Energy conservation for a point at the Earth's surface

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the potential energy differences experienced by a mass at the Earth's equator during day and night, specifically at noon and midnight. It highlights that while there is a difference in potential energy due to the Earth's rotation and position relative to the Sun, this energy difference is balanced by energy transfer within the Earth system. The conversation emphasizes that as a mass moves from the dark side to the light side, it gains energy, which is compensated by the equivalent mass on the light side. Additionally, the effects of gravitational forces from the Moon and their role in tidal energy generation are mentioned. Overall, the key takeaway is that energy conservation holds true when considering the entire Earth-Sun system rather than isolated masses.
Kamikaze_951
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

This is my first post here and I am really sorry for that question, but I have found the answer nowhere.

Consider a mass at the Earth's equator that is static in the Earth's referential during an entire day. Put the Earth at one of its equinoxes to simplify the problem. Then, at noon, the potential energy due to the sun of a mass m at that point is :

E_p noon = -GMm/(distance Sun-Earth - radius of Earth)

At midnight,

E_p midnight = -GMm/(distance Sun-Earth + radius of Earth)

Clearly, there is a difference in potential energy. By energy conservation, it should be balanced (by another kind of periodic energy variation). However, if the mass stand on solid ground, its rotation speed is the Earth rotation speed and it should be constant during the day (not going up and down) and therefore, the difference in kinetic energy is null.

My questions : What balances this difference in potential energy? Is there a mistake in my reasoning?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have only got half the rotation of course ... when you do a whole rotation the net energy change is zero.

Not happy? Well that really just means that, wherever the energy went, we got it back.

As a mass "falls" from the dark side of the Earth towards the light side (towards the sun) is gains energy which goes into "lifting" the equivalent mass on the light side into the dark side. Since the masses are balanced, and they are connected by the rest of the Earth, there is no gain or loss.

You get the same for any rotation in gravity ... or any conservative force field.
 
Your post just made me realize that I considered the wrong system (Sun+mass rather than Sun+Earth) and forgot to take into account the energy transfer between two masses of the same system.

Your answer was very helpful and I thank you a lot for it.
 
No worries - it's actually a very common mistake.
 
If you look at force differences of this size, keep in mind that the Earth orbits the sun, which leads (in the reference frame of earth) to a centrifugal force outwards - "down" at day and "up" at night.

Note that the effect of variable gravitational forces is bigger if you use the moon. Tides exist due to these differences, and there are power plants which use those tides.
 
The OP's question assumes an unbalanced earth, which is wrong.
 
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