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