Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Gravitational Potential Energy. What is it exactly?

In the thread

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=34462&page=all

it has become clear that ImagingGeek and preearth need the definition of gravitational potential energy, nailed down tight.

Lets see a definition,... and lets discuss what the concept is useful for.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Last I heard you have to choose an arbitrary zero point. In school you say "on the ground" is zero potential energy. But if you dig a hole in the ground that something can fall into, you can redefine the zero to be the bottom of the hole, or go to negative potential energies.

It doesn't actually matter, because like most potentials you only calculate measurable quantities using the difference between two potentials, or the gradient, or something that is unaffected by where your arbitrary zero point is.

For atomic electrons I think they choose zero to be infinitely far away, that way bound electrons always have negative potential energies. But it doesn't matter because you only ever subtract the potential energies at different places.

It's meaningless to say "I have xJ of gravitational potential energy".


Last edited by kallog; 06/11/10 03:51 AM.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: kallog
Last I heard you have to choose an arbitrary zero point. In school you say "on the ground" is zero potential energy. But if you dig a hole in the ground that something can fall into, you can redefine the zero to be the bottom of the hole, or go to negative potential energies.

It doesn't actually matter, because like most potentials you only calculate measurable quantities using the difference between two potentials, or the gradient, or something that is unaffected by where your arbitrary zero point is.

For atomic electrons I think they choose zero to be infinitely far away, that way bound electrons always have negative potential energies. But it doesn't matter because you only ever subtract the potential energies at different places.

It's meaningless to say "I have xJ of gravitational potential energy".

I would agree with all of that;

In particular, I am glad you pointed out that;

"The choice of zero point doesn't actually matter, because like most potentials you only calculate measurable quantities using the difference between two potentials." and;

"It's meaningless to say "I have x Joules of gravitational potential energy".


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Below I've tried to put together a reasonable definition of gravitational potential energy.

If you disagree with anything, just say so.

Gravitational Potential.

Let A and B be two points in space.

Suppose, work is required to move a mass, M, from point A to point B.

Then, we say that there is a gravitational potential difference between A and B and that B has the higher potential.

We define the gravitational potential difference between (the mass M at) A and (the same mass at) B to be the work required to move the mass M from A to B.

Note that, we have defined only the potential difference between two points.

To define some sort of potential at a point A, we need to define it with respect to some fixed point Z.

It is convenient to define the potential to be zero at the chosen point Z.

We define the gravitational potential (of the mass M at) at A (with respect to Z) to be the work required to move the mass M from A to Z.

In celestial mechanics;

1) The point Z is chosen to be an infinite distance from any bodies of interest.

2) Z is generally called infinity.

3) The value of the gravitational potential at infinity is defined to be zero.

So, the gravitational potential (of the mass M) at A (with respect to infinity) is the work required to move the mass M from A to infinity.

Now, lets introduce a second mass, m.

We define the mutual gravitational potential energy of the two masses, at a distance r, to be the work required to bring them to a distance r apart, from an infinite initial separation.

What exactly, is the amount of this work?

The gravitational force between the two, at a distance x apart, is;

F = [G * M * m]/x^2

The work done in bringing them from an infinite initial separation, to a distance r, is;

W = Integral F.dx (the integral is from r to infinity)

= [G * M * m] Integral 1/x^2 dx

= [G * M * m] [-1/x] (evaluated from r to infinity)

= - [G * M * m]/r

So the mutual gravitational potential energy, U, of the two masses, at a distance r apart, is given by the formula;

U = - [G * M * m]/r

It is the energy required to bring the masses to a distance r apart, from an infinite initial separation.

Last edited by preearth; 06/11/10 09:26 AM.

Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: preearth
Below I've tried to put together a reasonable definition of gravitational potential energy.

No, you haven't. You derived the formula for gravitational potential from the formula for gravitational force, without understanding what it is your final formula means, or how it is used.

And, as kellog already pointed out, it is dependent on your reference point.

The scientifically accepted definition of Gravitational potential energy (GPE from now on) is the potential energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. The calculation of GPE for a static point can be interpreted as the potential energy lost as an object moves from infinity to its current position (this is why GPE is always negative). But when moving masses in a gravitational field, changes in GPE represent energy released or consumed in that movement.

So where you are making your mistake is in how gravitational potential energy can be used to determine the energy released/consumed when moving and object from one position in a gravitational field to another - and since we're talking about moving objects this value is critical.

In the case of a moving object - which is exactly what your two merging planets are - the difference in GPE from the start/end points represents the amount of energy (not potential energy) released (if moving closer to the reference point), or consumed (if moving away from the reference point).

Gravitational potential energy = U = -G*m1*m2/r, where r is the distance separating the object from the reference point.

And now where you've gone wrong - the reference point and how potential energy changes based on changes in its position relative to a reference point.

------------------------------------------

We have your two masses - lets call them 'A' (with a mass of mA) and 'B' (with a mass of mB), whose centers of mass are separated by distance 'r'. The gravitational potential energy of 'B', relative to 'A' is equal to: U = -[G*mA*mB]/r

[G*mA*mB] will be a constant in our system - G and the mass of our planets do not change. For the sake of simplicity, lets pretend that [G*mA*mB] = 1, and r is 1m. This means we have a potential energy of: U = -1/1m = -1J.

Keep in mind that negative sign - its important, and where you are going wrong.

Lets pretend we now move B closer to A such that they are half as far apart as they were before:
U = -1/0.5m
U = -2J

We've had a change in potential energy of:
deltaU = U(initial) - U(final)
deltaU = [-1J] - [-2J] = 1J

So in moving B 0.5m closer to A we release 1J worth of potential energy, which we can use to preform work. In the case of gravity, this work will be in the form of gravitational acceleration, meaning that B will now have a kinetic energy of 1J, relative to A. In other words, when you move two objects towards each other in a gravitational field the gravitational potential energy gets converted into work - as in you can then use that work to do stuff - say destroy a planet.

-----------------------------------

Now, what if we do the opposite - move B away from A, to a distance of 2m?
U = -1/2m
U = -0.5J

deltaU = [-1J] - [-0.5J] = -0.5J

Note the negative sign. This means we've had to add potential energy to move B farther away from A, which means we've had to use work to move B.

Now, what about your case of separating things to infinity:
U = -1/infinity
U = 0J

deltaU = -1J-0J = -1J

So to separate our two planets to infinity, we would have to do 1J worth of work. In other words, when you move two objects away from each other in a gravitational field, you must preform work to separate two masses.

--------------------------------------

The above shows where you went wrong in this, and the other, thread. In looking back I realize it was partly my fault - I assumed as a self-professed mathematician you would understand the impact of inverse relationships and how GPE translates into energy, and thus skipped the (obvious to me) deltaU calculation.

For that I apologize - but it doesn't change the fact you are wrong, and the numbers I calculated were correct.

In fact, I was overly generous and gave you a huge amount of wiggle room, in terms of the amount of movement - and thus the change in GPE (and thus the amount of energy released).

Going back to the original thread, where we had two massive planets immediately juxtaposed to each other. The gravitational potential energy of that initial state was -5.95 X 10^31 J. Since gravity is acting on the system, those two planets are drawn together. As you can see from the above examples, that means that after the merger the GPE will be even more negative, and the difference in GPE will represent the work done on the planet. Since the relationship is an inverse one...well, we'll get back to that.

The exact amount of work that gets conducted depends on just how far the two centers of mass can move before equilibrium is achieved (i.e. they merge to form a new center of mass). As I stated (and you never disagreed) they would move in ~50% of the way, simply because they are 2 ~equal spheres moving, and thus their merged center of mass should be at a point roughly where they first meet.

Keep in mind, GPE is essentially -a/r, where a is a constant determined by the (unchanging) mass in the system and the (unchanging) gravitational constant. So a movement of 50% the radius would mean the change in GPE is deltaU = -a - [-a/0.5] = -a - -2a = a.

Which is the value I used in my explanation. I assumed a self-professed mathematician would be aware of the impact of inverse relationships - apparently I was wrong.

So to go back to the point I made in the last thread - in your system, starting with the two planets touching and NO OTHER ENERGY, and assuming the center of mass of the final planet is located roughly where the two planets first meet, you will release 5.95 X 10^31 J of energy due to the change in gravitational potential energy.

Whining that if you were to apply 5.95 X 10^31 J of energy you would separate the masses to infinity is pointless - we're not pushing these things apart; gravity is moving them together.

Bryan

Last edited by ImagingGeek; 06/11/10 03:51 PM.

UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Gravitational potential energy = U = -G*m1*m2/r, where r is the distance separating the object from the reference point.

And now where you've gone wrong - the reference point and how potential energy changes based on changes in its position relative to a reference point.

You truly are weird.

I think you are a propagandist. You are definitely not a scientist in the true sense of the word.

Don't get me wrong,... I sorta like you.

Anyway, your statement;

"Gravitational potential energy = U = -G*m1*m2/r, where r is the distance separating the object from the reference point."

is obviously nonsense.

In case you don't see the obvious nonsense; It doesn't make sense to talk about a distance r from the reference point to two different points.

Why don't you correct that first and we will go from there.

I can't wait to see your ramblings on the other thread.

The opening of the Indian Ocean.



Yet another cool animation, eh?

From:
http://preearth.net/

Last edited by preearth; 06/11/10 11:37 PM.

Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
You morons are editing my posts.

You stupid jerks can go to hell.

I will not bother with your site again.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I can no more edit your posts than you can edit mine.

I think I speak for us all when I say "don't let the door hit you on the way out"

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I think you speak for yourself , bryan.
this man has a idea , if it is or is not fully understood by you is your problem not his.

further , your inability to understand the least of his concepts does not translate into your inteligence , nor does it show that he is incorrect.

Quote:
I think I speak for us all when I say "don't let the door hit you on the way out"


well should you ever cross that threshold bryan , I for one
would make sure the door lock was changed and you were not given a key.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: paul
I think you speak for yourself , bryan.


Well paul, in post 34511 and 34514 you agreed with me - his model is a physical impossibility.

Now I think you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I wasnt talking about his hypothesis , bryan.

I was talking about your claim below.

Quote:
I think I speak for us all when I say "don't let the door hit you on the way out


you dont speak for me or anyone else in this forum.

you may imagine or think that you do.

but you dont.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: paul
I think you speak for yourself , bryan.

this man has an idea, if it is or is not fully understood by you, is your problem not his.

further, your inability to understand the least of his concepts does not translate into your intelligence , nor does it show that he is incorrect.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
I think I speak for us all when I say "don't let the door hit you on the way out"

well should you ever cross that threshold bryan , I for one would make sure the door lock was changed and you were not given a key.
.

Hi Paul;

I have started up my own bulletin board at:

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?st=365&search_id=active_topics

See if there are any topics that interest you.

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?st=365&search_id=active_topics

Virtually no one has made use of this board and am wondering if it is fully functional.

Would you be kind enough to leave a few comments so I can see that all is O.K.


It certainly seems functional from where I am.

Thanks a lot.

Paul, you have not bothered to leave any comment at

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?st=365&search_id=active_topics

Is there a reason for this?


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Paul, how about a comment, or two, from you for my little forum

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?st=365&search_id=active_topics

It longs for your presence.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: preearth
You morons are editing my posts.

You stupid jerks can go to hell.

I will not bother with your site again.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
I can no more edit your posts than you can edit mine.

I think I speak for us all when I say "don't let the door hit you on the way out"

Bryan

You certainly spoke for me, Bryan. FYI, you might want to use this link to ignore the offending user:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=toggleignore&User=3062


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
.
Charming. You must be really scared of something.

Last edited by preearth; 07/08/10 10:14 AM.

Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: redewenur

You certainly spoke for me, Bryan. FYI, you might want to use this link to ignore the offending user:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=toggleignore&User=3062


But why would I want to ignore him? Its fun, beating the trolls. Its really fun when they're like preearth - all the denial, conspiracy-ism, etc.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Well yes, Bryan, do enjoy. There's a dearth of dead horses these days so by all means flog away. Though I were Murray Gell-Mann, there'd be nothing I could add to convince pre that he's barking up the wrong tree, so I'll go play with Jaws - he's my dog (I'm sure he'd love to eat meet pre).


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
preearth. It is a long time since the last post on this thread, but if you are still looking at this site, there is one thing I would like to say. I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician, so I struggle with a lot of your exchanges with Bryan and others. However, I like to consider opinions that are outside the norm.

Elsewhere, some time ago, I made a comment about Louis Savain (www, rebelscience.org)

"My feeling is that Savain has something interesting to say, for this reason I think it is sad that his sniping, ad hominem style of attack is distinctly off-putting, and seriously detracts from any real insights he might have to offer".

Its sad, but I feel that this comment also applies to you.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
"My feeling is that Savain has something interesting to say, for this reason I think it is sad that his sniping, ad hominem style of attack is distinctly off-putting, and seriously detracts from any real insights he might have to offer".


I think that behaviour shows an inability to understand other people's points of view or be critical of their own. If somebody has that way of thinking, then it's doubtful they'll actually produce any good ideas because they won't be able to critically examine their own ideas. I suppose you might get one flash of insight that happens to be right without making any adjustments. But hardly ever!

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
I wonder if the Geek has figured out exactly what "gravitational potential energy" is yet.

I doubt it.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5