this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
438 points (86.3% liked)

memes

10359 readers
1276 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Idreamofcheesy@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Not quite. When you're rotating, you are constantly accelerating in a tangent direction to the diameter. So the poster is right that we should be feeling a force shooting us away from the center of earth.

Except the force of gravity cancels out the centripetal force and then some.

So [force of gravity] - [centripetal force of Earth's rotation] = 9.8m/s^2

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The difference is about 0.5%. A mass weighing 100kg at the north pole would only weigh 99.5kg at the equator. Most of the difference is the centerfugal force of the earth's rotation.

I've not checked the numbers, but apparently it's detectable in Olympic sports. More height records get broken at equatorial latitudes that higher ones.

[–] tweeks@feddit.nl 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Interesting, would the muscles of someone living far away from the equator be stronger in general than compared to someone with the same genes / lifestyle on the equator?

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

0.5% is so tiny that it disappears into the noise. It's a 1 in 200 difference. In theory, it would make a difference. In practice, you won't be able to measure it. Other confounding factors would bury it.

[–] wanderer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A mass weighing 100kg at the north pole would only weigh 99.5kg at the equator

That assumes a perfectly spherical earth. The earth is not perfectly spherical.

[–] gentooer@programming.dev 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This. Planets are in hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning that the combined acceleration by gravity and the centrifugal "force" is equal all over the world (except for local differences due to mountains and dense crust).

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Hydrostatic equilibrium yes, but equal? No. We agree that centrifugal force is a factor. Now ask yourself, why would gravity suddenly strengthen at the equator to get the surface acceleration to stay equal to that of the poles?

It doesn't. As a result the Earth seeks a new hydrostatic equilibrium, bulging out at the equator. This in turn strengthens the centrifugal force a bit while also slightly diminishing the force of gravity (because more of the planet's mass is farther away). So the same effect is taken even further. Local differences add a layer of noise on top of this, but the end result is that the net surface acceleration is measured to average slightly less at equatorial regions than at the poles, with for example Singapore getting 9.7639 m/s2 of downward acceleration, while Helsinki gets 9.825 m/s2.

[–] gentooer@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago

You're right, I had it backwards. Hydrostatic equilibrium makes it that the combined force vector of gravity and the centrifugal force is perpendicular to the planet surface everywhere.

[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Only on the equator, the force is just tiny, it produces major weather systems through the coriolis effect but only on giant scales. This would be like saying people get dizzy if they stand near the pole.

[–] eating3645@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The fact that your units are units of acceleration proves the guys point, no?

[–] Idreamofcheesy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

It sounded like the guy meant the 1700km/h is a velocity, not an acceleration, which is why we don't feel the force of acceleration.

I was pointing out that spinning is acceleration, just in this case we can't feel it due to other forces.

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

The actual amount of centrifugal force is also tiny. Sure, it's a relatively fast linear speed compared to something like a merry-go-round, but a merry-go-round's angular velocity is much higher, and that's the one you use when calculating the force trying to fling you off.

Also, centripetal force is the inward force observed by an external non-rotating reference frame which deflects motion into a curve. You've conflated it with centrifugal force, which is the outward "fictitious" force experienced in a rotating reference frame.

[–] db2@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What are those pre-math numbers though? How screwed would we be if rotation doubled or stopped (regardless of the virtual impossibility)?

[–] Idreamofcheesy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Have you seen the elementary school experiment where you spin an egg on a flat surface, then you stop the egg and let it go and the then the egg starts spinning again?

If the earth suddenly stopped spinning, the atmosphere would still be spinning at 1700km/h.

A cat 5 hurricane has wind speeds of 253km/h. So we'd be boned.

[–] Freefall@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Look up xkcd world stop spinning