gravitational constant changes very quickly down to zero, as Ben51 suggests, then setting $G(t)=1-at,t<1/a, G(t)=0, tge 1/a$ we find the dependence of the radius on time for different $a$. In this case, we observe a rectilinear motion at $G = 0$.
New contributor
To confirm the hypotheses published by Maury and Elio, we consider the satellite motion model, in which we set $G(t)=1-t/100$
$x''(t) = -G(t)x(t)/(x^2 + y^2)^{3/2}$,
$y''(t) = -G(t)y(t)/(x^2 + y^2)^{3/2}$,
$x(0) = 1, x'(0) = 0, y(0) = 0, y'(0) = 1$.
The results of numerical integration are shown in Fig. 1. Indeed, the satellite spirals away from the Earth, and up to $t=50$, the dependence is observed $R(t)=1/G(t)$.
If the gravitational constant changes very quickly down to zero, as Ben51 suggests, then setting $G(t)=1-at,t<1/a, G(t)=0, tge 1/a$ we find the dependence of the radius on time for different $a$. In this case, we observe a rectilinear motion at $G = 0$.
New contributor
New contributor
answered Nov 24 at 19:34
Alex Trounev
1465
1465
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |