Why does geopotential not take into account the rotation of the Earth?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter baxter
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of geopotential and its relationship to the Earth's rotation, particularly in the context of satellites. Participants explore the differences between gravitational potential without rotation (geopotential U) and gravitational potential that includes the effects of Earth's rotation (U_T). The conversation touches on theoretical implications and practical considerations for satellites in orbit.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants explain that geopotential U does not account for Earth's rotation, while U_T incorporates it through an additional term related to centrifugal force.
  • One participant argues that the satellite's potential is described by U, not U_T, suggesting that the rotation of the Earth does not directly affect the gravitational force on the satellite.
  • Another participant notes that while the Earth's rotation has no direct effect on the satellite, it does have an indirect effect due to the Earth's non-spherical shape and density distribution, particularly the equatorial bulge.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of general relativity, mentioning frame dragging effects that are negligible for Earth but significant for rapidly rotating neutron stars.
  • There is a distinction made between the gravitational force experienced by objects on the Earth's surface and the gravitational potential experienced by satellites, emphasizing that the rotation of the Earth influences the net gravitational force felt by objects on the surface.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of Earth's rotation for satellites, with some emphasizing the lack of direct effects and others highlighting indirect influences. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the full implications of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the understanding of gravitational potential can depend on the context of the object's motion and the definitions used for potential energy. There are also references to the complexities introduced by the Earth's shape and density variations.

baxter
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi

Geopotential U is the gravitational potential of the Earth without taking into account the rotation of the Earth whereas gravity's potential ##U_T## considers the rotation of the Earth such as :

##U_T = U + \frac{1}{2}\omega ^2r^2cos(\psi)^2## (with common spherical coordinates)

However, for a satellite, the potential of the Earth undergone by the satellite is ##U## and not ##U_T##.

My question : why?

In fact, I agree the satellite does not belong the the surface of the Earth but it seems that the geopotential ##U## does not consider the rotation of the Earth ? It would say that the rotation of the Earth does not affect the gravitational force of the Earth on the satellite ?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The Newtonian answer is simple: The satellite isn't sitting on the surface of the Earth. The Earth's rotation rate has zero direct effect on the satellite.

The rotation of the Earth does have an indirect effect on the satellite because the Earth is not spherically symmetric. The Earth instead has a somewhat lumpy density distribution. The equatorial bulge is by far the biggest non-spherical effect of the Earth's rotation on satellites. This bulge is a direct consequence of the Earth's rotation. It is what makes Sun synchronous orbits possible. A prolate ellipsoid model yields a good but not perfect model of the Earth's gravity field. There are other deviations from a spherically distributed density. For example, the northern hemisphere has considerably more land mass than does the southern hemisphere, and the Pacific is much bigger than is the Atlantic.

In a Newtonian universe, there would be nothing left after removing all of these effects that result from the Earth's orientation. The Earth's angular velocity itself has no effect on the satellite's motion.

That's not quite true in general relativity. There is a frame dragging effect in general relativity that is tiny (very, very tiny!) in the case of the Earth. This frame dragging effect is much more sizable for an object closely orbiting a rapidly rotating neutron star.
 
baxter said:
Hi

Geopotential U is the gravitational potential of the Earth without taking into account the rotation of the Earth whereas gravity's potential ##U_T## considers the rotation of the Earth such as :

##U_T = U + \frac{1}{2}\omega ^2r^2cos(\psi)^2## (with common spherical coordinates)

However, for a satellite, the potential of the Earth undergone by the satellite is ##U## and not ##U_T##.

My question : why?

In fact, I agree the satellite does not belong the the surface of the Earth but it seems that the geopotential ##U## does not consider the rotation of the Earth ? It would say that the rotation of the Earth does not affect the gravitational force of the Earth on the satellite ?

It depends on what you want to know.

U relates to gravitational force solely due to the Earth (or the potential energy since the mass of the second object isn't actually known yet).

U_t relates to the net gravitational force felt by a person on Earth. The rotation of the Earth is relevant only because that rotation is imparting motion to the person and the motion of the person (or object) creates a centrifugal force that opposes gravity.

Both would be useful bits of information on Earth.

U_t would depend on the satellite's motion; not the rotation of the Earth. U_t wouldn't yield much useful information for a satellite in a circular orbit, as the net "weight" felt by the satellite would have to be zero in order for the satellite to be in a circular orbit.

"Weightlessness" doesn't mean the lack of a gravitational force. It means the centrifugal force created by the person's (or satellite's) velocity cancels out the gravitational force.
 
Thanks for your explanations, they are very useful ;)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K