Ineresting thought on earth's speed and rotation.

[.physics]

Let me give an example to make it short and clear - suppose we want to travel from China to US i.e east to west . We know that Earth rotates from west to east. Now if we could only manage to hang in the space(like hovering helicopter) just few hundred meters above the ground without actually moving , then the surface below would move due to Earth's motion from west to east and we could be in US or let's say US will come below us just in about 8 hours without actually moving on our own. This might make it virtually possible to travel from anyone place to another in Earth in not more than 24 hours by just hanging on air.

Well there may be some objection on it that even if it is possible , due to certain degree
inclination of Earth's axis, we might travel in an spiral motion and we might not exactly end
up in US or desired location. This could be solved by making a short vertical displacement relative to Earth's latitude. But that is not my main matter of concern. I am actually wondering if Earth would move relative to us if we were hovering is air. Let's reduce the example to origin place just below equatorial plane and destination just above it so the scenario might get closer to possible.

Well we might have some obvious answer like
1)Since we are in Earth and it is very large compared to us so we cannot feel the movement of Earth and of course we cannot travel relative to earth.

2)It doesn't matter if we are in ground or air , in ground we will be moving along with ground and in the space above the ground , we will move along with the space which is turn is in the Earth's atmosphere and atmosphere of Earth is moving along with earth.

3)Everything in Earth is moving in same speed including atmosphere and like such...

But still there are some points that keep me insisting that this phenomena is actually possible.

1)There was an TV program where it was shown that a long pendulum that started to swing in one direction in morning and kept on swinging throughout the day , finally ended up swinging in different trajectory at the end of the day inclined at a certain angle to the original path. This may make it clear that the movement of Earth has some relative impact on objects.

2)Why can't we feel inertial effects on us due to Earth's movement or are we actually having it but we are so adapted to it that we can't feel it?

3)I simply believe that this is possible.

I am just wondering if this phenomena is actually possible and it is being used in flight routes scheduling , in hovercrafts or it isn't possible or it is possible but has not been implemented yet.

I would like to leave you with another short question at last. If a basketball was dropped from a height of 10 km exactly above the center of a basketball court on Earth's surface, would it fall in the center or somewhere else . Let's assume that it takes 10 minutes for ball to hit the ground and let's neglect the effect of air resistance or air flow for this case.

I am anxiously waiting for your thoughts/replies/solution over this matter. I would love to share much more interesting thoughts that I've got related to this matter in future when I get your opinions.​

 

[pallidin]

Good questions! However, they have all been answered long before you or I were born.
I will leave it to the experts to expound further.

To tease you somewhat, consider this scenario:
Your an astronaut in the International Space Station(ISS). You and the ISS are moving at more that 17,000 mph. You decide to jump-up.

Will that cause a problem? That is, will the inside back of the ISS slam into you at 17,000 mph?
No.
If the inside of the ISS were a total vacuum and you did the same jump, would it be any different?
No.

 

[.physics]

Yeah nice point there. Now, that we know that an astronaut can't feel or experience the movement of ISS in vacuum as well, we can say that it wasn't the atmosphere of Earth doing the trick.

So this brings us down to two possible reasons for we not being possible to experience the movement.

1)Inertia. Like we don't feel movement traveling in a plane or train moving at constant velocity. Also, an object projected from a moving body moves at the same velocity as that of moving body like a satellite launched in space from rocket.

2)Surrounding- atmosphere in case of Earth and ether in case of space/vacuum. that moves the object within along with it.

Now considering the fact that it also happens in vacuum and it isn't the atmosphere of Earth dragging us along a few more question arises.

1)Is the atmosphere of Earth steady/static or moving along with the earth?

2)If it is steady then why don't we feel resistance due to the air around us cause we are moving along with the ground at almost 1000mph along the equator and about 100 mph in places near the poles. We must be facing a hurricane that has barely 80 mph speed anytime considering we are moving at a high speed into a static atmosphere.

3)If the atmosphere is moving then why don't we fell different resistance while moving in different direction in ground or in air like that we feel different forces while moving into the wind and away from wind. We know that Earth is rotating at more than around 1000mph along the equator and we can easily feel the wind having speed 20mph. So that means that we must feel a lot more resistance due to air while moving from east to west (ie opposite to direction of Earth's rotation) than from west to east (ie along the direction of Earth's rotation.)

I would like to have some replies from experts regarding this matter but I would still highly appreciate different kind of thoughts or opinions from all the viewers.Just express whatever you think about it.

Again, thank you for your point 'pallidin'.

 

[Sakha]

1)There was an TV program where it was shown that a long pendulum that started to swing in one direction in morning and kept on swinging throughout the day , finally ended up swinging in different trajectory at the end of the day inclined at a certain angle to the original path. This may make it clear that the movement of Earth has some relative impact on objects.
​

It's called Foucault's Pendulum and its based on precession and gyroscopic effects, which I lack of knowledge in that, but if I remember right the pendulum will maintain a constant direction if it is held in the equator.

3)If the atmosphere is moving then why don't we fell different resistance while moving in different direction in ground or in air like that we feel different forces while moving into the wind and away from wind. We know that Earth is rotating at more than around 1000mph along the equator and we can easily feel the wind having speed 20mph. So that means that we must feel a lot more resistance due to air while moving from east to west (ie opposite to direction of Earth's rotation) than from west to east (ie along the direction of Earth's rotation.)

I would like to have some replies from experts regarding this matter but I would still highly appreciate different kind of thoughts or opinions from all the viewers.Just express whatever you think about it.

Relative velocities. Suppose Earth rotates at your 1000mph, and you move westward at 20mph, then your actual velocity (as seen from the outside) is 980mph, and if there is no wind then you would only feel 20mph wind. But if there is 20mph wind eastward then you would feel 40mph wind, because the wind is actually traveling at 1020mph and you at 980mph.

I'm not any kind of expert but hope this helps.

 

[brainstorm]

What about using a long cable from the moon to anchor a holding station? Yes, you would have to get people on board it using some kind of high speed vehicle, but maybe some kind of pendulum motion could slow down the interface between the station and loading vehicles. Once passengers were on board, they could travel halfway around the world in 12 hours, right? But how much cable would be needed and how strong would the cable have to be to withstand the forces? It might be more efficient to just mine a tunnel through the core and use the metal for something else.

 

[Sakha]

It might be more efficient to just mine a tunnel through the core and use the metal for something else.

Doubt that mining through the core, if it is even possible, would be more efficient than anything. Comfy sauna down there :tongue2:

 

[diazona]

There are a couple of reasons you can't just jump up and "hover" while the Earth moves under you. Basically inertia and gravity. That is, when you lose contact with the Earth's surface, you'll keep moving sideways (in the direction your piece of the Earth was moving) at the same speed, say 1000mph at the equator. If it weren't for gravity, you'd fly off in a straight line, but gravity pulls you back down to Earth.

The atmosphere does rotate along with the Earth, by the way.

 

[.physics]

It's called Foucault's Pendulum and its based on precession and gyroscopic effects, which I lack of knowledge in that, but if I remember right the pendulum will maintain a constant direction if it is held in the equator.



Relative velocities. Suppose Earth rotates at your 1000mph, and you move westward at 20mph, then your actual velocity (as seen from the outside) is 980mph, and if there is no wind then you would only feel 20mph wind. But if there is 20mph wind eastward then you would feel 40mph wind, because the wind is actually traveling at 1020mph and you at 980mph.

I'm not any kind of expert but hope this helps.

Thank you for letting me know that it was actually some kind of experiment. Are you sure that the pendulum will move in a constant direction if in equator. I just feel that this may not happen as equator is not perpendicular to Earth rotation axis or may be there's some other reason and you are true. I also don't know too much about it. Let me know if you are sure of the reason.

For relative velocities , I was a bit unclear about how you calculated the speed of us being 980mph moving east to west at 20mph. I think if looked from outside then our velocity would be -980mph, as if we are moving along the Earth west to east though trying to move 20mph forward.

But anyways thank you for your concern and interest in the topic. Hope you will help solve out the quest.

 

[.physics]

What about using a long cable from the moon to anchor a holding station? Once passengers were on board, they could travel halfway around the world in 12 hours, right?

Oh that was among the brilliant idea I have ever heard. Though it my not be practically possible but still we can not neglect the possibility. Sure enough if we could create such long cable and holding station in the end then it would really be interesting to view the space in a swinging swing in space.Feels great to think about it , let's hope we get it made some day.

And by the way if we could mine a tunnel through the core then we might have really good experiments to perform on the tunnel rather then using the molten metal mass for making a cable. Don't you think so?

 

[.physics]

There are a couple of reasons you can't just jump up and "hover" while the Earth moves under you. Basically inertia and gravity. That is, when you lose contact with the Earth's surface, you'll keep moving sideways (in the direction your piece of the Earth was moving) at the same speed, say 1000mph at the equator. If it weren't for gravity, you'd fly off in a straight line, but gravity pulls you back down to Earth.

The atmosphere does rotate along with the Earth, by the way.

Well that might be the real reason but still it is the same that I don't understand how it works?
Ok let's assume that we are actually going against the Earth direction of motion ie at 1000mph in a plane just after the take off. So does that makes us stationary and if were to travel in the same direction as that of Earth's then we might be traveling at twice the speed with same power. Please make me clear if you can. Thank you.

 

[brainstorm]

This thread raises an interesting parallel question:

If objects on Earth's surface have a certain rotational momentum that pushes them against gravity like a centrifuge, do they experience more gravity when traveling in the opposite direction as the spin and less when traveling in the same direction.

E.g. If the Earth is rotating at 1000mph and a jet is flying 1000mph against the spin, would it be pulled down with greater force and, likewise if it was flying fast enough in the other direction would it's momentum overcome gravity? Put another way, why is orbital speed the same in all directions instead of be faster in the anti-spin direction if there is a centrifuge effect due to rotation?

 

[DaveC426913]

...equator is not perpendicular to Earth rotation axis

Yes it is, by definition.

 

[DaveC426913]

This thread raises an interesting parallel question:

If objects on Earth's surface have a certain rotational momentum that pushes them against gravity like a centrifuge, do they experience more gravity when traveling in the opposite direction as the spin and less when traveling in the same direction.

Objects moving 1000mph clockwise wrt to an inertial frame of reference will experience a "centrifugal" effect exactly as much as objects moving 1000mph counterclockwise. Objects not moving will experience no centrifugal effect at all, and will weigh more.

The above is true completely independent of Earth's rotation. It is only complicated once you start using the (moving) Earth's surface as a reference point.

E.g. If the Earth is rotating at 1000mph and a jet is flying 1000mph against the spin, would it be pulled down with greater force and, likewise if it was flying fast enough in the other direction would it's momentum overcome gravity?

Yes. That's why, when rockets blast off from Cape Canaveral, they always head East. Heading East gives them at ~1000mph free boost to orbital velocity.
If rockets launched Westward, they would have to gain 2x ~1000mph under their own power.

(There are no launch facilities on the West coast. It's a bad idea to launch them out over inhabited land, and since all rockets head eastward, East Coast it is.)

Put another way, why is orbital speed the same in all directions instead of be faster in the anti-spin direction if there is a centrifuge effect due to rotation?

Orbital speed would not normally be calculated with reference to ground-speed. Usually some external FoR would make more sense.

 

[brainstorm]

Objects moving 1000mph clockwise wrt to an inertial frame of reference will experience a "centrifugal" effect exactly as much as objects moving 1000mph counterclockwise. Objects not moving will experience no centrifugal effect at all, and will weigh more.

The above is true completely independent of Earth's rotation. It is only complicated once you start using the (moving) Earth's surface as a reference point.

You sort of touched on it when you mentioned the shuttle launches, but the question is when the centrifugal effect of an object rotating with the Earth becomes independent of the rotating Earth as its FOR. Yes, relative to everything else rotating with it, such as the atmosphere, any flying object experiences the same centrifugal effect. But if stationary objects on the ground experience a certain amount of centrifugal momentum due to Earth's rotation, then that should remain the case when they leave the ground as well, right? So a helicopter or hot air balloon traveling straight up must actually weigh less than it would if the Earth stood still, right? So if it is moving in the opposite direction as Earth's rotation, why wouldn't it gain weight?

 

[diazona]

Well that might be the real reason but still it is the same that I don't understand how it works?
Ok let's assume that we are actually going against the Earth direction of motion ie at 1000mph in a plane just after the take off. So does that makes us stationary and if were to travel in the same direction as that of Earth's then we might be traveling at twice the speed with same power. Please make me clear if you can. Thank you.

Yes, if you look at it from an inertial frame of reference, you're right. A plane traveling with the Earth's rotation at 1000 mph with respect to the Earth would be going at 2000 mph with respect to the inertial frame of reference, and a plane traveling against the Earth's rotation would be stationary in that inertial frame of reference. (Technically: a frame that is as close as you can get to inertial, given that its origin is attached to the center of the Earth)

You sort of touched on it when you mentioned the shuttle launches, but the question is when the centrifugal effect of an object rotating with the Earth becomes independent of the rotating Earth as its FOR. Yes, relative to everything else rotating with it, such as the atmosphere, any flying object experiences the same centrifugal effect. But if stationary objects on the ground experience a certain amount of centrifugal momentum due to Earth's rotation, then that should remain the case when they leave the ground as well, right? So a helicopter or hot air balloon traveling straight up must actually weigh less than it would if the Earth stood still, right? So if it is moving in the opposite direction as Earth's rotation, why wouldn't it gain weight?

I think you're right, although you're misusing some terms so I can't be sure (e.g. there's no such thing as "centrifugal momentum" as far as I know, I'm guessing you mean "centrifugal force"). But anyway, if you were moving against the Earth's rotation at 1000 mph, in principle I think you would have a larger apparent weight than if you were standing on Earth's surface. The difference would be pretty small, though. You can actually calculate it and find that it's barely detectable, it's maybe around 1 percent or less of the force of gravity IIRC.

 

[JDługosz]

Yes, Foucault's Pendulum will stay in one plane at the equator. Look up Wikipedia for details on how it works. Basically, the rate of rotation tells you your latitude.

As for motion of Earth and its actual effects, notice that rockets are launched heading East and near the equator. In fact, Jules Verne picked the same place as NASA did for the space center, for sound reasons.

 

[DaveC426913]

Basically, the rate of rotation tells you your latitude.

Surely the rate of rotation is the same at any non-zero latitude, to wit: 360 degrees in 24 hours.

[EDIT] Nope. Apparently not.

 

[JDługosz]

Surely the rate of rotation is the same at any non-zero latitude, to wit: 360 degrees in 24 hours.

No,

A few weeks later, Foucault made his most famous pendulum when he suspended a 28 kg bob with a 67 meter long wire from the dome of the Panthéon, Paris. The plane of the pendulum's swing rotated clockwise 11° per hour, making a full circle in 32.7 hours.

In the second section of the Wikipedia article (that is, after the introduction) it states that it is proportional to the sine of the latitude. Then it explains why.

It is certainly not discontinuous! I don't know what you are thinking of. The behavior changes smoothly as you move from one position to another.

 

[pallidin]

(There are no launch facilities on the West coast.)

Not true at all(just to be picky)
Vandenberg Air Force Base, located in Santa Barbara county, CA.
They launch all sorts of stuff into space, and the trajectory goes over the continental US towards the east(military and commercial satellites). The exception are pacific ocean missile defense tests, which trajectory to the west over the pacific ocean.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not true at all(just to be picky)
Vandenberg Air Force Base, located in Santa Barbara county, CA.
They launch all sorts of stuff into space,

I did not know they launched stuff.

 

[cjl]

Not true at all(just to be picky)
Vandenberg Air Force Base, located in Santa Barbara county, CA.
They launch all sorts of stuff into space, and the trajectory goes over the continental US towards the east(military and commercial satellites). The exception are pacific ocean missile defense tests, which trajectory to the west over the pacific ocean.

I'm fairly sure they don't launch anything with a trajectory that takes it over the US. Most of what they launch is destined for a polar orbit, which means that it doesn't need to go over land despite the launch site being on the west coast.

 

[.physics]

Yes. That's why, when rockets blast off from Cape Canaveral, they always head East. Heading East gives them at ~1000mph free boost to orbital velocity.
If rockets launched Westward, they would have to gain 2x ~1000mph under their own power.

This was the main point of my concern. So when it's true for rockets then it should be fairly true for the airplanes and hovering objects that can hang in air. So does that mean that all the flights in Earth are traveling at speed more than 1000mph while moving east to west otherwise they would never reach the desired location , they would always be moving away from the location with relative speed of -300 mph in case of all normal aircraft.

And that doesn't seem to be possible since maximum speed of normal passenger plane is less than 700mph. That could also mean that all the flights in Earth are heading west to east for any location that will give it absolute speed of 7oomph but relative speed of 1700mph. I am wondering if the orbital velocity of Earth would only effect the movement of flying objects just for a short instant while leaving off Earth or is there some kind of threshold of sensibility for experiencing such phenomena.

You seem to be an expert so I would also want to know from you about why don't we feel different resistance due to Earth's atmosphere while moving west to east ie along the atmosphere and east to west ie against the atmosphere movement.

 

[DaveC426913]

This was the main point of my concern. So when it's true for rockets then it should be fairly true for the airplanes and hovering objects that can hang in air. So does that mean that all the flights in Earth are traveling at speed more than 1000mph while moving east to west otherwise they would never reach the desired location , they would always be moving away from the location with relative speed of -300 mph in case of all normal aircraft.

As you are discovering, it is almost useless to examine flight of aircraft and other activities from the PoV of a non-rotating reference frame off-Earth.

Orbital velocity for Earth is ~25,000kph. It is rotating at a mere 1600kph.

Earth is large enough and slow enough that, for our purposes, it is effectively not rotating at all.

I am wondering if the orbital velocity of Earth would only effect the movement of flying objects just for a short instant while leaving off Earth or is there some kind of threshold of sensibility for experiencing such phenomena.

Flying objects are best considered wrt to air they are suspended in. Whether you want to think of that air as moving at 1600kph in a large circle 40000mph in circumference, or whether you want to consider it stationary, is up to you, but it has a negligible effect on the aircraft.

We're talking tiny fractions of a percent of the object's weight.

 

[pallidin]

I did not know they launched stuff.

Yeah, most people don't(or don't remember) as we tend to fixate on Space Shuttle launches from Florida.
Here's a Vandenberg launch link: http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbsked.htm

 

[brainstorm]

I think you're right, although you're misusing some terms so I can't be sure (e.g. there's no such thing as "centrifugal momentum" as far as I know, I'm guessing you mean "centrifugal force").

There's no such thing as centrifugal force, only centripetal force (force toward a center). By "centrifugal momentum" I just mean momentum that produces a centrifuge-like effect.

But anyway, if you were moving against the Earth's rotation at 1000 mph, in principle I think you would have a larger apparent weight than if you were standing on Earth's surface. The difference would be pretty small, though. You can actually calculate it and find that it's barely detectable, it's maybe around 1 percent or less of the force of gravity IIRC.

I have explained this thought experiment so many times to physics scholars and they always seem to question it. If the Earth's rotation would accelerate continuously, it would eventually reach a speed where the speed of objects at sea level would be in orbit at that altitude. If the Earth began slowing from that speed, objects on the surface would "gain weight" progressively as the rotation slowed. So, theoretically if the Earth stopped rotating completely, there would be no centrifugal de-weighting effect at all. So the planet's rotation seems to have some weight-reduction effect, but the question is how much weight an object gains by going in the counter-rotational direction.

 

[pallidin]

...but the question is how much weight an object gains by going in the counter-rotational direction.

Not being a math student, yet I would think a formula could be established.
Of course, in the sense of "weight gain" we are not talking "mass gain" You all know that, of course.

 

[brainstorm]

Of course, in the sense of "weight gain" we are not talking "mass gain" You all know that, of course.

Yes, I'm referring to mass times the amount of centripetal force accelerating it. An object in orbit is weightless because its mass is not being accelerated centripetally, at least not in the sense that it loses altitude. It achieves "weight" when it begins falling toward the ground. Well, I suppose you could also say that objects in free fall are weightless, but I think you can also say that it is their weight that propels them in the direction of the ground.

 

[diazona]

There's no such thing as centrifugal force, only centripetal force (force toward a center). By "centrifugal momentum" I just mean momentum that produces a centrifuge-like effect.

There is a centrifugal force when you do physics in a rotating reference frame. It's a fictitious force, but still, it is a well-known physical term with a precise mathematical definition. (Which is what you'd need to have for "centrifugal momentum" to use it meaningfully)

I have explained this thought experiment so many times to physics scholars and they always seem to question it. If the Earth's rotation would accelerate continuously, it would eventually reach a speed where the speed of objects at sea level would be in orbit at that altitude. If the Earth began slowing from that speed, objects on the surface would "gain weight" progressively as the rotation slowed. So, theoretically if the Earth stopped rotating completely, there would be no centrifugal de-weighting effect at all. So the planet's rotation seems to have some weight-reduction effect, but the question is how much weight an object gains by going in the counter-rotational direction.

It's actually easy, if you only care about the magnitude (I looked this up to make sure I wasn't misremembering it): the magnitude of the centrifugal acceleration experienced in a rotating reference frame is ω²r, where ω is the angular velocity of the frame relative to an inertial frame and r is the radius of rotation. For the Earth,
ω = 2π/T = 2π/(24hr) = 7.3×10^-5 s^-1
and r = 6400 km, and plugging into the formula gives a result of 0.034 m/s². That's a mere third of a percent (≈1/300) of the strength of gravity.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's a mere third of a percent (≈1/300) of the strength of gravity.

Cool. So, if all other things were equal (and they're not i.e.: r), one would weigh about 1/2 lb less at the equator than at the poles.

 

[cjl]

Yep. It should be an even stronger effect than that with all things considered, since at the equator, you're farther away from the center of the Earth than you are at the poles (r_eq = 6378 km, r_polar = 6357 km)

 

[diazona]

Well, that difference only shows up in the third significant digit anyway. Although I committed the cardinal sin of significant figuring and rounded an intermediate result: I plugged in 6400 km instead of the actual radius

Anyway just for kicks, if you take T = 24.000 hours and r = 6378 km, it comes out to 0.03373 m/s². (Only at the equator, of course)

 

[brainstorm]

There is a centrifugal force when you do physics in a rotating reference frame. It's a fictitious force, but still, it is a well-known physical term with a precise mathematical definition. (Which is what you'd need to have for "centrifugal momentum" to use it meaningfully)

I don't think a precise definition renders something meaningful or not. I think of a force as something inherent and fundamental and not the product of other things. If the centrifuge effect is created by momentum, then it can't be a force in the sense that gravity or EM fields are, right?

 

[diazona]

Well you're kind of right, that's why we call it a fictitious force: you can eliminate it by changing to an appropriate coordinate system. Of course, by the same logic, gravity is also a fictitious force The thing is, if you're not in the appropriate coordinate systems where they vanish, these fictitious forces act mostly just like regular forces.

All I meant to say is that if we're going to have a meaningful discussion about physics concepts, we have to make sure we're using the same words to mean the same things. And in order to precisely convey to other people what you mean by some particular words, you generally need to use math. Things like centrifugal force have well-defined mathematical meanings (in this case, $m\vec{\omega}\times(\vec{\omega}\times\vec{r})$) so when someone else says "centrifugal force," I know that's exactly what they mean. But there's no such mathematical definition for "centrifugal momentum," at least as far as I know, so when you say that, it's not entirely clear what you're saying.

 

[RenasontsMan]

I once was on an elevator nearing the 100th floor when the cable snapped.
As the elevator plummeted and I watched the floor numbers tumbling wildly, I timed my vertical jump perfectly just as the elevator hit the concrete basement and here I am, none the worse for the experience.

But with respect to Mother Gaia and her motions, she is dragging the entire atmosphere along with her through space. So moving up avails you nothing.

 

[DaveC426913]

I once was on an elevator nearing the 100th floor when the cable snapped.
As the elevator plummeted and I watched the floor numbers tumbling wildly, I timed my vertical jump perfectly just as the elevator hit the concrete basement and here I am, none the worse for the experience.

Not really sure of the point of claiming this urban legend. You did not intend that we believe it; are you just looking for a reaction?