Calculating equatorial velocity

  • Thread starter Thread starter awygle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Velocity
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the confusion in calculating Earth's equatorial velocity. The initial calculation using Rω yielded approximately 465 m/s, which aligns with known values. However, a second calculation using the centripetal acceleration formula resulted in an incorrect value of around 8000 m/s. The error stems from misapplying the centripetal acceleration formula, as it assumes a scenario where weight provides the necessary centripetal force for an object in orbit just above the Earth's surface. Additionally, the gravitational acceleration 'g' is not constant and varies, further complicating the calculations.
awygle
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I'm confused about some results I've been getting. I tried calculating the equatorial velocity of Earth by the equation R\varpi=v, and I got ~465 m/s. According to various resources, this is correct. But then I tried to calculate it again, using g=a_{c}=\frac{v^{2}}{R}, and I got ~8000 m/s.

Obviously, the second is wrong. My question is why? My only guess is that maybe g doesn't work as a_{c} in this case due to the normal force from the Earth or something of the sort, but that seems a weak explanation...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's wrong because the equation is not the correct one to use.
You have calculated the speed an object would have to travel in orbit around the Earth if its path was literally just above the surface. In other words, its centripetal force was provided by its weight.
 
earth has both rectilinear and rotatory motion.but you take a=v^2/r.so your assumption is wrong.
 
hi,friend in your equation how we have take a=g.that is for surface on Earth and although 'g' is not constant at all.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top