What causes the centripetal acceleration of the earth?

AI Thread Summary
Centripetal acceleration on Earth is caused by the net force resulting from gravity and the normal force acting on a person. While gravity pulls down, the normal force counteracts it, creating a situation where the net inward force must equal the centripetal force required for circular motion. The laboratory frame is rotating, which introduces a centrifugal force that must be considered, effectively reducing the normal force. The commonly measured gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s² already accounts for this centrifugal effect. Understanding these forces clarifies how centripetal acceleration is maintained for objects on Earth's surface.
gsingh2011
Messages
115
Reaction score
1
For a body to undergo uniform circular motion, a centripetal force which is perpendicular to the velocity at all times must be applied to the body. For the moon and the earth, the gravitational force exerted on the moon by the Earth causes the moon to move in a circle instead of continue on a straight path. A similar example is a ball on a string. When the ball is moving in a circle parallel to the ground, the centripetal acceleration is caused by the tension in the string. So what causes the centripetal acceleration of a person on the earth? The reason I'm confused is because the force of gravity on a person is exactly canceled out by the normal force. If it wasn't, then that person would either move up or move down. So if those two forces cancel out, what is the force perpendicular to our velocity that keeps us moving in a circle?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hi gsingh2011! :smile:
gsingh2011 said:
… The reason I'm confused is because the force of gravity on a person is exactly canceled out by the normal force.

no it isn't …

although we usually treat the "laboratory frame" as inertial, the laboratory is actually rotating once every 24 hours, and therefore strictly speaking we should include a centrifugal force in that frame

that centrifugal force is the difference between gravity and N

however, when we measure the weight of something, we always actually measure N anyway, in other words the figure we use for g already has the centrifugal force subtracted from it!

ie, our 9.81 is really a combination of gravity and centrifugal force :wink:
 
Hi tiny-tim,

Is this a valid approach? -

The centripetal force applied to a person on the surface of the Earth must be supplied by gravity, the only inward-pointing force. However, this must be a NET inward force, meaning that the normal force from the Earth must be less than gravity by a value equal to the centripetal force (N=Fg-Fc).
You get the same result: "we always actually measure N anyway, in other words the figure we use for g already has the centrifugal force subtracted from it."
 
Hi I_wonder_why! :smile:
I_wonder_why said:
The centripetal force applied to a person on the surface of the Earth must be supplied by gravity, the only inward-pointing force. However, this must be a NET inward force, meaning that the normal force from the Earth must be less than gravity by a value equal to the centripetal force (N=Fg-Fc).

This is very confused …

the problem is that you're using the term "centripetal force"

this is best avoided unless there's one and only one force with a centripetal or centrifugal component …

in this case, the centripetal acceleration is supplied by the NET force of gravity and N …

it would be more logical to call that net force the centripetal force, but it would be best to avoid the term completely …

in an inertial frame, you can say that the normal force from the Earth must be less than gravity by a value equal to the mass times the centripetal acceleration (N=Fg-mv2/r)

in the rotating frame, you can say that the normal force from the Earth must be less than gravity by a value equal to the centrifugal force (N=Fg-mv2/r)
 
"in an inertial frame, you can say that the normal force from the Earth must be less than gravity by a value equal to the mass times the centripetal acceleration (N=Fg-mv2/r) "

This is what I was saying, I just wanted to be sure that it's equally valid to look at this only using centripetal force (understanding that it's not a separate force but a net force of gravity minus N).

Thanks!
 
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...
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top