not an astrophysistastrophycist astrophysicist , so what do I know
But wouldn't the ability to maintain an orbit be a function mass as well as speed? Even if it was a decaying orbit?
Or did I just answer my own question? A smaller object (or would it be more correct to say, object with smaller gravitational effect?) would have to be moving faster than a larger slower moving object to share an orbit around the sun..
Damn, if I just learned something I'm gonna need my money back from hexbear dot net. :troll:
But wouldn’t the ability to maintain an orbit be a function mass as well as speed?
Nope. It doesn't matter if it's a feather or a brick. If you apply an equal force to objects of different mass, the less massive object will accelerate more - however - the amount of force exerted by gravity depends on the mass of the objects. A larger object will produce more gravitational force, but it requires more force to accelerate. A smaller object will produce less gravitational force, but requires less force to accelerate.
The mass of the object gets canceled out in the equation, leaving you only with the mass of the other object (i.e. the planet being orbited/fallen towards) and the distance between them.
Also not an astral physician, but I think actually no. Using the moon as an example, I'm pretty sure we technically orbit the moon, while the moon orbits us. It pulls us back and forth as it orbits around us, and that balances out since it comes from all directions. If you trace the Earth's orbit around the sun close enough we should be moving in a slightly wobbly or spiraly shape. I think since gravity pulls equally on all matter, a satellite and a planet with the same speed and direction would have the same orbit, and to mess with that you would have to increase our mass to the point where we were affecting the sun's orbit. But please don't make Earth massive enough to seriously affect the sun's orbit, because no one would ever be able to break the high jump record again.
not an
astrophysistastrophycistastrophysicist , so what do I knowBut wouldn't the ability to maintain an orbit be a function mass as well as speed? Even if it was a decaying orbit?
Or did I just answer my own question? A smaller object (or would it be more correct to say, object with smaller gravitational effect?) would have to be moving faster than a larger slower moving object to share an orbit around the sun..
Damn, if I just learned something I'm gonna need my money back from hexbear dot net. :troll:
Nope. It doesn't matter if it's a feather or a brick. If you apply an equal force to objects of different mass, the less massive object will accelerate more - however - the amount of force exerted by gravity depends on the mass of the objects. A larger object will produce more gravitational force, but it requires more force to accelerate. A smaller object will produce less gravitational force, but requires less force to accelerate.
The mass of the object gets canceled out in the equation, leaving you only with the mass of the other object (i.e. the planet being orbited/fallen towards) and the distance between them.
Also not an astral physician, but I think actually no. Using the moon as an example, I'm pretty sure we technically orbit the moon, while the moon orbits us. It pulls us back and forth as it orbits around us, and that balances out since it comes from all directions. If you trace the Earth's orbit around the sun close enough we should be moving in a slightly wobbly or spiraly shape. I think since gravity pulls equally on all matter, a satellite and a planet with the same speed and direction would have the same orbit, and to mess with that you would have to increase our mass to the point where we were affecting the sun's orbit. But please don't make Earth massive enough to seriously affect the sun's orbit, because no one would ever be able to break the high jump record again.