free fall ellipse or parabola?












4












$begingroup$


Herbert Spencer somewhere says that the parabola of a ballistic object is actually a portion of an ellipse that is indistinguishable from a parabola--is that true? It would seem plausible since satellite orbits are ellipses and artillery trajectories are interrupted orbits.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    4












    $begingroup$


    Herbert Spencer somewhere says that the parabola of a ballistic object is actually a portion of an ellipse that is indistinguishable from a parabola--is that true? It would seem plausible since satellite orbits are ellipses and artillery trajectories are interrupted orbits.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      4












      4








      4


      1



      $begingroup$


      Herbert Spencer somewhere says that the parabola of a ballistic object is actually a portion of an ellipse that is indistinguishable from a parabola--is that true? It would seem plausible since satellite orbits are ellipses and artillery trajectories are interrupted orbits.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Herbert Spencer somewhere says that the parabola of a ballistic object is actually a portion of an ellipse that is indistinguishable from a parabola--is that true? It would seem plausible since satellite orbits are ellipses and artillery trajectories are interrupted orbits.







      newtonian-mechanics gravity orbital-motion projectile free-fall






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 2 hours ago









      Aaron Stevens

      13.7k42250




      13.7k42250










      asked 2 hours ago









      user56930user56930

      324




      324






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8












          $begingroup$

          The difference between the two cases is the direction of the gravity vector. If gravity is pulling towards a point (as we see in orbital mechanics), ballistic objects follow an elliptical (or sometimes hyperbolic) path. If, however, gravity points in a constant direction (as we often assume in terrestrial physics problems: it pulls "down"), we get a parabolic trajectory.



          On the timescales of these trajectories that we call parabolic, the difference in direction of gravity from start to end of the flight is so tremendously minimal, that we can treat it as a perturbation from the "down" vector and then ignore it entirely. This works until the object is flying fast enough that the changing gravity vector starts to have a non-trivial effect.



          At orbital velocities, the effect is so non-trivial that we don't even try to model it as a "down" vector plus a perturbation. We just model the vector pointing towards the center of the gravitational body.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            For the orbital model, the magnitude of the vector changes (as $1/r^2$) as well as the direction.
            $endgroup$
            – NLambert
            25 mins ago












          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "151"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469780%2ffree-fall-ellipse-or-parabola%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          8












          $begingroup$

          The difference between the two cases is the direction of the gravity vector. If gravity is pulling towards a point (as we see in orbital mechanics), ballistic objects follow an elliptical (or sometimes hyperbolic) path. If, however, gravity points in a constant direction (as we often assume in terrestrial physics problems: it pulls "down"), we get a parabolic trajectory.



          On the timescales of these trajectories that we call parabolic, the difference in direction of gravity from start to end of the flight is so tremendously minimal, that we can treat it as a perturbation from the "down" vector and then ignore it entirely. This works until the object is flying fast enough that the changing gravity vector starts to have a non-trivial effect.



          At orbital velocities, the effect is so non-trivial that we don't even try to model it as a "down" vector plus a perturbation. We just model the vector pointing towards the center of the gravitational body.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            For the orbital model, the magnitude of the vector changes (as $1/r^2$) as well as the direction.
            $endgroup$
            – NLambert
            25 mins ago
















          8












          $begingroup$

          The difference between the two cases is the direction of the gravity vector. If gravity is pulling towards a point (as we see in orbital mechanics), ballistic objects follow an elliptical (or sometimes hyperbolic) path. If, however, gravity points in a constant direction (as we often assume in terrestrial physics problems: it pulls "down"), we get a parabolic trajectory.



          On the timescales of these trajectories that we call parabolic, the difference in direction of gravity from start to end of the flight is so tremendously minimal, that we can treat it as a perturbation from the "down" vector and then ignore it entirely. This works until the object is flying fast enough that the changing gravity vector starts to have a non-trivial effect.



          At orbital velocities, the effect is so non-trivial that we don't even try to model it as a "down" vector plus a perturbation. We just model the vector pointing towards the center of the gravitational body.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            For the orbital model, the magnitude of the vector changes (as $1/r^2$) as well as the direction.
            $endgroup$
            – NLambert
            25 mins ago














          8












          8








          8





          $begingroup$

          The difference between the two cases is the direction of the gravity vector. If gravity is pulling towards a point (as we see in orbital mechanics), ballistic objects follow an elliptical (or sometimes hyperbolic) path. If, however, gravity points in a constant direction (as we often assume in terrestrial physics problems: it pulls "down"), we get a parabolic trajectory.



          On the timescales of these trajectories that we call parabolic, the difference in direction of gravity from start to end of the flight is so tremendously minimal, that we can treat it as a perturbation from the "down" vector and then ignore it entirely. This works until the object is flying fast enough that the changing gravity vector starts to have a non-trivial effect.



          At orbital velocities, the effect is so non-trivial that we don't even try to model it as a "down" vector plus a perturbation. We just model the vector pointing towards the center of the gravitational body.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The difference between the two cases is the direction of the gravity vector. If gravity is pulling towards a point (as we see in orbital mechanics), ballistic objects follow an elliptical (or sometimes hyperbolic) path. If, however, gravity points in a constant direction (as we often assume in terrestrial physics problems: it pulls "down"), we get a parabolic trajectory.



          On the timescales of these trajectories that we call parabolic, the difference in direction of gravity from start to end of the flight is so tremendously minimal, that we can treat it as a perturbation from the "down" vector and then ignore it entirely. This works until the object is flying fast enough that the changing gravity vector starts to have a non-trivial effect.



          At orbital velocities, the effect is so non-trivial that we don't even try to model it as a "down" vector plus a perturbation. We just model the vector pointing towards the center of the gravitational body.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 2 hours ago









          Cort AmmonCort Ammon

          24.1k34779




          24.1k34779












          • $begingroup$
            For the orbital model, the magnitude of the vector changes (as $1/r^2$) as well as the direction.
            $endgroup$
            – NLambert
            25 mins ago


















          • $begingroup$
            For the orbital model, the magnitude of the vector changes (as $1/r^2$) as well as the direction.
            $endgroup$
            – NLambert
            25 mins ago
















          $begingroup$
          For the orbital model, the magnitude of the vector changes (as $1/r^2$) as well as the direction.
          $endgroup$
          – NLambert
          25 mins ago




          $begingroup$
          For the orbital model, the magnitude of the vector changes (as $1/r^2$) as well as the direction.
          $endgroup$
          – NLambert
          25 mins ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469780%2ffree-fall-ellipse-or-parabola%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Contact image not getting when fetch all contact list from iPhone by CNContact

          count number of partitions of a set with n elements into k subsets

          A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks