The Earth: An Inertial Frame of Reference

AI Thread Summary
The Earth can be considered an inertial frame of reference in a Newtonian context when ignoring its rotation and orbital movements. However, this perspective is limited to small-scale motions, such as throwing a ball, where Earth's rotation has minimal impact. For larger-scale actions, like firing naval artillery, the Earth's rotation becomes significant and must be accounted for. Thus, while parts of the Earth can be treated as inertial frames, the entire planet's motion complicates this classification. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for accurate calculations in physics and engineering.
manimaran1605
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
How Earth is considered to inertial frame of reference?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The Earth can be considered an inertial frame of reference in the Newtonian sense, where gravity is a real force, and when you disregard it's rotation about its axis as well as its rotation about the Sun and the Sun's rotation about the Galactic center.
 
I don't see how you could consider the whole Earth as an inertial frame of reference, but only a tiny part of it (or an object of its surface). As soon as you take into account the whole planet, you can't ignore the fact that it's moving, both transating and especially rotating.
 
If the time and space scales of your motion are very short (e.g., throwing a ball over normal, human distances) then the trajectory will barely be affected by the Earth's rotation. Just imagine how far the Earth will have rotated under your ball during the time it was in the air.

If you're firing naval artillery shells that can fly for more than a minute and disappear over the horizon, then yes you need to consider the rotation of the earth.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
94
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
5K
Back
Top