So, is it correct to measure centrafugal force due to a planet's rapid orbit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter calis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Gravity
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the effects of centrifugal force due to a planet's rapid orbit and rotation, particularly focusing on Earth and the exoplanet Corot-7b. It calculates that Earth would need to spin in 84 minutes for gravity at the equator to be counteracted by centrifugal force, which currently exerts a force of 0.039g. Corot-7b, being much closer to its star and spinning rapidly, experiences a centrifugal force of 14.8g, leading to significant gravitational variations across its surface. The gravity difference between the sun-facing side and the opposite side of Corot-7b is minimal, but the extreme conditions create unique physical experiences for any potential inhabitants. Overall, while centrifugal force can be measured, it is crucial to consider the gravitational pull from the star when assessing its effects.
calis
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Hello
i was concerned about how fast should Earth spin so that on equator gravity would be 0 due to centrafugal force i got 84 minutes - full spin

since it is more like 24 hours than on equator currently centrafugal force is 0,039g
but there is also one smaller centrafugal force coming from orbiting the sun and it is 0.005g
non feelable. barely measurable...

the problem is that the closer you get to host star the biger the centrafugal force from rotating the star become. for mercury it is 0,04g

but there is also a smallest known planet corot-7b with 1.7 Earth diameters slightly denser and 23 times closer to its star than mercury to sun. which makes it have its full year ONLY in 20hours and 29 minutes
it turns out that spining so fast makes a centrafugal effect of 14,8g which is abolutelly enormous well the planets gravity is still slightly bigger 16g
but this fact is bringing in some weird consequences

1. the planet is most likely face locked.
2. the gravity at the backside is 1.2 g
3. the gravity at the front side is 30.8g WOW
4. the funniest thing is what the gravity at the sides are
it is actually somewhere inbetween but it is not pointing down but at an angel away from star.
so it would feel like climbing down a hill. now if you happen to have a bicycle and you are at the dayside . you can always take a ride to night side just releasing the brakes.

is it correct measuring centrafugal force due to planets rapid orbit.

i used formula for calculating gravity from centrafugal force like this
g=R*(pi*rpm/30)^2 where R-radius in meters, rpm -ratePerMinute
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
If a planet is in orbit around a sun, there is no net "outward force". Remember there is the gravity of the Sun to account for. It is like the object sitting at the equator with the Earth rotating in 84 min. The tendency to fly off is canceled by the gravity pulling in.

That is not to say that there would not be a difference between the Sun facing side and its opposite, but this would be due to their different distances from the Sun. For Corot-7b this works out to a difference of less than 2/100 g.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top