Earth's rotation and gravitation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion addresses the distinction between centripetal force and gravitational force, clarifying that centripetal force is not a separate force but rather a description of any force directed towards the center of a rotating system. It explains that at the equator, the normal force is reduced due to the Earth's rotation, which creates a net centripetal force acting inward. If the Earth were not rotating, the normal force would equal the gravitational force. The concept of centrifugal acceleration is introduced, indicating that while gravitational and centrifugal forces act in opposite directions, they can be considered together in a noninertial frame. Ultimately, the normal force decreases as the rotational speed of the Earth increases, potentially leading to objects being thrown off if the speed is high enough.
quasi426
Messages
207
Reaction score
0
I don't understand why the physics book defines the centripetal force and gravitational force acting in different directions.

N - m*(acceleration of gravity) = -m*r*w^2

N = m*(acceleration of gravity) - m*r*w^2

Why don't the acceleration of gravity and centripetal acceleration add up? I would think that the normal force would be greater near the equator since there is both gravitational and centripetal forces in the same direction. But the book says the opposite. Thanks for the help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Centripetal force is not a kind of force, it is just the name given to any force that pulls towards the center of some rotating system. (Centripetal just indicates the direction of the force, not the source of the force. It's similar to saying that a force acts horizontally or vertically. Centripetal means "towards the center".)

In the case of an object at the equator, the net centripetal force is just the net force acting towards the center. If the Earth didn't rotate, then there would be zero acceleration and N = mg. But the Earth does rotate, so there must be a net force acting centripetally on the object. Thus the normal force is less. If the Earth starting spinning faster and faster, at some point the object would be thrown off--the normal force would go to zero.

Looked at from the noninertial frame of the rotating Earth you can say that there is a centrifugal acceleration on the object that acts to pull the object away from the center. (Centrifugal means "away from the center".) So you could say that the acceleration due to gravity and the centrifugal acceleration add up, but they act in opposite directions.
 
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top