Centripetal acceleration problem (box sitting on a table)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the forces acting on a box resting on a table in both inertial and non-inertial frames. In an inertial frame, the box experiences zero net force due to the balance of gravitational and normal forces. However, when considering the Earth's rotation, the box is subject to centripetal acceleration, which alters the force balance, resulting in a slight excess of gravitational force over the normal force. The key point is that the rotating frame of the Earth is non-inertial, requiring the introduction of fictitious forces like centrifugal force to accurately describe the situation. This distinction clarifies the apparent contradiction in the force analysis.
Physics guy
Messages
23
Reaction score
10
Let me imagine a box placed on a table. It has got no acceleration. If I were a person who trusted Newton's laws then I would argue that the net force on the box should be zero. Now in another situation I am an observer outside the Earth and I see that the box is rotating along with the earth, so it should have a centripetal acceleration and gravity provides it...but in the previous case, gravity was canceled by the normal reaction. So shouldn't the centripetal force also be zero. Please explain where I went wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You've got the right intuition, but let's iron a few things out. :biggrin:

For a minute, forget about the Earth. Just imagine an idealised flat, rigid surface of infinite extent. Impose a uniform gravitational field ##-g \hat{\mathbf{y}}##. The book sitting on the table has its weight exactly canceled by the normal force exerted by the table, to satisfy the equilibrium condition.

If the Earth wasn't rotating, that would be a pretty good local model. In fact, even though the Earth is rotating, the rate of rotation is sufficiently slow that this is an approximately correct model.

But we might want to think about a different, maybe more accurate, model in which the Earth has non-zero rotational speed. To simplify the description, imagine the table is at the equator. As you correctly deduced, the net force on the book must now be non-zero and pointing toward's the Earth's centre, in order to provide the necessary acceleration ##\rho \omega^2## toward the centre. In other words, the magnitude of the weight will slightly exceed the magnitude of the normal force.

These two descriptions aren't in contradiction, simply because they're not describing the same scenario. The assumptions that underly the two models are different. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics guy said:
Let me imagine a box placed on a table. It has got no acceleration. If I were a person who trusted Newton's laws then I would argue that the net force on the box should be zero. Now in another situation I am an observer outside the Earth and I see that the box is rotating along with the earth, so it should have a centripetal acceleration and gravity provides it...but in the previous case, gravity was canceled by the normal reaction. So shouldn't the centripetal force also be zero. Please explain where I went wrong.
Newton's Laws apply to inertial frames. The rotating rest frame of the Earth is not exactly inertial. To make Newton's 2nd Law applicable there, you have to introduce inertial forces (here Centrifugal force):

Rotating rest frame of the Earth:
Gravity + Centrifugal + Normal = 0

Inertial frame where the Earth rotates:
Gravity + Normal = Centripetal

See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame
 
  • Like
Likes Physics guy and vanhees71
To go along with what @A.T. said, in the non-inertial local frame you have the fictitious centrifugal force and the gravitational force. Since they are both proportional to mass you can simply add them together to get an overall “effective” g. This effective g will change from place to place over the globe.
 
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444 and vanhees71
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top