Big deal that we speed along on the surface of the Earth

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the Earth's rotational speed and its relevance to human experience, noting that while the equator moves at about 1,000 miles per hour, this speed is largely insignificant for everyday activities. The centripetal acceleration at the equator is minimal compared to gravitational acceleration, making the Earth's rotation irrelevant for most human motions. When considering running speeds, the rotational velocity of the Earth does not affect performance significantly, as runners' velocities are relative to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. However, for activities like missile launches or long-distance flights, the Earth's motion must be factored in due to the Coriolis effect. Overall, the impact of Earth's rotation is negligible for typical human experiences.
silvanet
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I often read or hear people making a big deal that we speed along on the surface of the Earth at about 1,000 miles an hour - well, at least on the equator. In Miami, were only "speeding" along at about 900 mph; in Chicago, they're slower, only around 775 mph; and in Anchorage, even slower, only about 485. Nearer the poles, persons are relatively moving like snails. Is there any significance to that speed as far as human experience goes? Or is it largely irrelevant. Everybody just feels like they're standing still, and for almost all their imaginable earthly activities it makes no difference. I mean other than if the sun were to instantly vanish they would go flying off the Earth's surface at different velocities?

How significant is 445 meters per second to the fastest men on Earth who run 10 meters per second? Would whether they were running with or against the Earth's rotation make a slight difference on their times, like running with or against the rotation on a running machine? Would that difference be actually noticeable in Anchorage, or Reykjavic? Of course runners run same course, so no advantage; but, I mean relative to an individual runner. I would guess that it does make a difference, when you're traveling at speeds faster than sound, whether you're moving in the direction of Earth's rotation or against it.

I know this may sound like a stupid question to someone who has advanced understanding of physical motion. I did study physics in high school and a couple of courses in college, both with calculus, but only one with a lab. My daughter is taking a college intro physics course and I'm trying to help her. These thoughts just started coming up in my own mind as we worked on centripetal acceleration and angular velocity. I hope this is an appropriate post. Just wondering, and I'd appreciate comments from people who know the subject.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org


It's largely irrelevant. The centripetal acceleration required to stay on the surface of the Earth at the equator is tiny compared to the amount of acceleration gravity provides for people.

Velocities are always relative. The question for someone running on the surface of the Earth is what is his velocity relative to the surface of the earth, or relative to the atmosphere which provides air resistance to his movement. For these situations the rotational velocity of the surface of the Earth won't matter at all. Now if you want to fire ballistic missiles or fly a jet a long distance over the Earth in a short period of time, then one has to account for the motion of the Earth by computing the effect of the Coriolis force. But for more basic human experiences, it's not relevant.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top