Why Don't We Get Flung Off the Earth at the Equator?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the forces at play at the Earth's equator, particularly centrifugal and centripetal forces. Despite the Earth's rotation speed of about 1,700 kilometers per hour, gravity (approximately 9.8 m/s²) is strong enough to keep us grounded, effectively counteracting any centrifugal force. The measured acceleration due to gravity is actually higher than naive experiments suggest, as they do not account for the Earth's rotation. If the Earth were to rotate significantly faster, objects at the equator could be flung into space, but current rates are decreasing. The conversation highlights the complexity of measuring gravitational forces and the implications of Earth's rotational dynamics.
Sakha
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
I was learning a bit of centrifugal/centripetal forces, and then I asked myself. If at the equator, the Earth rotates at about 1,700 kilometers per hour, then why don't we go flying outside the Earth due to the absence of centripetal forces. And if the gravity is enough to keep us on Earth, then the real acceleration due to gravity should be smaller because the centrifugal forces are pushing us outside the Earth.

Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The centripetal force per unit mass acting on the body at the equator is v2/R. This value is negligible compare to g=9.8 m/s2.
 
Gravity is the centripetal force that keeps us from flying away. If gravity were to suddenly disappear, we would all immediately fly off tangentially to the Earth's surface because of our angular momentum.

Yes, the real acceleration due to gravity is actually bigger than what we measure in a naive experiment. In a naive experiment, we don't take the rotation of the Earth into account, and what we measure as g (say by using a pendulum) contains gravity and the centrifugal force due to the fact that we are in a rotating frame of reference.
 
I remember reading somewhere. It said that if the Earth where to spin with twice the current rate(i.e. 12hrs) , we will be thrown into the outer space.

Today, is the Earth spinning getting slower or faster ?
 
atyy said:
Yes, the real acceleration due to gravity is actually bigger than what we measure in a naive experiment.
There is no way to directly measure the acceleration due to gravity. This is a direct consequence of the weak equivalence principle, which has been verified to within a few parts per 1013, making this one of the most accurately verified of all physical laws. Gravity measurements are inherently indirect measurements because gravity is a fictitious force, just as is centrifugal force. Your "naive" experiments are the only kind of experiments that can be performed.

matematikawan said:
I remember reading somewhere. It said that if the Earth where to spin with twice the current rate(i.e. 12hrs) , we will be thrown into the outer space.
Off by nearly an order of magnitude. The Earth would have to rotate http://www.google.com/search?q=2*pi/(sqrt(9.8m/s^2/6378km))&btnG=Search", or 17 times faster than its current rate, and then only objects directly at the equator would be thrown into outer space.

Not too likely, since the Earth's rotation rate is slowing down. Asteroids are a different issue. Solar heating can make asteroids spin faster and faster through the http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/asteroid_spin_030910.html" , for example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi D H,

Of course you shouldn't believe me!. I didn't state the reference and I didn't went through the calculation. I'm nobody in the physicsforums. How do you guys obtained those awards ?
 
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