Can the shape of Earth affect its weight and gravity?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Volcano
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth Shape Weight
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of Earth's shape (geoid) and rotation on weight and gravitational acceleration. Participants explore theoretical implications and mathematical representations related to these factors, with a focus on understanding how they interact and influence each other.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about formulas to compute the effect of Earth's geoid shape on weight, assuming a non-rotating Earth.
  • There is a suggestion that Earth's rotation decreases weight, with a noted effect being smaller at the poles compared to the equator.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about how the shape of the Earth affects weight, proposing a fill-in-the-blank approach to understand the relationship.
  • Another participant explains that weight is slightly smaller at the equator due to the larger radius compared to the poles, emphasizing that the effects of rotation and shape do not cancel each other out.
  • A hypothetical scenario is presented where a non-rotating planet retains a geoid shape, discussing how gravity decreases with distance from the center and providing a numerical example to illustrate this point.
  • It is noted that the basic rule of gravity decreasing with distance applies primarily to spherical objects, and that non-spherical objects require a more complex representation of the gravity field.
  • One participant reflects on their understanding of how the gravity field changes with Earth's shape and rotation, expressing dissatisfaction with existing approaches and seeking clarification on the relationship between density, radius, and gravitational acceleration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the relationship between Earth's shape, rotation, and weight. There is no consensus on the best way to understand or calculate these effects, indicating that multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their understanding of how the shape of the Earth influences gravitational acceleration, with some mathematical representations being questioned for their applicability to non-spherical objects.

Volcano
Messages
147
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Which formula may help to compute the effect to weight due to geoid shape of earth? I assume Earth is not rotating.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe i couldn't explain well. In other words; rotating of Earth and shape(geoid) both effects the accelerate(g).

1. The rotating is decreasing weight and i can understand this.

2. Shape of earth. I am not sure to understand the effect of this.

Say, fill in the blanks.

-* The shape of Earth effects the weight. So, weight is bigger than equator because ......

it is closer? It is far? ... What??

ps: is my question too easy to ask(stupid) or hard or unknown or else could not explain my question.
 
1. The rotating decreases the weight of an object on Earth surface. The effect of rotating is smaller if you are closer to the poles.
2. The weight is slightly smaller in equator because the Earth radius there is somewhat larger than that at the poles.

The two effects do not cancel each other.
 
It was difficult to picture the Earth being oblong if it's not rotating. However, if you were on a non-rotating planet of the same size and mass as the Earth, and this planet was not rotating, but for some reason still kept its geoid shape (and the density variations that go with it), then the basic rule is that gravity (and therefore weight) decreases by the square of the distance. In this case, the square of the distance between the center of the Earth and an object on the surface.

If you take a person as an example, then let us suppose that we use some unit of measure that fits exeactly 1,000 times in between that person and the center of the planet, when that person stands at the poles. Assume that when the person moves to the Equator, the distance between their feet and the center of the planet increases to 1,002 (same units of measure). Then their distance has increased by 2/1,000 (.2%). If we also use some unit of measure for weight so that the person weighs exactly 100 something-or-others at the pole, then they will weigh .4% less (.2%2), or 999.6 s/o at the equator.

BTW, these numbers are generated ex posteriori, and do not reflect the actual eccentricity of the Earth's shape.
 
Last edited:
LURCH said:
However, if you were on a non-rotating planet of the same size and mass as the Earth, and this planet was not rotating, but for some reason still kept its geoid shape (and the density variations that go with it), then the basic rule is that gravity (and therefore weight) decreases by the square of the distance. In this case, the square of the distance between the center of the Earth and an object on the surface.
That "basic rule" is only true for spherical objects. For non-spherical objects you need to use a more complex form, typically a spherical harmonic representation of the Earth's gravity field.
 
Thanks to everybody,

I read that weight is changing with rotating velocity of Earth and shape of it too. Rotating effect is more understandable for me. But the shape is not easy to understand for me.

As i know, the gravity field(g) is increasing linear until Earth's surface but then decreases by the square of the distance. Now, pole and equator both on surface but both has different diameters. Then i ask myself, which physical reality can tell me the effect of shape(different radius) to gravity field. Honestly, non of approach what i know, didn't satisfied me. Then thought that the time to ask physicsforums.

In this case, D_H's opinion is more close my thought. I mean,

Code:
g = G [tex]\frac{ M  m }{R^{2}}[/tex]

Code:
g = K d R  (d: dencity, R: Radius, K: constant )

both equates above will not explain the effect to accelerate the shape of world.

If i understand wrong, please warn me.

Thank you very much
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
19K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K