Why is this calculation of earth gravitational acceleration incorrect?

AI Thread Summary
The equation a = v^2/R is indeed correct for calculating centripetal acceleration, and the calculated value of 0.03 m/s^2 for a person at the equator is accurate, though the units should be in m/s^2. However, this acceleration does not account for the gravitational force acting on the individual, which is countered by the ground's upward force. As a result, the effective weight of a person at the equator is slightly less than at the poles due to this centripetal effect. The discussion clarifies that the equation is valid, but additional forces must be considered to understand the overall acceleration experienced. Understanding these forces is crucial for accurate calculations of weight and acceleration on Earth.
Jonsson
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Hello there,

I was taught:

a = {v^2 \over R}. I substitute v for the speed of the rotating Earth at the equator, and the radius, R = 6378m. And I get a = 0.03 \rm m/s^2.

It looks like the equation a = {v^2 \over R} may incorrect. Why am I taught this equation in University if it is false?

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Marius
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
That is the correct equation for the centripetal acceleration of an object in uniform circular motion. The numeric result that you have calculated is correct for the centripetal acceleration of a man standing on the equator, although the units are off. It should be in m/s2.

But the gravity is not the only force acting on such a man. The ground is also pushing upwards against the soles of his shoes. It is the difference between the upward force of the ground on his shoes and the downward force of gravity on his body that accounts for the residual 0.03 m/sec2 acceleration
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Hello Marius! :smile:

v2/r is the centripetal acceleration at the equator

if the Earth had no gravity, it is the tension in the string (divided by m) that would be needed to keep you on the ground at the equator

for that reason, although your weight at the poles is mg, your weight at the equator (as measured by standing on a scale) is less than mg by a very small amount, mv2/r :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thanks!M
 
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