Gravitation/circular motion problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moebius
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Motion
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the linear speed of a point on the Earth's equator due to its rotation, with a provided radius of 6.4 * 10^6 meters. The calculated speed is 465 m/s, but confusion arises regarding the use of the equation a = v^2/r, which leads to a different result. Participants clarify that the acceleration in this equation represents centripetal acceleration, not gravitational acceleration, which affects weight. They explain that if centripetal acceleration equaled gravitational acceleration, one would experience weightlessness. Understanding the distinction between these forces is crucial for solving the problem correctly.
Moebius
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello, I'm having a problem with the concept of one question, which goes like this:

Calculate the linear speed of a point on the Earth's equator due to the Earth's rotation.

They gave the radius of Earth on the equator as 6.4 * 10^6..

Therefore,
v = (2r * 6.4 * 10^6) / (24 * 3600)
= 465 m/s

My question is this:

Why can't we use the equation a = v^2/r to solve this question?

As in 9.8 = v^2/(6.4 * 10^6)
v^2 = (9.8)(6.4 * 10^6)
v = root of [(9.8)(6.4 * 10^6)]

The answer is different, and I don't really understand why. Would anyone explain this for me?

Thanks in advance. :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by Moebius
They gave the radius of Earth on the equator as 6.4 * 10^6..

Therefore,
v = (2r * 6.4 * 10^6) / (24 * 3600)
= 465 m/s

My question is this:

Why can't we use the equation a = v^2/r to solve this question?

As in 9.8 = v^2/(6.4 * 10^6)
v^2 = (9.8)(6.4 * 10^6)
v = root of [(9.8)(6.4 * 10^6)]

The answer is different, and I don't really understand why. Would anyone explain this for me?

Gravity pulls you towards earth; acceleration due to spinning actually tries to throw you away from the earth.
 
How much do you weigh?


Not trying to be nosy- just making the point that IF the acceleration due to gravity were precisely what is needed to keep you moving at the speed of rotation of the earth, the "net" downward force on you would be 0- you would weight nothing!

(I don't know about you but that is definitely not true for me!)
 
Originally posted by HallsofIvy
Not trying to be nosy- just making the point that IF the acceleration due to gravity were precisely what is needed to keep you moving at the speed of rotation of the earth, the "net" downward force on you would be 0- you would weight nothing!

That's actually how satelites, the space station, and space shuttles stay seemingly weightless.
 
Originally posted by Moebius
Why can't we use the equation a = v^2/r to solve this question?

As in 9.8 = v^2/(6.4 * 10^6)
v^2 = (9.8)(6.4 * 10^6)
v = root of [(9.8)(6.4 * 10^6)]
That "a" is the centripetal acceleration that you experience just standing "still". As Halls and ShawnD point out, that is not the acceleration due to gravity, g.

If you ignore the Earth's rotation, you would presume that you are in equilibrium when you are standing still. That means downward force (gravity) is balanced by the upward force (Normal force of the ground pushing you up).

If you include the Earth's rotation, you are no longer in equilibrium. You are now centripetally accelerated. So the forces no longer balance: the normal force pushing you up is less. That's why your apparent weight is less. As Halls said, if the Earth were spinning fast enough so that the centripetal acceleration equaled g, then there would be zero normal force: You'd be floating around. (That's what is meant by the term "weightless".)
 
Kwaze Moto
 
Last edited:
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top