Crude geometric estimation or am I missing something?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the Earth's radius by measuring the time difference in sunsets from a cliff. The user questions whether multiplying the change in time by the Earth's circumference divided by 24 hours provides the correct distance traveled along the Earth's circumference, rather than the value L suggested in their professor's method. They seek clarification on whether this approach can still serve as a crude estimate for L and what geometric principles may be overlooked. The user also shares their calculations involving the Pythagorean theorem and angular measurements to derive the radius. Overall, the thread emphasizes the importance of understanding geometric relationships in estimating the Earth's radius.
neolayman
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I'm doing a report for a physics lab experiment where we are calculating the radius of the Earth by measuring the time it takes to see the sunset from the base of a cliff looking out into the pacific ocean till when it sets in relation to an observer at the top of the cliff. The picture I attached shows the diagram and the initial setup on how to find the radius of the Earth with the pythagorean theorem, but in yellow where it suggests how to find the value L, I'm thinking that multiplying the change in time by the circumference of the Earth divided by 24 hours would really give me the distance traveled along the circumference of the earth, not L. Please let me know if I'm right about that and if so can you tell me if and how it might still be used as a crude estimate for L by my professor? If I'm wrong please let me know what geometric rule I'm missing to help me out.



Homework Equations



See attached

The Attempt at a Solution



Part 1 here covers that.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry, I guess the attachment function doesn't work on this site. Here's the image:
zzz.jpg
 
Without the approximations, if the time difference between sunsets is t, then the angle subtended by the sun is \theta=\omega t.

From the figure you get,

(R+h)sin\theta=R

R=\frac{hsin\theta}{1-sin\theta}

You also know,
\omega=\frac{2\pi}{24\times 60\times 60}

and that \theta=\omega t

as \theta is very small, sin\theta=\theta (approximately).

This gives you (after substituting and rearranging)

R=\frac{12\times 3600}{\pi}-h (approximately)
 
The angle theta that I've taken is 90-theta in the figure.
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
24K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Back
Top