Calculating the gravitational accelleration on the surface of a planet

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating gravitational acceleration on Earth's surface using the law of universal gravitation. The formula a = G * (m/r^2) yields an acceleration close to 9.8 m/s², aligning with accepted values. However, the Earth's non-uniform density and its varying radius from equator to poles affect this acceleration, leading to slight variations. Additionally, the Earth's rotation contributes to differences in gravitational acceleration, being higher at the equator than at the poles. The precision of gravitational acceleration is often simplified to avoid confusion regarding location-specific values.
dimensionless
Messages
460
Reaction score
1
Why doesn't this force give the gravitational acceleration on the surface of the earth?

a = G \cdot \frac{m}{r^2}

I would think that it could be derived from the law of universal gravitation:

F = G \cdot \frac{m_1 \cdot m_2}{r^2}

Since F = m_2 a
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
When you put in the right numbers, the accelaration should come to around 9.8ms^-2.
 
It does. I get g = 9.79 m/s^2 using your formula and accepted data for the mass and radius of the Earth.

For more accuracy, the fact the density of the Earth is not spherically symmetric has to be taken into account.
 
It seems I screwed my units up. I had 9.77e6 m/s^2. I should have had 9.77 m/s^2.

New question:

The Earth's radius is larger at the equator that from pole to pole. Does the acceleration due to gravity vary from, say, 9.77 m/s^2 to 9.83 m/s^2?
 
Yes, and it also varies because the velocity from Earth's rotation is higher at the equator, and 0 at the poles. This adds to the effect.

This is also probably the reason that you don't see g expressed as more digits. If instead of calling it 9.8 you called it 9.81756423, then you'd have to specify where on Earth you were talking about.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top