Centripetal acceleration question?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by theorist-constant12345, Jan 27, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    Correct.
    Yes. You do not need energy to "retain the motion of orbit." Indeed, you would need a truly massive amount of energy to reduce that amount of momentum.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    Ok thank you , good enough to convince me at this time.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    I was just double checking things sorry it is my nature, your version accepted now and accepting that light is not strong enough in force.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    Maybe you should request the closure of this thread as well then?
     
  8. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    I have had my answers so yes this can be closed all though this thread has value in showing anyone with the same idea about light force having the strength to oppose gravity , that the idea is not warranted.
     
  9. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    The force acted by the sunlight on earth can be calculated. Look for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
    You see that the sunlight gives a pressure \(P=9.08 \mu Pa \). So by knowing earth radius \(R_e \), you can calculate the force acting on the earth. I won't show it but by summing all the force at the different angles, it can be shown that the total force will be \(F=\pi P R_e^2 \). The acceleration that is added to the earth due to the light pressure will be (using Newton's second law) \( a = \frac{\pi P R_e^2}{M_e}\). Using the values we get that the acceleration is about \(7\times 10^{-19} \frac{m}{sec^2}\).
    In order to understand how small is this acceleration, a body having this acceleration changes its velocity by \(1 \frac{m}{sec}\) in about 44 billion years. Do you think that this force is negligible?
     
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Holy spit, I knew the amount was insignificant but good grief... I didn't realize it was THAT much so XD

    I reckon we'd be better off trying to get everyone on one side of the planet to break wind at the same time!
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Not sure if anyone has reviewed this....
    "The earth only ever having one side in the light" is not applicable to Earth.
    Our Moon only ever has one side facing earth, and in a few billion years hence, the Earth will also only ever have one side facing the Moon. This is called a captured geosynchronous orbit from memory and is caused by tidal gravitational effects.
    When this happens of course, a day on earth will be equal to a lunar month.
    Will the earth only ever have one side facing the Sun and be tidally locked?
    If this is at all applicable, and I would say yes, it would probably be in a huge time frame, that would outlast the life of the earth anyway and a bloating Sun.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Earth is a sphere and receives light from the sun, so obviously only half of the Earth receives light from the sun at any given time. The Earth rotates relative to the Sun, though, so it is not true that the same area on the Earth is lit or unlit at all times.

    Apparently, the opening poster considers that his questions here have been answered, so this thread is now closed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page