What forces are involved with Earth's rotational bulge?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AntiElephant
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Forces Rotational
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the Earth's equatorial bulge due to its rotation and the forces involved. As the Earth rotates, centrifugal force acts outward, countering gravitational force, which pulls objects toward the center. The balance between these forces determines the shape of the Earth, with the equator experiencing greater centrifugal force than the poles, leading to a bulging effect. The conversation highlights the importance of considering force vectors and the role of gravitational potential, especially when accounting for variations in density within the Earth. Ultimately, the Earth's oblate spheroid shape results from the interplay of these forces, with the equator rotating faster than the poles, creating the observed bulge.
AntiElephant
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to understand mathematically, if possible, why it is that the Earth bulges at the equator as a result of its rotation and how exactly gravity manages to keep it all together. Would the better approach be to keep myself in a rotating frame of reference? I lack some knowledge of Netwon's Laws in non-inertial frames of reference but maybe just enough to understand what is going on here.

I want to focus on a point (a "piece" of Earth's matter) on the Earth's surface, along the equator, to understand why it bulges outwards. If the Earth was initially stationary and spherical, then the only force acting on this piece would be gravity F_{grav}. As the Earth gradually begins to rotate a centrifugal force F_{centrif} appears pointing in a direction outwards, opposite to the axis of rotation, a fictitious force as a result of being in a non-inertial frame of reference.

The total force on this piece would be F_{grav} - F_{centrif}. If F_{centrif} <= F_{grav} then surely the piece would still have a resulting force pointing towards the centre of the Earth and the Earth would remain spherical? If/once F_{centrif} > F_{grav} then the piece would "fly" off from the Earth (in a stationary frame, this would be a result of inertia). Have I looked at this too simplistically? How, then is it that the Earth bulges and instead isn't at either of the extremes - either spherical or stuff "flying" off as a result of inertia?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't do this without considering directions of force vectors.
Draw a free body diagram for a point on the equator, another on one of the poles, and one in between.
The key is that the centrifugal and gravitational forces each point somewhere else.
 
I think the key that is being missed here is this:
AntiElephant said:
If the Earth was initially stationary and spherical, then the only force acting on this piece would be gravity F_{grav}.
If a mass has only one force acting on it, it accelerates. So if the Earth is stable/stationary and gravity is pulling a mass down, what is pushing it up to keep if from falling to the center of the earth? What's the other force you are missing?
 
  • Like
Likes A.T.
You know, this is hardly a trivial problem, and especially so, if we did not initially know that the gravitating body was an oblate spheroid. Deriving the gravitational potential requires a fairly involved integral. The direction of the gravitational acceleration is not directly away from the center of mass.

Last, if we want the solution to include a variation in density with depth, we need to establish equipotential surfaces in the interior of the spheroid.
 
Last edited:
Simplest explanation:
The poles of a spinning sphere are stationary except for rotation. The equator is the most rapidly rotating. The rapid rotation partially offsets gravity via centrifugal force. This tapers from equator to pole.
 
tfr000 said:
The poles of a spinning sphere are stationary except for rotation. The equator is the most rapidly rotating.
The rotation (angular velocity) is the same for both. The radius and linear velocity are different.
 
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