Panos <neurobio@ath.forthnet.

gr> writes:

>If the only force applied between a planet and the Sun is gravity, why
>don't planets crush into the Sun in a spiral orbit ?

To a good first approximation, one can ignore the finite size of the
planet, the finite size of the sun, and the perturbations from other planets.
Other perturbations such as light pressure and the solar wind are truly
negligible. The motion is therefore (to a good first approximation) that
of a point mass moving in a gravitational potential proportional to 1/R
(i.e., a force proportional to 1/R^2). Isaac Newton showed that the
orbits in such a field can be ellipses, but not spirals.

>Does their initial velocity have anything to do with it ?

Yes. It determines whether the orbit is circular, elliptical, parabolic,

hyperbolic, or along a straight line. Planets are thought to have had
approximately circular orbits when they first came into existence.

>Must all the satellites to have such a velocity to keep their orbit ?

I can't make sense out of this question. Would you care to rephrase it?
--
Ben Carter internet address: bpc@netcom.com

The velocity tangent to Sun exactly balances the gravity attraction

perpendicular to the motion, so the free-falling body stays in a
circular path until disturbed enough by a new force to lose its stable
orbit. All satellites in the same orbit will need the same speed,
regardless of their mass. Some comets do not have enough radial
velocity and they do crush into Sun.

Dear Panos:
The planets ARE always falling towards the sun (otherwise, they'd be
making a bee-line out of the solar system). But they don't spiral in (much)
because there's no drag on them. When there IS drag, as of artificial
satellites in lower orbits around the earth, those satellites do indeed
spiral in.
Yes initial velocity has much to do with it. Angular momentum is
conserved.

The short answer is "yes" it is entirely dependent on a planet, or in fact

any body in orbit about another, having a specific velocity at a specific
point in its orbital position. It is also dependent on there being no
atmosphere or equivalent through which the orbiting object must move thus
experiencing friction which would slow it down and cause it to fall inwards
eventually impacting the body about which it was in orbit.

Objects in orbit are often said to be "in free fall" and in fact that is a
very apt description of their state. Imagine an airless, perfectly smooth,
body the size of the Earth upon which is standing a very strong space
suited experimenter. He/she throws an object parallel to the surface uon
whcih they are standing. The object is pulled by gravity towards the centre
of this "earth" and falls in a parabolic arc. If it is thrown with modest
speed it lands relatively close to the experimenter but as the force of the
throw increases the distance it travels increases. But the surface of the
planet is spherical so as distance away from the starting point increases
the distance the thrown object must fall increases because of the curvature
of the surface. If the experimenter has superhuman strength or some sort of
"launching mechanism" which allows the thrown object to be thrown at a very
great speed then the objacts downward curved path as it falls doesn't curve
fast enough to hit the surface and instead it falls endlessly in an orbit
about the planet. Of course to put something into orbit about the real
Earth we need to take it high enough to get it outside the atmosphere so we
can't out something in orbit at chest height. On the Moon we would have to
get high enough off the surface to clear the mountains.

-- Regards --
sidlee@agt.net
Sid Lee - Calgary, Alberta, Canada (51d N, 114d West)