That tower question (1 Viewer)

Sindivyn

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
194
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Did people put the object dropped from the tower at the equator will orbit the earth, and stay motionless relative to the tower? I've spoken to 30ish people about it, everyone had something different :(
 

EinstenICEBERG

Einstein V2
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
220
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
for me.. Tower A dropped faster than tower B as the pole is closer to the center of the Earth thus higher g value. Also at tower A, the orbital motion of Earth, makes it drop down in a parabolic motion like Newton's thought experiment, and in tower A it is in earth's rotational motion, thus is will head towards the easterly direction. hopes that right ^^
 

cartoonmaiz

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
95
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
I talked about the variation in the acceleration due to gravity and lightly touched on the vertical and horizontal motions being independent...
 

machine2035

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
65
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
I said orbit, but to tell you the truth I had NFI and just wrote total baloney.
 

nucgaek

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
68
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Pretty sure it was

Tower A: It fell right onto the north pole

Tower B: It stayed at the point of release, acting as a geostationary satellite would.

Explain a bit on why Tower A is not geostationary... should be 4. Too bad I'll be lucky to get one :O
 

Demise

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Messages
636
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
I talked about both the change in the Earths gravitational at different places, but the question also specifically said at identical heights (geostationary), so I said consistent acceleration saying that they'll both fall at the same rate of 9.8ms-2 and would reach the earth at the same time.
 

Demise

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Messages
636
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Pretty sure it was

Tower A: It fell right onto the north pole

Tower B: It stayed at the point of release, acting as a geostationary satellite would.

Explain a bit on why Tower A is not geostationary... should be 4. Too bad I'll be lucky to get one :O
Both where at Geostationary points. If one stayed up, so would the other one.
 

Sindivyn

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
194
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Pretty sure it was

Tower A: It fell right onto the north pole

Tower B: It stayed at the point of release, acting as a geostationary satellite would.

Explain a bit on why Tower A is not geostationary... should be 4. Too bad I'll be lucky to get one :O
Yeah, that's pretty much what I had, since it would be released at the same velocity of a geostationary satellite.
 

Sindivyn

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
194
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Both where at Geostationary points. If one stayed up, so would the other one.
The mass on the tower on the equator would have a higher velocity than earth's rotation, allowing it to stay up and orbit. The mass on the tower of the north pole has no velocity relative to earth though
 

Kimyia

Active Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
1,013
Gender
Female
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2016
Bahaha had no idea so just wrote BS for most of it
 

nucgaek

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
68
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
The mass on the tower on the equator would have a higher velocity than earth's rotation, allowing it to stay up and orbit. The mass on the tower of the north pole has no velocity relative to earth though
It's exactly why all geostationary satellites must be above the equator... At the north pole there's nothing keeping them up there.
 

chriss95

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
63
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
but if you drop it straight down shouldn't it just fall straight down? I don't understand how it could stay in orbit. He's not projecting it horizontally.
 

Sindivyn

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
194
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
but if you drop it straight down shouldn't it just fall straight down? I don't understand how it could stay in orbit. He's not projecting it horizontally.
The earth spins at a (fairly) constant rate, the further away an attached object is from earth, the faster it moves. Therefore, it has a velocity relative to earth, allowing it to enter orbit through centripetal force.

That's my understanding anyway
 

nucgaek

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
68
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
but if you drop it straight down shouldn't it just fall straight down? I don't understand how it could stay in orbit. He's not projecting it horizontally.
For tower B, it is undergoing orbital velocity due to the spin of earth on its axis
 

clarg

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
52
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
but if you drop it straight down shouldn't it just fall straight down? I don't understand how it could stay in orbit. He's not projecting it horizontally.
The rotational velocity keeps it in a orbit lower than Geostationary - at least thats what I said for tower B.
 

LifeBoats

Wizard.
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
169
Location
Dunder Mifflin
Gender
Female
HSC
2012
I talked about both the change in the Earths gravitational at different places, but the question also specifically said at identical heights (geostationary), so I said consistent acceleration saying that they'll both fall at the same rate of 9.8ms-2 and would reach the earth at the same time.
This, indeed!
 

Automatia

New Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
19
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Unless the tower was like 35800km high, the object would fall down, except a bit to the left of the tower due to the rotation of the earth. It does NOT keep it geostationary.
Well the tower was that high because the question said that the towers were as high as a geostationary orbit. The mass at the pole has no velocity and so falls down to earth. The mass at the equator has a 24 hour period because of earths rotation speed and so had the velocity required for a geostationary orbit.
 

iampeterr

King
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
198
Location
west
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2016
i talked about how earth isn't a perfect sphere, so the gravitational acceleration is different around the earth. tower A would of reached the surface first .. i think.
 

nucgaek

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
68
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Unless the tower was like 35800km high, the object would fall down, except a bit to the left of the tower due to the rotation of the earth. It does NOT keep it geostationary.
the question said "at the height of a geostationary sattelite"... isn't that 35800km?
 

barbernator

Active Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
1,439
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Well the tower was that high because the question said that the towers were as high as a geostationary orbit. The mass at the pole has no velocity and so falls down to earth. The mass at the equator has a 24 hour period because of earths rotation speed and so had the velocity required for a geostationary orbit.
lol shit
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top