How Does Earth's Shape Affect Gravity at Different Locations?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the percent difference in gravitational acceleration (g) at the poles versus the equator, assuming Earth is a perfect sphere with a 4000-mile radius. The initial conclusion is that the percent change in g would be zero, as a spherical model does not account for variations. However, participants note that if Earth were treated as an oblate spheroid, there would be a slight difference in g due to its shape. Additionally, the impact of centripetal acceleration at the equator is mentioned, suggesting that the problem's wording might limit the inclusion of this factor. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of accurately modeling Earth's gravity based on its shape.
atomicpedals
Messages
202
Reaction score
7

Homework Statement



Taking the Earth to be a sphere of 4000mi radius, compute the percent difference in g (the acceleration due to gravity) at the poles and the equator.


The Attempt at a Solution



If we assume the Earth is a sphere with a given radius, then shouldn't the percent change in g be zero?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
yes indeed - something missing in the problem formulation?
 
The problem as it appears in the text is "Taking the Earth to be a sphere of 4000 miles radius, compute the percent difference in g, the acceleration due to gravity, at the poles and equator."

So as stated I it's zero. However, as every-other question has required much much more I thought I was missing something!

Were the question to consider the Earth as it is (an oblatespheroid) there would be a small difference.
 
I'll just give the good old g=-(GM/r^2).
 
atomicpedals said:
The problem as it appears in the text is "Taking the Earth to be a sphere of 4000 miles radius, compute the percent difference in g, the acceleration due to gravity, at the poles and equator."

So as stated I it's zero. However, as every-other question has required much much more I thought I was missing something!

Were the question to consider the Earth as it is (an oblatespheroid) there would be a small difference.

Maybe factor in the difference in centripital acceleration? The wording of the problem would seem to exclude that, but I don't see any other difference offhand. If they said "the apparent acceleration due to gravity", it would be easier to include that other term...
 
That's a reasonable point to add in (w \times r)
 
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...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top