Is the normal force equal to weight if we take the rotation of Earth into account? [duplicate]











up vote
5
down vote

favorite
2













This question already has an answer here:




  • Why don't we consider centrifugal force on a mass placed on earth?

    2 answers




In my physics class we were doing problems such that we set $N$ (normal force) $= mg$. I understand that by Newton's Third Law, if I exert a force on the ground, then the ground will exert an equal and opposite force on me. However, the part that I am slightly confused about is that when the Earth rotates, and thus I rotate too, I am accelerating with the centripetal force towards the center of the earth (assuming I am at the equator). How am I doing this if the normal force equals $mg$? If the normal force doesn't equal mg then why isn't the ground exerting an equal and opposite force?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




98CB1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











marked as duplicate by John Rennie newtonian-mechanics
Users with the  newtonian-mechanics badge can single-handedly close newtonian-mechanics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
2 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.











  • 1




    Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/299723/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/9751/2451 and links therein.
    – Qmechanic
    8 hours ago

















up vote
5
down vote

favorite
2













This question already has an answer here:




  • Why don't we consider centrifugal force on a mass placed on earth?

    2 answers




In my physics class we were doing problems such that we set $N$ (normal force) $= mg$. I understand that by Newton's Third Law, if I exert a force on the ground, then the ground will exert an equal and opposite force on me. However, the part that I am slightly confused about is that when the Earth rotates, and thus I rotate too, I am accelerating with the centripetal force towards the center of the earth (assuming I am at the equator). How am I doing this if the normal force equals $mg$? If the normal force doesn't equal mg then why isn't the ground exerting an equal and opposite force?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




98CB1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











marked as duplicate by John Rennie newtonian-mechanics
Users with the  newtonian-mechanics badge can single-handedly close newtonian-mechanics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
2 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.











  • 1




    Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/299723/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/9751/2451 and links therein.
    – Qmechanic
    8 hours ago















up vote
5
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
5
down vote

favorite
2






2






This question already has an answer here:




  • Why don't we consider centrifugal force on a mass placed on earth?

    2 answers




In my physics class we were doing problems such that we set $N$ (normal force) $= mg$. I understand that by Newton's Third Law, if I exert a force on the ground, then the ground will exert an equal and opposite force on me. However, the part that I am slightly confused about is that when the Earth rotates, and thus I rotate too, I am accelerating with the centripetal force towards the center of the earth (assuming I am at the equator). How am I doing this if the normal force equals $mg$? If the normal force doesn't equal mg then why isn't the ground exerting an equal and opposite force?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




98CB1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












This question already has an answer here:




  • Why don't we consider centrifugal force on a mass placed on earth?

    2 answers




In my physics class we were doing problems such that we set $N$ (normal force) $= mg$. I understand that by Newton's Third Law, if I exert a force on the ground, then the ground will exert an equal and opposite force on me. However, the part that I am slightly confused about is that when the Earth rotates, and thus I rotate too, I am accelerating with the centripetal force towards the center of the earth (assuming I am at the equator). How am I doing this if the normal force equals $mg$? If the normal force doesn't equal mg then why isn't the ground exerting an equal and opposite force?





This question already has an answer here:




  • Why don't we consider centrifugal force on a mass placed on earth?

    2 answers








newtonian-mechanics forces newtonian-gravity centripetal-force centrifugal-force






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




98CB1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




98CB1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 11 hours ago









Qmechanic

99.4k121781108




99.4k121781108






New contributor




98CB1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 15 hours ago









98CB1

291




291




New contributor




98CB1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





98CB1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






98CB1 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




marked as duplicate by John Rennie newtonian-mechanics
Users with the  newtonian-mechanics badge can single-handedly close newtonian-mechanics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
2 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






marked as duplicate by John Rennie newtonian-mechanics
Users with the  newtonian-mechanics badge can single-handedly close newtonian-mechanics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function() {
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function() {
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function() {
$hover.showInfoMessage('', {
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: { my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 },
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
});
},
function() {
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
}
);
});
});
2 hours ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.










  • 1




    Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/299723/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/9751/2451 and links therein.
    – Qmechanic
    8 hours ago
















  • 1




    Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/299723/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/9751/2451 and links therein.
    – Qmechanic
    8 hours ago










1




1




Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/299723/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/9751/2451 and links therein.
– Qmechanic
8 hours ago






Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/299723/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/9751/2451 and links therein.
– Qmechanic
8 hours ago












5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
6
down vote













You are right to question this. The normal force is equal to the weight is when the acceleration in the direction of these forces is $0$. More explicitly,
$$sum F=N-mg=ma=0$$
$$N=mg$$
(I'm sure you could contrive examples where there are more forces in this direction so that $aneq0$ but $N=mg$, but I won't do that here).



There are many examples where $Nneq mg$. For example, in an elevator that starts moving up, the normal force exceeds your weight in order for you to accelerate upwards.



In your example of the earth, the acceleration is equal to $frac{v^2}{r}$ where $v$ is your linear velocity and $r$ is the radius of the Earth. Therefore$^*$,
$$N=mg-frac{mv^2}{r}neq mg$$
You also specifically ask why this is the case in this scenario. The physical reason is because your instantaneous velocity is tangent to the Earth, thus you have some "pull" away from the Earth (due to your inertia), causing a reduced normal force. (You could also move to a rotating frame and attribute this to a centrifugal force).



In the case of a box resting on an incline at angle $theta$, the normal force and the weight are not aligned, and so it turns out that
$$N=mgcosthetaneq mg$$



So as you can see, we really can only take these forces to be equal when they are in the same direction and there is no acceleration. (Once again, you could probably contrive some examples to make this not the case, but I am talking more generally here)





$^*$ The value of $g$ I use here is from the approximation of a spherical Earth at rest, so that $g=frac{GM}{R^2}$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $M$ is the mass of the Earth, and $R$ is the radius of the Earth. If you considered $g$ to be the measured value of acceleration near Earth's surface, then there centrifugal effect would already be in effect in this measurement. In any case the point still stands that the normal force is not equal to the force of gravity between you and the Earth.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Would you also be able to answer this part for me. If the normal force the ground exerts upon me is not equal to mg which I exert on the ground how does this correlate with Newton's third law (equal and opposite pairs)?
    – 98CB1
    13 hours ago










  • @98CB1, mg and the normal force are two separate forces acting on you, they are not third law pairs. The normal force on you is equal to the force that you exert downward on the earth. mg is equal the the gravitational force that you pull upward on the earth.
    – BowlOfRed
    13 hours ago










  • Why would the force I exert on the ground not be equal to my weight (mg)? @BowlOfRed
    – 98CB1
    12 hours ago








  • 3




    It rather depends on what "g" actually is. When taking g as "acceleration of free fall" (in German "Fallbeschleunigung") that should already have the "centrifugal force" due to the earth's rotation baked in, so N=mg would hold.
    – piet.t
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    @piet Yes that is true. I decided not to discuss this point, since it is mainly irrelevant for the discussion. The main point is that $Nneq w$ (although barely) where I am assuming $w$ is your weight on a stationary Earth. In other words, $g=frac{GM}{R^2}$ Thank you for clarifying though.
    – Aaron Stevens
    8 hours ago




















up vote
5
down vote













I'd like to finalize the conclusion from @AaronStevens's great answer. In the truer expression for normal force (on flat ground) that he arrives at,



$$N=mg-frac{mv^2}{r}=mleft(g-frac{v^2}{r}right)quad ,$$



Earth's rotation adds the term $frac{v^2}{r}$ so it deviates from the expected $N=mg$. How much is the influence of $frac{v^2}{r}$?



Earth's radius is around $r=6400;mathrm{km}$. In one day, which is $t=24,mathrm{hr}=86400,mathrm s$, we move through the entire circumference of Earth, which is $d=40200,mathrm{km}$. That gives us a constant speed of around $v=d/t=465,mathrm{m/s}$. I am aware that I have used rough numbers here, from the top of my head, mainly fitting from the Equator. You can try to redo the calculations with more accurate values.



If we plug in $r$ and $v$, we get something like:



$$frac{v^2}{r}=0.0338,mathrm{m/s^2}$$



Compare this with $g=9.80,mathrm{m/s^2}$. The contribution of Earth's spin to the effective gravitational acceleration $(g-frac{v^2}{r})$ is thus only something like 0.3 %. You can try to calculate a normal force for an object with and without this influence and see if there is a significant difference within significant figures.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Does the fact that the earth orbits around the sun also influence this? and also maybe the fact that the sun orbits the center of the milky way?
    – Ivo Beckers
    9 hours ago






  • 2




    @IvoBeckers This can be calculated in the same simple way, if you look up the length and radius of the orbit. I wouldn't bet my money on them having anywhere near a significant influence. We might be far further down in the decimal digits that they affect.
    – Steeven
    9 hours ago












  • @IvoBeckers Why not consider the pull from everything in the universe? You have to stop somewhere.
    – Aaron Stevens
    8 hours ago












  • @IvoBeckers You're almost in freefall around the Sun, so you're almost weightless with respect to it. I say "almost" because you aren't exactly located at the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system, so there are minor tidal corrections to consider.
    – PM 2Ring
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    Your top-of-head numbers are quite good. I get about 0.03377 m/s^2 using the figures from Google's calculator, vs. ~ 0.03382 with yours. Not even worth talking about the difference :)
    – hobbs
    4 hours ago


















up vote
1
down vote













@Aaron has nicely explained using mathematics.



Let me brief it out qualitatively and also give a slightly different way of looking at it.




  • following the line of thought in @Aaron's answer, the normal force does not equal mass multiplied by g.


  • so the difference between gravitational pull and the normal force will provide centripetal acceleration that keeps you going round in circle with the earth.


  • however, in most cases the effective value of g is used instead of using g as acceleration due to gravity. In the effective g, the centrifugal force (as seen from our frame of reference) and other factors such as height and latitude variations are also accounted for.







share|cite|improve this answer






























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Here is a diagram of an ideal spherical Earth radius $R$, mass $M$ rotating at an angular speed $omega$ with an object mass $m$ in contact with the surface of the Earth.



    enter image description here



    The object on the Earth is subject to two forces:
    gravitational attraction $frac{GMm}{R^2}=mg$ where $g$ is the gravitational field strength and a reaction due to the Earth $N$.



    The net force on the object produces the centripetal acceleration of the object.



    At the poles there is no centripetal acceleration so $mg -N_{rm pole} = m 0 Rightarrow N_{rm pole} = mg$ the equation that you quoted in your first sentence.



    At the Equator the equation of motion is $mg - N_{rm equator} = mRomega^2$ so the normal reaction $N_{rm equator}$ is smaller than the gravitational attraction $mg$.



    At other points on the Earth the reaction $N$ is smaller than the gravitational attraction $mg$ but not by as much as at the equator but you will note that on a spherical Earth that reaction is no longer normal to the Earth's surface.



    A better approximation to the shape of the Earth is that it is an oblate spheroid (like a squashed sphere) as shown greatly exaggerated below.



    enter image description here



    With the Earth being that shape the reaction force on the mass is normal to the surface and in general a plumb line does not point towards the centre of the Earth.

    Now another correction has to be made as the value of the gravitational field strength $g$ varies from being a maximum at the poles and a minimum at the Equator.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      That is a reasonable question. If the earth were isolated, not rotating and perfectly spherical, then $g$ would be the same everywhere on the surface. But it's not any of those things. You are right that centripetal acceleration reduces the measured weight of an object. You can calculate that easily: the centripetal acceleration effectively reduces the weight of a mass (on the equator) $m$ by an amount equal to $m$ x the angular rotation speed x the radius of the Earth. This is further complicated by the fact that the Earth is a slightly oblate spheroid, and therefore $g$ varies slightly with latitude. These factors are discussed in detail in Wikipedia.






      share|cite|improve this answer




























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        6
        down vote













        You are right to question this. The normal force is equal to the weight is when the acceleration in the direction of these forces is $0$. More explicitly,
        $$sum F=N-mg=ma=0$$
        $$N=mg$$
        (I'm sure you could contrive examples where there are more forces in this direction so that $aneq0$ but $N=mg$, but I won't do that here).



        There are many examples where $Nneq mg$. For example, in an elevator that starts moving up, the normal force exceeds your weight in order for you to accelerate upwards.



        In your example of the earth, the acceleration is equal to $frac{v^2}{r}$ where $v$ is your linear velocity and $r$ is the radius of the Earth. Therefore$^*$,
        $$N=mg-frac{mv^2}{r}neq mg$$
        You also specifically ask why this is the case in this scenario. The physical reason is because your instantaneous velocity is tangent to the Earth, thus you have some "pull" away from the Earth (due to your inertia), causing a reduced normal force. (You could also move to a rotating frame and attribute this to a centrifugal force).



        In the case of a box resting on an incline at angle $theta$, the normal force and the weight are not aligned, and so it turns out that
        $$N=mgcosthetaneq mg$$



        So as you can see, we really can only take these forces to be equal when they are in the same direction and there is no acceleration. (Once again, you could probably contrive some examples to make this not the case, but I am talking more generally here)





        $^*$ The value of $g$ I use here is from the approximation of a spherical Earth at rest, so that $g=frac{GM}{R^2}$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $M$ is the mass of the Earth, and $R$ is the radius of the Earth. If you considered $g$ to be the measured value of acceleration near Earth's surface, then there centrifugal effect would already be in effect in this measurement. In any case the point still stands that the normal force is not equal to the force of gravity between you and the Earth.






        share|cite|improve this answer























        • Would you also be able to answer this part for me. If the normal force the ground exerts upon me is not equal to mg which I exert on the ground how does this correlate with Newton's third law (equal and opposite pairs)?
          – 98CB1
          13 hours ago










        • @98CB1, mg and the normal force are two separate forces acting on you, they are not third law pairs. The normal force on you is equal to the force that you exert downward on the earth. mg is equal the the gravitational force that you pull upward on the earth.
          – BowlOfRed
          13 hours ago










        • Why would the force I exert on the ground not be equal to my weight (mg)? @BowlOfRed
          – 98CB1
          12 hours ago








        • 3




          It rather depends on what "g" actually is. When taking g as "acceleration of free fall" (in German "Fallbeschleunigung") that should already have the "centrifugal force" due to the earth's rotation baked in, so N=mg would hold.
          – piet.t
          8 hours ago






        • 1




          @piet Yes that is true. I decided not to discuss this point, since it is mainly irrelevant for the discussion. The main point is that $Nneq w$ (although barely) where I am assuming $w$ is your weight on a stationary Earth. In other words, $g=frac{GM}{R^2}$ Thank you for clarifying though.
          – Aaron Stevens
          8 hours ago

















        up vote
        6
        down vote













        You are right to question this. The normal force is equal to the weight is when the acceleration in the direction of these forces is $0$. More explicitly,
        $$sum F=N-mg=ma=0$$
        $$N=mg$$
        (I'm sure you could contrive examples where there are more forces in this direction so that $aneq0$ but $N=mg$, but I won't do that here).



        There are many examples where $Nneq mg$. For example, in an elevator that starts moving up, the normal force exceeds your weight in order for you to accelerate upwards.



        In your example of the earth, the acceleration is equal to $frac{v^2}{r}$ where $v$ is your linear velocity and $r$ is the radius of the Earth. Therefore$^*$,
        $$N=mg-frac{mv^2}{r}neq mg$$
        You also specifically ask why this is the case in this scenario. The physical reason is because your instantaneous velocity is tangent to the Earth, thus you have some "pull" away from the Earth (due to your inertia), causing a reduced normal force. (You could also move to a rotating frame and attribute this to a centrifugal force).



        In the case of a box resting on an incline at angle $theta$, the normal force and the weight are not aligned, and so it turns out that
        $$N=mgcosthetaneq mg$$



        So as you can see, we really can only take these forces to be equal when they are in the same direction and there is no acceleration. (Once again, you could probably contrive some examples to make this not the case, but I am talking more generally here)





        $^*$ The value of $g$ I use here is from the approximation of a spherical Earth at rest, so that $g=frac{GM}{R^2}$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $M$ is the mass of the Earth, and $R$ is the radius of the Earth. If you considered $g$ to be the measured value of acceleration near Earth's surface, then there centrifugal effect would already be in effect in this measurement. In any case the point still stands that the normal force is not equal to the force of gravity between you and the Earth.






        share|cite|improve this answer























        • Would you also be able to answer this part for me. If the normal force the ground exerts upon me is not equal to mg which I exert on the ground how does this correlate with Newton's third law (equal and opposite pairs)?
          – 98CB1
          13 hours ago










        • @98CB1, mg and the normal force are two separate forces acting on you, they are not third law pairs. The normal force on you is equal to the force that you exert downward on the earth. mg is equal the the gravitational force that you pull upward on the earth.
          – BowlOfRed
          13 hours ago










        • Why would the force I exert on the ground not be equal to my weight (mg)? @BowlOfRed
          – 98CB1
          12 hours ago








        • 3




          It rather depends on what "g" actually is. When taking g as "acceleration of free fall" (in German "Fallbeschleunigung") that should already have the "centrifugal force" due to the earth's rotation baked in, so N=mg would hold.
          – piet.t
          8 hours ago






        • 1




          @piet Yes that is true. I decided not to discuss this point, since it is mainly irrelevant for the discussion. The main point is that $Nneq w$ (although barely) where I am assuming $w$ is your weight on a stationary Earth. In other words, $g=frac{GM}{R^2}$ Thank you for clarifying though.
          – Aaron Stevens
          8 hours ago















        up vote
        6
        down vote










        up vote
        6
        down vote









        You are right to question this. The normal force is equal to the weight is when the acceleration in the direction of these forces is $0$. More explicitly,
        $$sum F=N-mg=ma=0$$
        $$N=mg$$
        (I'm sure you could contrive examples where there are more forces in this direction so that $aneq0$ but $N=mg$, but I won't do that here).



        There are many examples where $Nneq mg$. For example, in an elevator that starts moving up, the normal force exceeds your weight in order for you to accelerate upwards.



        In your example of the earth, the acceleration is equal to $frac{v^2}{r}$ where $v$ is your linear velocity and $r$ is the radius of the Earth. Therefore$^*$,
        $$N=mg-frac{mv^2}{r}neq mg$$
        You also specifically ask why this is the case in this scenario. The physical reason is because your instantaneous velocity is tangent to the Earth, thus you have some "pull" away from the Earth (due to your inertia), causing a reduced normal force. (You could also move to a rotating frame and attribute this to a centrifugal force).



        In the case of a box resting on an incline at angle $theta$, the normal force and the weight are not aligned, and so it turns out that
        $$N=mgcosthetaneq mg$$



        So as you can see, we really can only take these forces to be equal when they are in the same direction and there is no acceleration. (Once again, you could probably contrive some examples to make this not the case, but I am talking more generally here)





        $^*$ The value of $g$ I use here is from the approximation of a spherical Earth at rest, so that $g=frac{GM}{R^2}$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $M$ is the mass of the Earth, and $R$ is the radius of the Earth. If you considered $g$ to be the measured value of acceleration near Earth's surface, then there centrifugal effect would already be in effect in this measurement. In any case the point still stands that the normal force is not equal to the force of gravity between you and the Earth.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        You are right to question this. The normal force is equal to the weight is when the acceleration in the direction of these forces is $0$. More explicitly,
        $$sum F=N-mg=ma=0$$
        $$N=mg$$
        (I'm sure you could contrive examples where there are more forces in this direction so that $aneq0$ but $N=mg$, but I won't do that here).



        There are many examples where $Nneq mg$. For example, in an elevator that starts moving up, the normal force exceeds your weight in order for you to accelerate upwards.



        In your example of the earth, the acceleration is equal to $frac{v^2}{r}$ where $v$ is your linear velocity and $r$ is the radius of the Earth. Therefore$^*$,
        $$N=mg-frac{mv^2}{r}neq mg$$
        You also specifically ask why this is the case in this scenario. The physical reason is because your instantaneous velocity is tangent to the Earth, thus you have some "pull" away from the Earth (due to your inertia), causing a reduced normal force. (You could also move to a rotating frame and attribute this to a centrifugal force).



        In the case of a box resting on an incline at angle $theta$, the normal force and the weight are not aligned, and so it turns out that
        $$N=mgcosthetaneq mg$$



        So as you can see, we really can only take these forces to be equal when they are in the same direction and there is no acceleration. (Once again, you could probably contrive some examples to make this not the case, but I am talking more generally here)





        $^*$ The value of $g$ I use here is from the approximation of a spherical Earth at rest, so that $g=frac{GM}{R^2}$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $M$ is the mass of the Earth, and $R$ is the radius of the Earth. If you considered $g$ to be the measured value of acceleration near Earth's surface, then there centrifugal effect would already be in effect in this measurement. In any case the point still stands that the normal force is not equal to the force of gravity between you and the Earth.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 8 hours ago

























        answered 14 hours ago









        Aaron Stevens

        6,90931135




        6,90931135












        • Would you also be able to answer this part for me. If the normal force the ground exerts upon me is not equal to mg which I exert on the ground how does this correlate with Newton's third law (equal and opposite pairs)?
          – 98CB1
          13 hours ago










        • @98CB1, mg and the normal force are two separate forces acting on you, they are not third law pairs. The normal force on you is equal to the force that you exert downward on the earth. mg is equal the the gravitational force that you pull upward on the earth.
          – BowlOfRed
          13 hours ago










        • Why would the force I exert on the ground not be equal to my weight (mg)? @BowlOfRed
          – 98CB1
          12 hours ago








        • 3




          It rather depends on what "g" actually is. When taking g as "acceleration of free fall" (in German "Fallbeschleunigung") that should already have the "centrifugal force" due to the earth's rotation baked in, so N=mg would hold.
          – piet.t
          8 hours ago






        • 1




          @piet Yes that is true. I decided not to discuss this point, since it is mainly irrelevant for the discussion. The main point is that $Nneq w$ (although barely) where I am assuming $w$ is your weight on a stationary Earth. In other words, $g=frac{GM}{R^2}$ Thank you for clarifying though.
          – Aaron Stevens
          8 hours ago




















        • Would you also be able to answer this part for me. If the normal force the ground exerts upon me is not equal to mg which I exert on the ground how does this correlate with Newton's third law (equal and opposite pairs)?
          – 98CB1
          13 hours ago










        • @98CB1, mg and the normal force are two separate forces acting on you, they are not third law pairs. The normal force on you is equal to the force that you exert downward on the earth. mg is equal the the gravitational force that you pull upward on the earth.
          – BowlOfRed
          13 hours ago










        • Why would the force I exert on the ground not be equal to my weight (mg)? @BowlOfRed
          – 98CB1
          12 hours ago








        • 3




          It rather depends on what "g" actually is. When taking g as "acceleration of free fall" (in German "Fallbeschleunigung") that should already have the "centrifugal force" due to the earth's rotation baked in, so N=mg would hold.
          – piet.t
          8 hours ago






        • 1




          @piet Yes that is true. I decided not to discuss this point, since it is mainly irrelevant for the discussion. The main point is that $Nneq w$ (although barely) where I am assuming $w$ is your weight on a stationary Earth. In other words, $g=frac{GM}{R^2}$ Thank you for clarifying though.
          – Aaron Stevens
          8 hours ago


















        Would you also be able to answer this part for me. If the normal force the ground exerts upon me is not equal to mg which I exert on the ground how does this correlate with Newton's third law (equal and opposite pairs)?
        – 98CB1
        13 hours ago




        Would you also be able to answer this part for me. If the normal force the ground exerts upon me is not equal to mg which I exert on the ground how does this correlate with Newton's third law (equal and opposite pairs)?
        – 98CB1
        13 hours ago












        @98CB1, mg and the normal force are two separate forces acting on you, they are not third law pairs. The normal force on you is equal to the force that you exert downward on the earth. mg is equal the the gravitational force that you pull upward on the earth.
        – BowlOfRed
        13 hours ago




        @98CB1, mg and the normal force are two separate forces acting on you, they are not third law pairs. The normal force on you is equal to the force that you exert downward on the earth. mg is equal the the gravitational force that you pull upward on the earth.
        – BowlOfRed
        13 hours ago












        Why would the force I exert on the ground not be equal to my weight (mg)? @BowlOfRed
        – 98CB1
        12 hours ago






        Why would the force I exert on the ground not be equal to my weight (mg)? @BowlOfRed
        – 98CB1
        12 hours ago






        3




        3




        It rather depends on what "g" actually is. When taking g as "acceleration of free fall" (in German "Fallbeschleunigung") that should already have the "centrifugal force" due to the earth's rotation baked in, so N=mg would hold.
        – piet.t
        8 hours ago




        It rather depends on what "g" actually is. When taking g as "acceleration of free fall" (in German "Fallbeschleunigung") that should already have the "centrifugal force" due to the earth's rotation baked in, so N=mg would hold.
        – piet.t
        8 hours ago




        1




        1




        @piet Yes that is true. I decided not to discuss this point, since it is mainly irrelevant for the discussion. The main point is that $Nneq w$ (although barely) where I am assuming $w$ is your weight on a stationary Earth. In other words, $g=frac{GM}{R^2}$ Thank you for clarifying though.
        – Aaron Stevens
        8 hours ago






        @piet Yes that is true. I decided not to discuss this point, since it is mainly irrelevant for the discussion. The main point is that $Nneq w$ (although barely) where I am assuming $w$ is your weight on a stationary Earth. In other words, $g=frac{GM}{R^2}$ Thank you for clarifying though.
        – Aaron Stevens
        8 hours ago












        up vote
        5
        down vote













        I'd like to finalize the conclusion from @AaronStevens's great answer. In the truer expression for normal force (on flat ground) that he arrives at,



        $$N=mg-frac{mv^2}{r}=mleft(g-frac{v^2}{r}right)quad ,$$



        Earth's rotation adds the term $frac{v^2}{r}$ so it deviates from the expected $N=mg$. How much is the influence of $frac{v^2}{r}$?



        Earth's radius is around $r=6400;mathrm{km}$. In one day, which is $t=24,mathrm{hr}=86400,mathrm s$, we move through the entire circumference of Earth, which is $d=40200,mathrm{km}$. That gives us a constant speed of around $v=d/t=465,mathrm{m/s}$. I am aware that I have used rough numbers here, from the top of my head, mainly fitting from the Equator. You can try to redo the calculations with more accurate values.



        If we plug in $r$ and $v$, we get something like:



        $$frac{v^2}{r}=0.0338,mathrm{m/s^2}$$



        Compare this with $g=9.80,mathrm{m/s^2}$. The contribution of Earth's spin to the effective gravitational acceleration $(g-frac{v^2}{r})$ is thus only something like 0.3 %. You can try to calculate a normal force for an object with and without this influence and see if there is a significant difference within significant figures.






        share|cite|improve this answer























        • Does the fact that the earth orbits around the sun also influence this? and also maybe the fact that the sun orbits the center of the milky way?
          – Ivo Beckers
          9 hours ago






        • 2




          @IvoBeckers This can be calculated in the same simple way, if you look up the length and radius of the orbit. I wouldn't bet my money on them having anywhere near a significant influence. We might be far further down in the decimal digits that they affect.
          – Steeven
          9 hours ago












        • @IvoBeckers Why not consider the pull from everything in the universe? You have to stop somewhere.
          – Aaron Stevens
          8 hours ago












        • @IvoBeckers You're almost in freefall around the Sun, so you're almost weightless with respect to it. I say "almost" because you aren't exactly located at the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system, so there are minor tidal corrections to consider.
          – PM 2Ring
          8 hours ago






        • 1




          Your top-of-head numbers are quite good. I get about 0.03377 m/s^2 using the figures from Google's calculator, vs. ~ 0.03382 with yours. Not even worth talking about the difference :)
          – hobbs
          4 hours ago















        up vote
        5
        down vote













        I'd like to finalize the conclusion from @AaronStevens's great answer. In the truer expression for normal force (on flat ground) that he arrives at,



        $$N=mg-frac{mv^2}{r}=mleft(g-frac{v^2}{r}right)quad ,$$



        Earth's rotation adds the term $frac{v^2}{r}$ so it deviates from the expected $N=mg$. How much is the influence of $frac{v^2}{r}$?



        Earth's radius is around $r=6400;mathrm{km}$. In one day, which is $t=24,mathrm{hr}=86400,mathrm s$, we move through the entire circumference of Earth, which is $d=40200,mathrm{km}$. That gives us a constant speed of around $v=d/t=465,mathrm{m/s}$. I am aware that I have used rough numbers here, from the top of my head, mainly fitting from the Equator. You can try to redo the calculations with more accurate values.



        If we plug in $r$ and $v$, we get something like:



        $$frac{v^2}{r}=0.0338,mathrm{m/s^2}$$



        Compare this with $g=9.80,mathrm{m/s^2}$. The contribution of Earth's spin to the effective gravitational acceleration $(g-frac{v^2}{r})$ is thus only something like 0.3 %. You can try to calculate a normal force for an object with and without this influence and see if there is a significant difference within significant figures.






        share|cite|improve this answer























        • Does the fact that the earth orbits around the sun also influence this? and also maybe the fact that the sun orbits the center of the milky way?
          – Ivo Beckers
          9 hours ago






        • 2




          @IvoBeckers This can be calculated in the same simple way, if you look up the length and radius of the orbit. I wouldn't bet my money on them having anywhere near a significant influence. We might be far further down in the decimal digits that they affect.
          – Steeven
          9 hours ago












        • @IvoBeckers Why not consider the pull from everything in the universe? You have to stop somewhere.
          – Aaron Stevens
          8 hours ago












        • @IvoBeckers You're almost in freefall around the Sun, so you're almost weightless with respect to it. I say "almost" because you aren't exactly located at the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system, so there are minor tidal corrections to consider.
          – PM 2Ring
          8 hours ago






        • 1




          Your top-of-head numbers are quite good. I get about 0.03377 m/s^2 using the figures from Google's calculator, vs. ~ 0.03382 with yours. Not even worth talking about the difference :)
          – hobbs
          4 hours ago













        up vote
        5
        down vote










        up vote
        5
        down vote









        I'd like to finalize the conclusion from @AaronStevens's great answer. In the truer expression for normal force (on flat ground) that he arrives at,



        $$N=mg-frac{mv^2}{r}=mleft(g-frac{v^2}{r}right)quad ,$$



        Earth's rotation adds the term $frac{v^2}{r}$ so it deviates from the expected $N=mg$. How much is the influence of $frac{v^2}{r}$?



        Earth's radius is around $r=6400;mathrm{km}$. In one day, which is $t=24,mathrm{hr}=86400,mathrm s$, we move through the entire circumference of Earth, which is $d=40200,mathrm{km}$. That gives us a constant speed of around $v=d/t=465,mathrm{m/s}$. I am aware that I have used rough numbers here, from the top of my head, mainly fitting from the Equator. You can try to redo the calculations with more accurate values.



        If we plug in $r$ and $v$, we get something like:



        $$frac{v^2}{r}=0.0338,mathrm{m/s^2}$$



        Compare this with $g=9.80,mathrm{m/s^2}$. The contribution of Earth's spin to the effective gravitational acceleration $(g-frac{v^2}{r})$ is thus only something like 0.3 %. You can try to calculate a normal force for an object with and without this influence and see if there is a significant difference within significant figures.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        I'd like to finalize the conclusion from @AaronStevens's great answer. In the truer expression for normal force (on flat ground) that he arrives at,



        $$N=mg-frac{mv^2}{r}=mleft(g-frac{v^2}{r}right)quad ,$$



        Earth's rotation adds the term $frac{v^2}{r}$ so it deviates from the expected $N=mg$. How much is the influence of $frac{v^2}{r}$?



        Earth's radius is around $r=6400;mathrm{km}$. In one day, which is $t=24,mathrm{hr}=86400,mathrm s$, we move through the entire circumference of Earth, which is $d=40200,mathrm{km}$. That gives us a constant speed of around $v=d/t=465,mathrm{m/s}$. I am aware that I have used rough numbers here, from the top of my head, mainly fitting from the Equator. You can try to redo the calculations with more accurate values.



        If we plug in $r$ and $v$, we get something like:



        $$frac{v^2}{r}=0.0338,mathrm{m/s^2}$$



        Compare this with $g=9.80,mathrm{m/s^2}$. The contribution of Earth's spin to the effective gravitational acceleration $(g-frac{v^2}{r})$ is thus only something like 0.3 %. You can try to calculate a normal force for an object with and without this influence and see if there is a significant difference within significant figures.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 3 hours ago

























        answered 9 hours ago









        Steeven

        25.5k560104




        25.5k560104












        • Does the fact that the earth orbits around the sun also influence this? and also maybe the fact that the sun orbits the center of the milky way?
          – Ivo Beckers
          9 hours ago






        • 2




          @IvoBeckers This can be calculated in the same simple way, if you look up the length and radius of the orbit. I wouldn't bet my money on them having anywhere near a significant influence. We might be far further down in the decimal digits that they affect.
          – Steeven
          9 hours ago












        • @IvoBeckers Why not consider the pull from everything in the universe? You have to stop somewhere.
          – Aaron Stevens
          8 hours ago












        • @IvoBeckers You're almost in freefall around the Sun, so you're almost weightless with respect to it. I say "almost" because you aren't exactly located at the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system, so there are minor tidal corrections to consider.
          – PM 2Ring
          8 hours ago






        • 1




          Your top-of-head numbers are quite good. I get about 0.03377 m/s^2 using the figures from Google's calculator, vs. ~ 0.03382 with yours. Not even worth talking about the difference :)
          – hobbs
          4 hours ago


















        • Does the fact that the earth orbits around the sun also influence this? and also maybe the fact that the sun orbits the center of the milky way?
          – Ivo Beckers
          9 hours ago






        • 2




          @IvoBeckers This can be calculated in the same simple way, if you look up the length and radius of the orbit. I wouldn't bet my money on them having anywhere near a significant influence. We might be far further down in the decimal digits that they affect.
          – Steeven
          9 hours ago












        • @IvoBeckers Why not consider the pull from everything in the universe? You have to stop somewhere.
          – Aaron Stevens
          8 hours ago












        • @IvoBeckers You're almost in freefall around the Sun, so you're almost weightless with respect to it. I say "almost" because you aren't exactly located at the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system, so there are minor tidal corrections to consider.
          – PM 2Ring
          8 hours ago






        • 1




          Your top-of-head numbers are quite good. I get about 0.03377 m/s^2 using the figures from Google's calculator, vs. ~ 0.03382 with yours. Not even worth talking about the difference :)
          – hobbs
          4 hours ago
















        Does the fact that the earth orbits around the sun also influence this? and also maybe the fact that the sun orbits the center of the milky way?
        – Ivo Beckers
        9 hours ago




        Does the fact that the earth orbits around the sun also influence this? and also maybe the fact that the sun orbits the center of the milky way?
        – Ivo Beckers
        9 hours ago




        2




        2




        @IvoBeckers This can be calculated in the same simple way, if you look up the length and radius of the orbit. I wouldn't bet my money on them having anywhere near a significant influence. We might be far further down in the decimal digits that they affect.
        – Steeven
        9 hours ago






        @IvoBeckers This can be calculated in the same simple way, if you look up the length and radius of the orbit. I wouldn't bet my money on them having anywhere near a significant influence. We might be far further down in the decimal digits that they affect.
        – Steeven
        9 hours ago














        @IvoBeckers Why not consider the pull from everything in the universe? You have to stop somewhere.
        – Aaron Stevens
        8 hours ago






        @IvoBeckers Why not consider the pull from everything in the universe? You have to stop somewhere.
        – Aaron Stevens
        8 hours ago














        @IvoBeckers You're almost in freefall around the Sun, so you're almost weightless with respect to it. I say "almost" because you aren't exactly located at the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system, so there are minor tidal corrections to consider.
        – PM 2Ring
        8 hours ago




        @IvoBeckers You're almost in freefall around the Sun, so you're almost weightless with respect to it. I say "almost" because you aren't exactly located at the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system, so there are minor tidal corrections to consider.
        – PM 2Ring
        8 hours ago




        1




        1




        Your top-of-head numbers are quite good. I get about 0.03377 m/s^2 using the figures from Google's calculator, vs. ~ 0.03382 with yours. Not even worth talking about the difference :)
        – hobbs
        4 hours ago




        Your top-of-head numbers are quite good. I get about 0.03377 m/s^2 using the figures from Google's calculator, vs. ~ 0.03382 with yours. Not even worth talking about the difference :)
        – hobbs
        4 hours ago










        up vote
        1
        down vote













        @Aaron has nicely explained using mathematics.



        Let me brief it out qualitatively and also give a slightly different way of looking at it.




        • following the line of thought in @Aaron's answer, the normal force does not equal mass multiplied by g.


        • so the difference between gravitational pull and the normal force will provide centripetal acceleration that keeps you going round in circle with the earth.


        • however, in most cases the effective value of g is used instead of using g as acceleration due to gravity. In the effective g, the centrifugal force (as seen from our frame of reference) and other factors such as height and latitude variations are also accounted for.







        share|cite|improve this answer



























          up vote
          1
          down vote













          @Aaron has nicely explained using mathematics.



          Let me brief it out qualitatively and also give a slightly different way of looking at it.




          • following the line of thought in @Aaron's answer, the normal force does not equal mass multiplied by g.


          • so the difference between gravitational pull and the normal force will provide centripetal acceleration that keeps you going round in circle with the earth.


          • however, in most cases the effective value of g is used instead of using g as acceleration due to gravity. In the effective g, the centrifugal force (as seen from our frame of reference) and other factors such as height and latitude variations are also accounted for.







          share|cite|improve this answer

























            up vote
            1
            down vote










            up vote
            1
            down vote









            @Aaron has nicely explained using mathematics.



            Let me brief it out qualitatively and also give a slightly different way of looking at it.




            • following the line of thought in @Aaron's answer, the normal force does not equal mass multiplied by g.


            • so the difference between gravitational pull and the normal force will provide centripetal acceleration that keeps you going round in circle with the earth.


            • however, in most cases the effective value of g is used instead of using g as acceleration due to gravity. In the effective g, the centrifugal force (as seen from our frame of reference) and other factors such as height and latitude variations are also accounted for.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            @Aaron has nicely explained using mathematics.



            Let me brief it out qualitatively and also give a slightly different way of looking at it.




            • following the line of thought in @Aaron's answer, the normal force does not equal mass multiplied by g.


            • so the difference between gravitational pull and the normal force will provide centripetal acceleration that keeps you going round in circle with the earth.


            • however, in most cases the effective value of g is used instead of using g as acceleration due to gravity. In the effective g, the centrifugal force (as seen from our frame of reference) and other factors such as height and latitude variations are also accounted for.








            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 8 hours ago









            Aaron Stevens

            6,90931135




            6,90931135










            answered 10 hours ago









            m__

            19710




            19710






















                up vote
                1
                down vote













                Here is a diagram of an ideal spherical Earth radius $R$, mass $M$ rotating at an angular speed $omega$ with an object mass $m$ in contact with the surface of the Earth.



                enter image description here



                The object on the Earth is subject to two forces:
                gravitational attraction $frac{GMm}{R^2}=mg$ where $g$ is the gravitational field strength and a reaction due to the Earth $N$.



                The net force on the object produces the centripetal acceleration of the object.



                At the poles there is no centripetal acceleration so $mg -N_{rm pole} = m 0 Rightarrow N_{rm pole} = mg$ the equation that you quoted in your first sentence.



                At the Equator the equation of motion is $mg - N_{rm equator} = mRomega^2$ so the normal reaction $N_{rm equator}$ is smaller than the gravitational attraction $mg$.



                At other points on the Earth the reaction $N$ is smaller than the gravitational attraction $mg$ but not by as much as at the equator but you will note that on a spherical Earth that reaction is no longer normal to the Earth's surface.



                A better approximation to the shape of the Earth is that it is an oblate spheroid (like a squashed sphere) as shown greatly exaggerated below.



                enter image description here



                With the Earth being that shape the reaction force on the mass is normal to the surface and in general a plumb line does not point towards the centre of the Earth.

                Now another correction has to be made as the value of the gravitational field strength $g$ varies from being a maximum at the poles and a minimum at the Equator.






                share|cite|improve this answer

























                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote













                  Here is a diagram of an ideal spherical Earth radius $R$, mass $M$ rotating at an angular speed $omega$ with an object mass $m$ in contact with the surface of the Earth.



                  enter image description here



                  The object on the Earth is subject to two forces:
                  gravitational attraction $frac{GMm}{R^2}=mg$ where $g$ is the gravitational field strength and a reaction due to the Earth $N$.



                  The net force on the object produces the centripetal acceleration of the object.



                  At the poles there is no centripetal acceleration so $mg -N_{rm pole} = m 0 Rightarrow N_{rm pole} = mg$ the equation that you quoted in your first sentence.



                  At the Equator the equation of motion is $mg - N_{rm equator} = mRomega^2$ so the normal reaction $N_{rm equator}$ is smaller than the gravitational attraction $mg$.



                  At other points on the Earth the reaction $N$ is smaller than the gravitational attraction $mg$ but not by as much as at the equator but you will note that on a spherical Earth that reaction is no longer normal to the Earth's surface.



                  A better approximation to the shape of the Earth is that it is an oblate spheroid (like a squashed sphere) as shown greatly exaggerated below.



                  enter image description here



                  With the Earth being that shape the reaction force on the mass is normal to the surface and in general a plumb line does not point towards the centre of the Earth.

                  Now another correction has to be made as the value of the gravitational field strength $g$ varies from being a maximum at the poles and a minimum at the Equator.






                  share|cite|improve this answer























                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    1
                    down vote









                    Here is a diagram of an ideal spherical Earth radius $R$, mass $M$ rotating at an angular speed $omega$ with an object mass $m$ in contact with the surface of the Earth.



                    enter image description here



                    The object on the Earth is subject to two forces:
                    gravitational attraction $frac{GMm}{R^2}=mg$ where $g$ is the gravitational field strength and a reaction due to the Earth $N$.



                    The net force on the object produces the centripetal acceleration of the object.



                    At the poles there is no centripetal acceleration so $mg -N_{rm pole} = m 0 Rightarrow N_{rm pole} = mg$ the equation that you quoted in your first sentence.



                    At the Equator the equation of motion is $mg - N_{rm equator} = mRomega^2$ so the normal reaction $N_{rm equator}$ is smaller than the gravitational attraction $mg$.



                    At other points on the Earth the reaction $N$ is smaller than the gravitational attraction $mg$ but not by as much as at the equator but you will note that on a spherical Earth that reaction is no longer normal to the Earth's surface.



                    A better approximation to the shape of the Earth is that it is an oblate spheroid (like a squashed sphere) as shown greatly exaggerated below.



                    enter image description here



                    With the Earth being that shape the reaction force on the mass is normal to the surface and in general a plumb line does not point towards the centre of the Earth.

                    Now another correction has to be made as the value of the gravitational field strength $g$ varies from being a maximum at the poles and a minimum at the Equator.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    Here is a diagram of an ideal spherical Earth radius $R$, mass $M$ rotating at an angular speed $omega$ with an object mass $m$ in contact with the surface of the Earth.



                    enter image description here



                    The object on the Earth is subject to two forces:
                    gravitational attraction $frac{GMm}{R^2}=mg$ where $g$ is the gravitational field strength and a reaction due to the Earth $N$.



                    The net force on the object produces the centripetal acceleration of the object.



                    At the poles there is no centripetal acceleration so $mg -N_{rm pole} = m 0 Rightarrow N_{rm pole} = mg$ the equation that you quoted in your first sentence.



                    At the Equator the equation of motion is $mg - N_{rm equator} = mRomega^2$ so the normal reaction $N_{rm equator}$ is smaller than the gravitational attraction $mg$.



                    At other points on the Earth the reaction $N$ is smaller than the gravitational attraction $mg$ but not by as much as at the equator but you will note that on a spherical Earth that reaction is no longer normal to the Earth's surface.



                    A better approximation to the shape of the Earth is that it is an oblate spheroid (like a squashed sphere) as shown greatly exaggerated below.



                    enter image description here



                    With the Earth being that shape the reaction force on the mass is normal to the surface and in general a plumb line does not point towards the centre of the Earth.

                    Now another correction has to be made as the value of the gravitational field strength $g$ varies from being a maximum at the poles and a minimum at the Equator.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered 7 hours ago









                    Farcher

                    45.9k33589




                    45.9k33589






















                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        That is a reasonable question. If the earth were isolated, not rotating and perfectly spherical, then $g$ would be the same everywhere on the surface. But it's not any of those things. You are right that centripetal acceleration reduces the measured weight of an object. You can calculate that easily: the centripetal acceleration effectively reduces the weight of a mass (on the equator) $m$ by an amount equal to $m$ x the angular rotation speed x the radius of the Earth. This is further complicated by the fact that the Earth is a slightly oblate spheroid, and therefore $g$ varies slightly with latitude. These factors are discussed in detail in Wikipedia.






                        share|cite|improve this answer

























                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          That is a reasonable question. If the earth were isolated, not rotating and perfectly spherical, then $g$ would be the same everywhere on the surface. But it's not any of those things. You are right that centripetal acceleration reduces the measured weight of an object. You can calculate that easily: the centripetal acceleration effectively reduces the weight of a mass (on the equator) $m$ by an amount equal to $m$ x the angular rotation speed x the radius of the Earth. This is further complicated by the fact that the Earth is a slightly oblate spheroid, and therefore $g$ varies slightly with latitude. These factors are discussed in detail in Wikipedia.






                          share|cite|improve this answer























                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote









                            That is a reasonable question. If the earth were isolated, not rotating and perfectly spherical, then $g$ would be the same everywhere on the surface. But it's not any of those things. You are right that centripetal acceleration reduces the measured weight of an object. You can calculate that easily: the centripetal acceleration effectively reduces the weight of a mass (on the equator) $m$ by an amount equal to $m$ x the angular rotation speed x the radius of the Earth. This is further complicated by the fact that the Earth is a slightly oblate spheroid, and therefore $g$ varies slightly with latitude. These factors are discussed in detail in Wikipedia.






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            That is a reasonable question. If the earth were isolated, not rotating and perfectly spherical, then $g$ would be the same everywhere on the surface. But it's not any of those things. You are right that centripetal acceleration reduces the measured weight of an object. You can calculate that easily: the centripetal acceleration effectively reduces the weight of a mass (on the equator) $m$ by an amount equal to $m$ x the angular rotation speed x the radius of the Earth. This is further complicated by the fact that the Earth is a slightly oblate spheroid, and therefore $g$ varies slightly with latitude. These factors are discussed in detail in Wikipedia.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered 14 hours ago









                            S. McGrew

                            5,0132922




                            5,0132922















                                Popular posts from this blog

                                數位音樂下載

                                格利澤436b

                                When can things happen in Etherscan, such as the picture below?