5
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to explain the behaviour of a geostationary satellite using different frames of reference.

  1. Inertial frame: The satellite has a circular motion with angular velocity $\omega$. The centripetal force $F$ required for this motion is created by the gravitational pull of Earth. Earth itself rotates around its axis with $\omega$, but that is irrelevant. OK

  2. Rotating frame ($\omega$): The frame of reference is fixed to Earth. Everything appears stationary. Gravity is still present, which still acts on the satellite with force $F$. Due to the acceleration of our frame of reference we introduce a centrifugal force, which acts on the satellite with $-F$. The forces cancel out, so the satellite's lack of acceleration is explained. OK

  3. Rotating frame ($2\omega$): This frame of reference rotates around Earth's axis with angular velocity $2\omega$. The satellite appears to have angular velocity $-\omega$. The centripetal force $F$ is provided by gravity. However, we have not yet accounted for the acceleration of our frame of reference! There should be a centrifugal force of $-2F$, meaning that the satellite should be accelerating away from Earth!
    Not OK

How do we explain case 3?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6
$\begingroup$

The key is the coriolis force.

The coriolis force is $F_c = -2m\Omega \times v $. Here $\Omega$ is the rotation of the frame of reference and $v$ is the linear speed of the satellite.

If you do the calculations, left as an exercies for the reader, you'll get the missing force.

In case 2 the coriolis force is 0, because the velocity $v$ has to be used in the local frame of reference. And there $ v = 0 $.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Note - Coriolis force is a "fictional" force that appears on moving objects in rotating frames of reference - which is why you didn't need it for either case 1 or 2 (1 = stationary frame, and 2 = stationary satellite). $\endgroup$
    – Floris
    Commented Aug 22, 2014 at 14:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Floris: Like centrifugal force. But note that in case 2 (I've just added a note) the frame of reference is rotating; there is no coriolis force because $v=0$, $\endgroup$
    – rodrigo
    Commented Aug 22, 2014 at 14:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It might be "cleaner" to state that the Coriolis force is always there - but since it involves the product of $v$ and $\Omega$ it will be zero if either of them is zero. This is why you can get the right answer for case 1 and 2 without knowing about it. But on the whole, good answer - this is the explanation. $\endgroup$
    – Floris
    Commented Aug 22, 2014 at 14:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.