- #1

- 14

- 0

Does anyone know a simple formula to calculate the acceleration of gravity underwater?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Charlie Kay
- Start date

- #1

- 14

- 0

Does anyone know a simple formula to calculate the acceleration of gravity underwater?

- #2

- 14

- 0

When m=body's mass, rhoA=fluid density, rhoB=body density, g=gravity, x=displacement, t=time, Cd=drag coefficient, V=body volume and A=body area

Help??!

- #3

SteamKing

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 12,798

- 1,670

What makes you think that the acceleration due to gravity is different underwater?Does anyone know a simple formula to calculate the acceleration of gravity underwater?

- #4

SteamKing

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 12,798

- 1,670

And where did you get this formula?

When m=body's mass, rhoA=fluid density, rhoB=body density, g=gravity, x=displacement, t=time, Cd=drag coefficient, V=body volume and A=body area

Help??!

- #5

- 14

- 0

a) there is more drag underwater and b)why, have you seen it before?

- #6

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 27,211

- 11,182

What makes you think that the acceleration due to gravity is different underwater?

This. Ever see a movie set on a submarine? That's underwater, and the gravity looks normal.

- #7

CWatters

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 10,535

- 2,301

a) there is more drag underwater...

True but that's nothing to do with gravity.

I think your original question is wrong. I think what you are asking is.. What is the net vertical force (eg the sum of weight and buoyancy) ?

- #8

- 362

- 26

Eureka !

- #9

- 31,506

- 8,232

The acceleration due to gravity is g, by definition. That equation you have is the net force due to gravity + buoyancy + drag.

When m=body's mass, rhoA=fluid density, rhoB=body density, g=gravity, x=displacement, t=time, Cd=drag coefficient, V=body volume and A=body area

Help??!

- #10

- 135

- 63

- #11

nasu

Gold Member

- 3,777

- 433

The sea level is just a convenient reference level. You can be under the sea level but not underwater. Or way above the sea level and underwater.

It would be misleading to attribute the change in g due to altitude change to being (or not) "underwater".

- #12

- 224

- 35

- #13

- 135

- 63

The sea level is just a convenient reference level. You can be under the sea level but not underwater. Or way above the sea level and underwater.

It would be misleading to attribute the change in g due to altitude change to being (or not) "underwater".

Thanks that's pretty much what I figured. I knew that the presence of water wouldn't matter, I was just curious as to the sea level reference. I understand that it's simply the reference point that was chosen when they calculated the gravitational constant. I guess my question was more along the lines of "is the difference in gravitational force at the bottom of the Mariana's trench and the peak of Mt. Everest (because point A is closer to the center of the earth's mass than point B; the water of course is irrelevant) significant enough to factor into calculations?

- #14

nasu

Gold Member

- 3,777

- 433

And also, on what is the accuracy of the other parameters entering the calculation.

- #15

SteamKing

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 12,798

- 1,670

Thanks that's pretty much what I figured. I knew that the presence of water wouldn't matter, I was just curious as to the sea level reference. I understand that it's simply the reference point that was chosen when they calculated the gravitational constant. I guess my question was more along the lines of "is the difference in gravitational force at the bottom of the Mariana's trench and the peak of Mt. Everest (because point A is closer to the center of the earth's mass than point B; the water of course is irrelevant) significant enough to factor into calculations?

This article has a discussion on the variation of g due to various factors, including altitude and latitude:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

At the top of Mt. Everest for instance (approx. 9000 m above sea level), the value of g is about 0.29% lower than g measured at sea level. At the altitude the Space Shuttle formerly orbited, about 400 km above the surface, g was still about 90% of its value at sea level. There is a relatively simple formula to calculate g at altitude.

Going in the other direction, the variation of g with depth is a little trickier to calculate, because you must account for the mass of whatever solid (or liquid) material lies between the measurement depth and sea level. See more about this in the discussion of the Shell Theorem.

- #16

davenn

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 9,537

- 8,567

simply the reference point that was chosen when they calculated the gravitational constant

careful with your choice of words there

Gravitational Constant = G = approximately = 6.674×10

acceleration due to gravity ( eg at Earth's surface) = g = ~9.81 m/s

which is the one being discussed

Dave

- #17

- 135

- 63

I stand corrected. Thank you sir. You're right, poor choice of words on my part. And SteamKing thanks for satisfying my curiosity!careful with your choice of words there

Gravitational Constant = G = approximately = 6.674×10^{−11}N⋅m^{2}/kg^{2}a whole different thing

acceleration due to gravity ( eg at Earth's surface) = g = ~9.81 m/s^{2}

which is the one being discussed

Dave

- #18

- 14

- 0

When I said underwater I mean deep, as in 11,000 m below sea level!

- #19

- 17,500

- 9,234

When I said underwater I mean deep, as in 11,000 m below sea level!

With ##M## as the mass of the Earth, ##R## the radius and assuming uniform density, the force of gravity a distance ##r## from the centre of the Earth, with ##r< R##, is given by:

##\frac{GMr}{R^3}##

It would be a good exercise to derive this equation for yourself.

- #20

nasu

Gold Member

- 3,777

- 433

This is pretty deep for diving or submarines.When I said underwater I mean deep, as in 11,000 m below sea level!

But for change in gravity is not much. You compare 11 km with the radius of the Earth which is around 6,400 km. About 0.2%.

You should not expect a significant change. As g goes like r^2, the change in g may be some 0.4% or about 0.04 m/s^2.

- #21

- 17,500

- 9,234

This is pretty deep for diving or submarines.

But for change in gravity is not much. You compare 11 km with the radius of the Earth which is around 6,400 km. About 0.2%.

You should not expect a significant change. As g goes like r^2, the change in g may be some 0.4% or about 0.04 m/s^2.

As above, ##g## actually changes linearly with ##r## inside a solid sphere.

- #22

nasu

Gold Member

- 3,777

- 433

There may be some corrections if we are looking at a deep narrow oceanic valley but I intended just an estimation of the effect that 11 km will have on g.

It also apply if you go up 11 km.

If you are going inside, the effect is smaller by a factor of 2, in first approximation. But I don't think is relevant here.

- #23

- 17,500

- 9,234

There may be some corrections if we are looking at a deep narrow oceanic valley but I intended just an estimation of the effect that 11 km will have on g.

It also apply if you go up 11 km.

If you are going inside, the effect is smaller by a factor of 2, in first approximation. But I don't think is relevant here.

The Earth is solid, in the sense that it's not hollow. In any case, outside the surface gravity varies as ##1/r^2##, but inside the Earth gravity varies as ##r##. That's the critical point.

- #24

nasu

Gold Member

- 3,777

- 433

One more time, I was not talking about what happens inside the Earth.

And I don't contest the (1/r) r dependence inside a solid, homogeneous, perfectly spherical Earth.

However, if you want to estimate the effect of going on the bottom of the ocean, a large, shallow deep in the crust rather than a narrow pith, I don't think that the 1/r applies.

There is no solid material above you. The 1/r^2 is also not exactly true. The dependence is more complicated. But it was just an order of magnitude estimate.

The difference between (1/r) r and 1/r^2 is less than an order of magnitude for that small difference so it does not even matter.

If you want to be very accurate, the (1/r) r does not even work for the real Earth, at that depth. g increases as you go down in the crust, for at least 11 km.

On the average, of course.

Edit. Corrected error (replaced 1/r by r) after observed by Perok.

And I don't contest the (1/r) r dependence inside a solid, homogeneous, perfectly spherical Earth.

However, if you want to estimate the effect of going on the bottom of the ocean, a large, shallow deep in the crust rather than a narrow pith, I don't think that the 1/r applies.

There is no solid material above you. The 1/r^2 is also not exactly true. The dependence is more complicated. But it was just an order of magnitude estimate.

The difference between (1/r) r and 1/r^2 is less than an order of magnitude for that small difference so it does not even matter.

If you want to be very accurate, the (1/r) r does not even work for the real Earth, at that depth. g increases as you go down in the crust, for at least 11 km.

On the average, of course.

Edit. Corrected error (replaced 1/r by r) after observed by Perok.

Last edited:

- #25

- 17,500

- 9,234

One more time, I was not talking about what happens inside the Earth.

And I don't contest the 1/r dependence inside a solid, homogeneous, perfectly spherical Earth.

However, if you want to estimate the effect of going on the bottom of the ocean, a large, shallow deep in the crust rather than a narrow pith, I don't think that the 1/r applies.

There is no solid material above you. The 1/r^2 is also not exactly true. The dependence is more complicated. But it was just an order of magnitude estimate.

The difference between 1/r and 1/r^2 is less than an order of magnitude for that small difference so it does not even matter.

If you want to be very accurate, the 1/r does not even work for the real Earth, at that depth. g increases as you go down in the crust, for at least 11 km.

On the average, of course.

Okay. But, it's not ##1/r## inside a sphere. It's ##r##.

I'd be interested in the calculations that show that ##g## increases as you go down into the crust. How far do you have to go down before gravity does indeed begin to decrease?

Share:

- Replies
- 19

- Views
- 8K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 3K