B Inertial vs non inertial frames

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter rudransh verma
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Frames Inertial
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that whether a frame is inertial or non-inertial depends on the particle's acceleration rather than the frame itself. It highlights that Earth, while often treated as an inertial frame for practical experiments, is technically non-inertial due to its rotation. The effects of Earth's rotation can be negligible in certain contexts, such as in laboratory experiments, but are significant in fields like meteorology where the Coriolis force must be considered. The conversation emphasizes the importance of context in determining the appropriateness of treating a frame as inertial. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for accurate analysis in physics and engineering.
rudransh verma
Gold Member
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
96

I previously thought Earth is inertial frame and relative to Earth non accelerating frames are inertial too. But after watching this video, I came to know that it’s not the frame with respect to which we decide whether a frame is inertial or not. It’s the particle.
When a particle is not accelerating the frame is inertial. When it’s accelerating frame is non inertial.
But how the author is saying there is acceleration even when the net force is zero? I don’t get that part.
Also for example we take Earth and lift example. If our lift is accelerating then what does that make the earth, a non inertial frame or inertial ?
 
  • Like
Likes vcsharp2003
Physics news on Phys.org
rudransh verma said:
I previously thought Earth is inertial frame

It can't be since it is rotating. Rotating reference frames are not inertial. But sometimes we can neglect those effect, and treat frame connected with Earth as inertial, but that is an approximation.
 
  • Like
Likes vcsharp2003 and vanhees71
Another very illuminating movie, one of my favorites, is

 
  • Love
  • Like
Likes rudransh verma and Steve4Physics
rudransh verma said:
Also for example we take Earth and lift example. If our lift is accelerating then what does that make the earth, a non inertial frame or inertial ?
Part of the skill of physics/engineering is to know how to think about a problem.

Suppose you are doing experiments in a lab’ with colliding objects on an air-track. The fact that the Earth is rotating (so is non-inertial) is irrelevant – the effects on the experimental results are too small to have any detectable effects. You are therefore justified in treating the Earth as an inertial frame.

But if you are a meteorologist analysing large-scale patterns of air flow in the atmosphere., you cannot ignore the earth’s rotation. You must treat the Earth as a non-inertial frame. (Read about Coriolis force if you are not already familiar with it.)
 
  • Like
Likes rudransh verma and vanhees71
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?

Similar threads

Replies
94
Views
6K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top