2

Edit : Added a picture for better understanding of my querry. All the texts I have studied has used an non-inertial frame to explain the phenomenon. But every time I see something explained with pseudo forces, I try to realize in real forces.

But in this case I tried to explain it in a frame which is centered in Earth's center and not rotating. But I couldn't explain what happens to the tangential component (to the point on Earth's surface where $g$ to be measured) of centripetal acceleration in this scenario. It doesn't cancel out.

But then I thought the tangential component is so low that practically it would have no effect.

Is my explanation wrong?enter image description here

Mockingbird
  • 1,228
  • "Tangential component" of what -- velocity?
  • The point on the earth's surface is moving, it has velocity. It only remains on the surface if the velocity rotates. This $\delta v$ is an acceleration that you will not derive in a force diagram that only considers one moment in time.

    – JMLCarter Apr 24 '17 at 01:02
  • I clearly wrote the tangential component of centripetal acceleration then I dropped the term centripetal acceleration. You should have realized that. – Mockingbird Apr 24 '17 at 01:44
  • Related answer: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/328430/why-do-we-experience-the-normal-force-in-an-elevator-and-not-the-net-force/328501#328501 – Yashas Apr 24 '17 at 02:57
  • Centripetal acceleration is a purely radial effect. Its tangential component is exactly 0. Well, almost exactly. At any moment it is 0. If you are integrating over time, it's going to have an infinitesimal dx to worry about. That being said, consider developing confidence in non-inertial frames, using accelerations rather than pseudo-forces. It's far easier to derive the equations of motion in a rotating frame once for all possible motions, rather than trying to re-derive them from inertial coordinates every time. There's nothing wrong with the accelerations from non-intertial frames – Cort Ammon Apr 24 '17 at 04:14
  • @Cort ammon look at the edit. – Mockingbird Apr 24 '17 at 07:55
  • Are you worried that the effective acceleration due to gravity on a rotating planet is not radial everywhere? Because it's not, and it is easy to see that by just cranking up the rotation (consider the planet to be rigid to avoid having to think about the deformation of the planet). –  Apr 24 '17 at 08:48
  • The problem is most of the texts I have seen don't talk about the non-radiality about of the effective acceleration. So I had a misconception that tangential component will be canceled by some force. @tfb

    Thanks.

    – Mockingbird Apr 24 '17 at 11:48