• justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    1.) 0.28 g 2.) 15.7 g 3.) 0.0034 g

    I assumed 1m radius for the first and 5m for the second, particularly the second sounds off. Anyway… The centripetal force from Earth’s rotation is quiet negligible compared to its gravitation.

    • axsyse@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      2 months ago

      5 meters is definitely way too short for the chair swing ride. Look at the people in the seats. It’s definitely at least 10 meters.

      Assuming 10 meters and 100 km/h, that gives about 7.9 g. That’s in the range of what fighter pilots might experience and well beyond where most people black out, so that’s still definitely too high.

      Looking it up online, this is a pretty classic physics problem and the numbers you might see around it are closer to a radius of 12 meters and a speed of 13 to 17 m/s. Taking that as 15 m/s (54 km/h), that works out to about 1.9 g, which I can subjectively say feels much closer to the real value if you ever ride on one of these.

      So, the second one is about 1.9 g

      • Adalast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, those rides complete a rotation in ~10 seconds given what I was able to count in a couple YouTube videos, so 36°/sec. If they have a 10m radius, the linear velocity would be 6.283 m/s or 22.62km/he.

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 months ago

      Considering most people will start to lose consciousness and risk heart issues at like 5g, I’m pretty sure the speed is way off on number 2.

      • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        2 months ago

        Lol, guys it’s not acceleration it’s just the exact definition of acceleration. Which is definitely not acceleration.

      • 0ops@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        None of those reference frames are accelerating.

        The difference is whether there is a changing velocity or not.

        I’m going to assume that you’re defining acceleration in that second statement, because I’m not sure if you are and “changing velocity” is literally what acceleration means. In any case, both acceleration and velocity are vectors, both have a direction, and so a person’s velocity sure as hell can’t be constant when they’re going in circles. Ergo, acceleration. I mean that’s what force is, mass times acceleration, so if you move and you can feel it you’re accelerating. Earth has gravity that can more than cancel it out, but we can’t say the same for rides.

        Somebody smarter and with more energy than me can probably come up with a rough estimate of the g’s being pulled in each picture (ignoring gravity).

        Edit: looks like someone did!

        • Klear@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          In any case, both acceleration and velocity are vectors, both have a direction, and so a person’s velocity sure as hell can’t be constant when they’re going in circles.

          Well, you can if the space-time is curved right, that’s what orbits are, but that’t just a nitpick.

      • cashew@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        We do understand the difference between speed and velocity. It’s just that acceleration is the change in velocity over time, not speed.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        What? No, the radius just makes the speed “faster”, but what really matters is the frequency of rotation.

        The merry-go-round is what, 20-25 RPM max? The carnival ride is only like 6-8 RPM. Both are a hell of a lot faster than 1RPD.

          • prime_number_314159@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            In case you aren’t joking, I believe the relevant statement is that acceleration and “a change in velocity over time” are the same thing.

            If you imagine driving a car forward in a straight line, pressing the gas will make you accelerate (velocity becomes more forward). Pressing the brake will also make you accelerate (velocity becomes less forward). Turning the steering wheel will also make you accelerate (velocity points more to the left/more to the right).

            While I’m at it, you can do physics computations in a rotating frame of reference, but it produces some fictious forces, and gets really wacky quickly. An easy example is that anything far enough away from the axis of rotation is moving faster than the speed of light.

          • 0ops@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            We know, but also neither are acceleration and the magnitude of acceleration the same. Acceleration is a vector - it has a direction just as velocity does. Here’s the definition I just copied from Google:

            Acceleration: the rate of change of velocity per unit of time.

            And here’s how you write that in math:

            a=∆v/∆t.

            If you want to know more about the relationships between position, velocity, and acceleration, take a calculus class. Isaac Newton literally invented it to solve problems like this

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Rotation is acceleration towards the center with a velocity perpendicular to the centre. Using a frame of reference that rotates along with the object doesn’t change what is physically happening to that object, it just affects the way you observe what’s happening. A rotating frame of reference is itself accelerating and each of those frames of reference are accelerating.

        We don’t feel the Earth’s rotation because gravity is accelerating our entire body and surroundings at the same rate, plus it’s not just the spinning keeping us in equilibrium; the left over force holds us on the ground.

        The other two feel different because it’s the structures that provide the acceleration towards the centre, which then pushes on our bodies where it makes contact, and then the structure of our bodies pulls the rest and you can feel the forces of things wanting to move in the direction of inertia but being pulled around the circle instead.

        If rotating frames of reference weren’t accelerating, turning a car would feel no different from going straight.

  • TIMMAY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s almost like there’s no such thing as absolute velocity or something

  • HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    So what would happen if Earth suddenly stopped spinning? Would every building, tree and mountain suddenly fall Eastward?