Hydrostatic equilibirum in slowly rotating star

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the equation of Newtonian hydrostatic equilibrium for slowly rotating stars, as presented in James B. Hartle's article. The equation incorporates pressure, density, angular velocity, and gravitational potential, suggesting a complex interplay of forces. The user has successfully derived the equilibrium for non-rotating stars but seeks guidance on incorporating centrifugal forces. Suggestions include comparing the problem to the Bernoulli equation to facilitate understanding. The conversation highlights the challenge of integrating rotational dynamics into hydrostatic equilibrium.
Vrbic
Messages
400
Reaction score
18
Hello, in article Slowly relativistic stars by James B. Hartle (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967ApJ...150.1005H) is equation of Newtonian hydrostatic equilibrium, eq. (5). $$const.=\int_0^p\frac{dp}{\rho}-1/2(\Omega \times r)^2+\Phi,$$ where ##p## is pressure, ##\rho## is desinty, ##\Omega## angular velocity of star and ##\Phi## is graviational potential.
How may I derive it? I can derive eq. for hydrostatic equilibrium of non rotating star, but here is in result only potetntial and it suggests some other start than I know.
My idea is that all forces have to be in equilibrium, so if I take some small piece of matter let's call it ##dm##. Than $$Fp_b-Fp_t+Fg+Fc=0,$$ where ##Fp_b## is preassure force from the bottom, ##Fp_t## is preassure force from the top of ##dm##, ##Fg## is gravitational force and ##Fc## is centrifugal force. But how to proceed further, I'm not sure.
Can anybody suggest something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Vrbic said:
Hello, in article Slowly relativistic stars by James B. Hartle (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967ApJ...150.1005H) is equation of Newtonian hydrostatic equilibrium, eq. (5). $$const.=\int_0^p\frac{dp}{\rho}-1/2(\Omega \times r)^2+\Phi,$$ where ##p## is pressure, ##\rho## is desinty, ##\Omega## angular velocity of star and ##\Phi## is graviational potential.
How may I derive it? I can derive eq. for hydrostatic equilibrium of non rotating star, but here is in result only potetntial and it suggests some other start than I know.
My idea is that all forces have to be in equilibrium, so if I take some small piece of matter let's call it ##dm##. Than $$Fp_b-Fp_t+Fg+Fc=0,$$ where ##Fp_b## is preassure force from the bottom, ##Fp_t## is preassure force from the top of ##dm##, ##Fg## is gravitational force and ##Fc## is centrifugal force. But how to proceed further, I'm not sure.
Can anybody suggest something?
Try comparing it with the Bernoulli equation.
 
  • Like
Likes Vrbic
haruspex said:
Try comparing it with the Bernoulli equation.
Aha, thank you.
 
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?

Similar threads

Back
Top