Timeline for Path equation, radial trajectory not defined?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 24, 2019 at 11:49 | vote | accept | Dabruh | ||
| Dec 24, 2019 at 11:48 | answer | added | user250178 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 20:39 | answer | added | alephzero | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 20:34 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | The LHS of that erxpression is also ill-defined for a radial trajectory as $d\theta$ is zero along the path. | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 20:33 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | @Thomas Radial trajectories are orbits within the definition used in the context of central force motion (though they are problematic in some cases for spaceflight). | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 20:31 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited tags; edited tags
|
| Dec 23, 2019 at 20:29 | comment | added | Triatticus | That right there is the key, this ODE is assuming a nonzero angular momentum | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 20:27 | comment | added | Dabruh | Probably, however I taught that it might be because the angular momentum with respect to the origin (mass that produces the force field) is always zero for an object falling radially inwards. And when deriving the path equation, we made the assumption that the angular momentum is constant, but not zero. | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 20:23 | comment | added | Thomas Abshier | Would it be because a body falling inwards is not in orbit, and thus does not fall inside the limits of the applicability of the equation? | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 20:20 | history | asked | Dabruh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |