What causes the change in velocity from pole to equator on Earth?

AI Thread Summary
The change in velocity from the pole to the equator is due to the Earth's rotation, which results in zero tangential velocity at the pole and a significant velocity of 1,670 kph at the equator. As a person moves from the pole to the equator, they experience an increase in velocity because the ground beneath them is rotating faster. This acceleration is influenced by the Coriolis force and the relative motion of the air, which also moves at high speeds at the equator. Each step taken southward results in landing on increasingly faster-moving ground, cumulatively leading to the high velocity at the equator. Understanding these dynamics clarifies how rotational motion affects velocity across different latitudes.
papernuke
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Assume there's a person standing at the pole of the earth. When the Earth rotates, he/she has no tangential velocity because the person is at the pole.
Now if the person were to take a trip by plane and land at the equator, the person would now have a fairly large velocity because the equator's tangential velocity is quite high.
What provides the acceleration that that changes the person's velocity from zero at the pole to 1,670 kph at the equator?


source for 1,670: http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzEarth'spin.htm
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why the Earth does - and the engines in the means of transportation.

Consider, you are in free fall above an airless spherical World composed entirely of ice and you are wearing ice-skates.
The world is turning below you. The ground gets closer - your feet touch the ground - the world keeps turning under you.

From your POV, you are now skating very fast across the surface.
Turn your skates and you can slide to a "stop" - now you are going at the same speed as the surface under you ... where did the acceleration come from?
 
Last edited:
papernuke said:
Assume there's a person standing at the pole of the earth. When the Earth rotates, he/she has no tangential velocity because the person is at the pole.
Now if the person were to take a trip by plane and land at the equator, the person would now have a fairly large velocity because the equator's tangential velocity is quite high.
What provides the acceleration that that changes the person's velocity from zero at the pole to 1,670 kph at the equator?source for 1,670: http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzEarth'spin.htm

If we ignore variation from the local wind and weather on the surface of the earth, the air at the equator is moving at 1670 kph relative to the air at the north pole. So as the airplane flies southwards, it experiences a sidewind blowing from the west that accelerates it in an eastwards direction.

If you were walking south from the north pole, with every single step you'd be putting your foot down on a patch of Earth that is moving ever so slightly faster to the east than where your foot had been. It's not much at each step, but it's enough to add up to 1670 kph over the 20,000,000 or so steps between pole and equator.

You might want to google for "Coriolis force".
 
Last edited:
Thank you both for the explanations!
I understand it now
 
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