Duplicate Question
The question on this page has been marked as a duplicate question.
Original Question
At what height above Earth's surface is the gravitational acceleration reduced from its sea-level value by 0.20%? At what heigh...Asked by please help
At what height above Earth's surface is the gravitational acceleration reduced from its sea-level value by 0.20%?
At what height above Earth's surface is the gravitational acceleration reduced from its sea-level value by 2.0%?
At what height above Earth's surface is the gravitational acceleration reduced from its sea-level value by 20%?
What am I doing wrong...
for .2%
g=9.8-(.002*9.8)
.0196 =9.7804
r=sqrt(GM/g)
sqrt(3.9886*10^14)/9.7804
6386044.4
6386044.4-6370000=16044 m or aprx 16 km
am i not using the right equation?
At what height above Earth's surface is the gravitational acceleration reduced from its sea-level value by 2.0%?
At what height above Earth's surface is the gravitational acceleration reduced from its sea-level value by 20%?
What am I doing wrong...
for .2%
g=9.8-(.002*9.8)
.0196 =9.7804
r=sqrt(GM/g)
sqrt(3.9886*10^14)/9.7804
6386044.4
6386044.4-6370000=16044 m or aprx 16 km
am i not using the right equation?
Answers
Answered by
bobpursley
g'=g*(re/(re+r))^2
so if you want g' to be say 1percetn less, then g'=.99g
or .99=(re/(re+r))^2
re/(re+r)= sqrt .99
then solve for r, which is the height above the Earth's surface
so if you want g' to be say 1percetn less, then g'=.99g
or .99=(re/(re+r))^2
re/(re+r)= sqrt .99
then solve for r, which is the height above the Earth's surface
Answered by
Chanz
Your logic is perfectly sound. The problem is that using rounded figures like 5.98e24 for mass and 6.34e6 for radius gets you an initial value for earth's gravity as 9.83. Using less rounded figures like mass as 5.972kg gets closer to the truth (9.81).
But again we're dealing with really big numbers so getting .2% from these big numbers is subject to error. Using a little more exact figures your way gets a figure of about 11800m. But your way of doing it is completely correct.
But again we're dealing with really big numbers so getting .2% from these big numbers is subject to error. Using a little more exact figures your way gets a figure of about 11800m. But your way of doing it is completely correct.
There are no AI answers yet. The ability to request AI answers is coming soon!
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.