Value of g on Earth with a smaller radius

AI Thread Summary
If the Earth's radius were reduced by half while maintaining the same mass, the gravitational acceleration (g) at the surface would increase to four times its current value. The initial calculation incorrectly suggested a factor of 0.25 due to confusion between the gravitational force at different radii. The correct approach involves comparing the gravitational equations before and after the radius change, leading to the conclusion that g_new equals 4 times g_old. This highlights the significant impact of radius on gravitational force. Understanding these relationships can clarify complex gravitational concepts.
Jimmy25
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
What would be the value of g if the radius of the Earth was decreased by half while maintaining the same mass.

This is what I did

g = MG / R^2

g = MG / (0.5R)^2

g = MG / 0.25R^2

0.25g = MG / R^2

I know this is not correct and the actual answer is 4g because as you get closer to the center of the Earth the gravitational force will increase but I cannot figure out why this attempt is wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Jimmy25! :smile:

(try using the X2 tag just above the Reply box :wink:)
Jimmy25 said:
What would be the value of g if the radius of the Earth was decreased by half while maintaining the same mass.

g = MG / 0.25R^2

0.25g = MG / R^2

Why did you put that 0.25 on the LHS? :confused:
 
What you have initially is the gravitational acceleration due to the Earth while you're at the surface, or at a distance R. You then manipulated the equation to ask not what the value of g would be at the surface if the radius was half as large, but what would the value of the acceleration be at that same distance R if the radius was half as large.

What I would do is setup a ratio, g' and g, where g' is at the surface of some planet with radius R' with the same mass, but then take R' = 0.5R and divide the two equations.
 
you confuse the values of g before and after the shrinking of the earth

you have g_old = MG/R^2

now g_new is MG/(0.5*R)^2

and (0.25)*g_new = MG/R^2 = g_old so

g_new = 4*g_old, as expected
 
willem2 said:
(0.25)*g_new = MG/R^2 = g_old so

g_new = 4*g_old, as expected

Ok I see. So gold was equal to one quarter gnew

Thanks, was racking my brain over this one. Sometimes the simplest question can be the most challenging.
 
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...
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 .
Back
Top