7
$\begingroup$

Let us say a block of mass is placed on the surface of earth. Then while drawing the forces on that body, we say:

  1. Force $F = mg$ acting towards the center of Earth.
  2. Normal reaction $N$ offered by the surface of Earth.

If no other forces are acting, we say $F=N$. But what about the centrifugal force $m\omega^2R$ . Why don't we ever bring that into picture? What am I missing?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See also physics.stackexchange.com/q/8074/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/299723/2451 $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic May 12 '11 at 5:24
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ ""Why don't we ever bring that into picture? What am I missing?"" You missed to read about the many cases where "that was brought into picture". $\endgroup$ – Georg May 12 '11 at 8:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Georg : Thanks for pointing that out. Now, I do want to read about those cases. Could you point me to some of those cases/examples/problems? $\endgroup$ – claws May 12 '11 at 9:03
  • $\begingroup$ Read any medium physics textbook on "gravity dependence on latitude". Any clockmaker knows why a pendulum at equator has to be somewhat shorter than at say, 50th parallel. $\endgroup$ – Georg May 12 '11 at 9:15
9
$\begingroup$

Because it's effect is smaller than the variation in $g$ due to earth's bulge (caused by the same centrifugal force) or the local geology - when you use $9.8m/s^2$ that's just an approximation.

The effect of the bulge and centrifugal force mean that $g$ at the equator is about 0.5% lower than $g$ at the poles

edit: velocity at equator $40,000 km / 24 h = 1666.7 km/h = 0.463 km/s$

'centrifugal g' = $(0.463 km/s)^2 )/ 6375 km = 0.03 m/s^2$ or 0.3% of 'g'

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ How is it smaller? $\omega$ is angular velocity of earth which is large and R is radius of earth which is also large. $\endgroup$ – claws May 12 '11 at 5:09
  • $\begingroup$ The magnitude of the force is smaller than the variation in 'g' - the centrifugal force is about 0.1 - 0.2% of 'g' $\endgroup$ – Martin Beckett May 12 '11 at 5:12
  • $\begingroup$ Interestingly doing the numbers it's larger than I guessed $\endgroup$ – Martin Beckett May 12 '11 at 5:18
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ ω is small - it's 2pi/(24*60*60) rad/s. It might help to think of it in F=mv^2/R terms, remember R is big $\endgroup$ – Martin Beckett May 12 '11 at 5:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Floris - if you know a gold seller that will accept my calibration weight I can make money without 'g' ;-) $\endgroup$ – Martin Beckett Sep 1 '17 at 20:52
8
$\begingroup$

I think that all the right physics is contained in Martin Beckett's answer and the comments on it, but I'd like to restate it in a way that may bring out what I think the key point is.

In practice, when we do experiments in a lab near Earth's surface, we use a value of $g$ that's been determined empirically at that location. For instance, we might determine it by dropping something in vacuum and measuring its acceleration with respect to our lab. That value of $g$ already includes the centrifugal contribution, so we don't need to (indeed we must not!) include it separately.

We often tell introductory physics students that $g$ is the "acceleration due to gravity," but strictly speaking we're telling a small lie when we do this: $g$ is really the acceleration due to gravity and inertial forces.

Of course, that lie is only a lie in the context of Newtonian mechanics: when we get to general relativity the distinction between gravity and inertial forces goes away anyway! The acceleration of a falling object in general relativity is most naturally thought of as being all inertial force: the falling object is moving along a geodesic, and the reason we see it as accelerating is that our lab is not in an inertial reference frame.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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