Do things move in uniform motion in real life?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter goodabouthood
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Life Motion Uniform
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of uniform motion in real life, particularly in the context of outer space and the Earth's rotation. Participants explore whether objects can move in uniform motion relative to each other, the implications of the Earth's rotation on inertial frames, and the nature of motion in different reference frames.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether uniform motion can actually occur in outer space, suggesting that true uniform motion implies never having accelerated, which contradicts the transient nature of existence.
  • Others propose that while the Earth is rotating and cannot be considered an inertial frame, it can be approximated as such for short periods and distances, ignoring gravitational effects.
  • A participant notes that an inertial frame cannot be rotating, raising questions about the symmetry of special relativity (SR) in space and whether objects can travel together uniformly.
  • One participant references a book discussing uniform motion in relation to specified inertial reference frames, using an example involving a ruler and a rotating wheel to illustrate differing perceptions of motion.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the existence of uniform motion on Earth, emphasizing that even seemingly straight paths are curved due to the Earth's rotation.
  • Some participants clarify the distinction between inertially moving bodies and inertial frames, suggesting that while the Earth as a whole can be approximated as moving inertially, many parts of it are not due to gravitational forces.
  • There is a discussion about how the Earth's rotation affects the perceived weight of individuals at different locations, indicating that local variations in acceleration exist.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence of uniform motion and the implications of the Earth's rotation on inertial frames. There is no consensus on whether uniform motion can be achieved in real life, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the nature of motion in relation to the Earth's rotation.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their arguments, including the dependence on definitions of inertial frames and the effects of gravity. The discussion also highlights the complexity of motion in a gravitational field and the varying perceptions of motion based on different reference frames.

goodabouthood
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
Does this actually happen in outer space? Do things actually move in uniform motion relative to each other?

How would this work for the Earth considering it's rotating?

Can the Earth ever be considered an inertial frame because it's always rotating?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
goodabouthood said:
Does this actually happen in outer space? Do things actually move in uniform motion relative to each other?
No. Uniform, or inertial, motion means that something has never accelerated--never changed its speed or direction--which means that it has existed forever and "real life" has not existed forever.
goodabouthood said:
How would this work for the Earth considering it's rotating?

Can the Earth ever be considered an inertial frame because it's always rotating?
No, but we can approximate, so for short periods of time and for short distances, and ignoring the effects of gravity, it works good enough.
 
I thought an inertial frame cannot be one that is rotating.

Does the symmetry of SR actually exist in space?

Isn't it possible that things have reached a state where they are traveling together uniformly?
 
Hmm.. I remember reading a while back, the book was Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (Born), in which it was said that uniform motion exists if the inertial reference frame is specified. He cleverly uses the example of a fixed ruler, a pencil, and a wheel (imagine a pottery wheel) to get his point across. Imagine the pencil moving along the ruler and the wheel rotating. To the observer fixed on the ruler, the motion seems uniform (straight), but to the one on the rotating disk, the motion is a curved line. Anyone feel free to correct me if i’m misinformed.
 
If you’re looking for a very very correct answer (i don’t know what that means either :smile:) then no, nothing (to my knowledge) ever travels in uniform motion (especially on earth). The Earth is spinning, so something that seems to travel in straight lines actually travels in a slightly curved path. But according to the book, we don’t notice this because of the shortness of the paths used compared with the dimensions of the Earth (which someone already said). Once again correct me if i’m wrong.
 
Last edited:
goodabouthood said:
I thought an inertial frame cannot be one that is rotating.
You thought right.
goodabouthood said:
Does the symmetry of SR actually exist in space?
Yes, along with the asymmetry of GR and asymmetries of SR caused by less than perfectly inertially moving bodies.
goodabouthood said:
Isn't it possible that things have reached a state where they are traveling together uniformly?
No, why would you think that?
 
You have to distinguish between an inertially moving body and an inertial frame. The rotating Earth is not an inertial body, but we can invision an inertial frame that contains the non-inertial rotating earth.
 
ghwellsjr said:
You have to distinguish between an inertially moving body and an inertial frame. The rotating Earth is not an inertial body, but we can invision an inertial frame that contains the non-inertial rotating earth.

I would phrase this somewhat differently. The Earth as a whole, considered as a single object, is moving inertially, at least to a very good approximation. We know this because we can compute its motion using the assumption that it is moving inertially, i.e., that it is in free fall with its motion determined by nothing but gravity, and we get the right answer to a very good approximation.

However, most *parts* of the Earth are *not* moving inertially; they feel acceleration. This would be true even if the Earth were not rotating, because it is a large gravitating body and most of its parts, as well as objects gravitationally bound to its surface (like us), have forces exerted on them by other parts that push them into non-inertial states of motion. For example, we feel weight standing on the surface of the Earth because that surface pushes us upward, out of the freely falling path we would take if the surface were not there.

The rotation of the Earth, from the standpoint of what parts of it are or are not moving inertially, is only a fairly small correction to the above; it makes the Earth oblate to about one part in 300, and it causes small variations in the acceleration felt at different locations. For example, a person standing at the equator feels a little less weight than a person of identical mass standing at one of the poles.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 128 ·
5
Replies
128
Views
8K