free fall ellipse or parabola? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCoriolis force in free fallContainer of liquid in free fallFree fall from spaceMimicking Free FallFree Fall with Air ResistanceFree fall around EarthFree fall of stonesVelocity of a body in free fallFree fall in a centrifugal space ship?The maths of free fall and near free fall

IC has pull-down resistors on SMBus lines?

Easy to read palindrome checker

TikZ: How to fill area with a special pattern?

What does "shotgun unity" refer to here in this sentence?

Is it correct to say moon starry nights?

Players Circumventing the limitations of Wish

What steps are necessary to read a Modern SSD in Medieval Europe?

Getting Stale Gas Out of a Gas Tank w/out Dropping the Tank

"Eavesdropping" vs "Listen in on"

Is it ok to trim down a tube patch?

What difference does it make using sed with/without whitespaces?

Is there a reasonable and studied concept of reduction between regular languages?

(How) Could a medieval fantasy world survive a magic-induced "nuclear winter"?

What is the difference between "hamstring tendon" and "common hamstring tendon"?

Defamation due to breach of confidentiality

Computationally populating tables with probability data

What happened in Rome, when the western empire "fell"?

Help/tips for a first time writer?

Is it okay to majorly distort historical facts while writing a fiction story?

Would a grinding machine be a simple and workable propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft?

Help understanding this unsettling image of Titan, Epimetheus, and Saturn's rings?

Is it ever safe to open a suspicious HTML file (e.g. email attachment)?

Why don't programming languages automatically manage the synchronous/asynchronous problem?

Is there a way to save my career from absolute disaster?



free fall ellipse or parabola?



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCoriolis force in free fallContainer of liquid in free fallFree fall from spaceMimicking Free FallFree Fall with Air ResistanceFree fall around EarthFree fall of stonesVelocity of a body in free fallFree fall in a centrifugal space ship?The maths of free fall and near free fall










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











$endgroup$
















    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











    $endgroup$














      1












      1








      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 48 mins ago









      Aaron Stevens

      13.7k42250




      13.7k42250










      asked 1 hour ago









      user56930user56930

      174




      174




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          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









          $endgroup$













            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









            4












            $begingroup$

            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









            $endgroup$

















              4












              $begingroup$

              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









              $endgroup$















                4












                4








                4





                $begingroup$

                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 1 hour ago









                Cort AmmonCort Ammon

                24k34779




                24k34779



























                    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

                    Reverse int within the 32-bit signed integer range: [−2^31, 2^31 − 1]Combining two 32-bit integers into one 64-bit integerDetermine if an int is within rangeLossy packing 32 bit integer to 16 bitComputing the square root of a 64-bit integerKeeping integer addition within boundsSafe multiplication of two 64-bit signed integersLeetcode 10: Regular Expression MatchingSigned integer-to-ascii x86_64 assembler macroReverse the digits of an Integer“Add two numbers given in reverse order from a linked list”

                    Category:Fedor von Bock Media in category "Fedor von Bock"Navigation menuUpload mediaISNI: 0000 0000 5511 3417VIAF ID: 24712551GND ID: 119294796Library of Congress authority ID: n96068363BnF ID: 12534305fSUDOC authorities ID: 034604189Open Library ID: OL338253ANKCR AUT ID: jn19990000869National Library of Israel ID: 000514068National Thesaurus for Author Names ID: 341574317ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

                    Kiel Indholdsfortegnelse Historie | Transport og færgeforbindelser | Sejlsport og anden sport | Kultur | Kendte personer fra Kiel | Noter | Litteratur | Eksterne henvisninger | Navigationsmenuwww.kiel.de54°19′31″N 10°8′26″Ø / 54.32528°N 10.14056°Ø / 54.32528; 10.14056Oberbürgermeister Dr. Ulf Kämpferwww.statistik-nord.deDen danske Stats StatistikKiels hjemmesiderrrWorldCat312794080n790547494030481-4