Is a rotating system considered inertial?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the classification of rotating systems as inertial reference frames. Participants explore the definitions and conditions under which a system can be considered inertial, particularly in the context of rotation and acceleration.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Bob questions whether a system rotating with a constant angular velocity can be considered inertial, referencing the definition of inertial frames as those without acceleration relative to the background stars.
  • One participant asserts that rotating frames are not inertial, stating that every frame of reference on Earth is not absolutely inertial due to the presence of acceleration.
  • Another participant suggests that the definition of inertial may depend on the context, mentioning that personal frames of reference or specific systems like GPS units could influence the classification.
  • A participant provides a link to an external resource on inertial reference systems, although the relevance of the link is not discussed further.
  • One participant elaborates on the characteristics of inertial frames, emphasizing the need to examine both translational and rotational behaviors to determine if a frame is inertial.
  • Another participant challenges the concept of a "true inertial frame," arguing that it complicates the definition unnecessarily and suggesting that inertial-ness can be determined independently of other frames.
  • There is a humorous exchange regarding a metaphorical statement about "nuking" and observing, which adds a light-hearted tone to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether rotating systems can be classified as inertial. There is no consensus, as some argue against the inertial status of rotating frames while others suggest that definitions may vary based on context.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various definitions and contexts for inertial frames, indicating that assumptions about what constitutes an inertial frame may vary. The discussion includes informal language and humor, which may affect the clarity of technical arguments.

Wannabeagenius
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Hi All,

I'm a bit confused about the definition of an internal reference system!

I know that a system can be considered inertial if there is no acceleration relative to the background stars. In other words, a system moving at constant velocity.

What about the rotation of such a system? If it rotates with a constant angular velocity, it it still considered an inertial syste?

Thanks in advance,

Bob
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, it is not. So every frame of reference on Earth is not absolutely inertial. An inertial reference frame must not have any acceleration exerting on.
 
It might be dependent upon what definition you're going by. In the strictest sense, your personal frame is the only relevant one. If you are relying upon a GPS unit, then that unit's frame is the relevant one. If you have none of the above, then just nuke 'em until they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark.
 
How about this link? hope it will help!

http://quick-help.net/Inertial-Reference-System-Definition
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Guercio said:
I'm a bit confused about the definition of an internal reference system!
An idealised frame of reference in which Newton's 1st law of motion is valid. If a body is not acted upon by any force, it will continue to move with uniform velocity wrt that frame (or stay at rest).

I know that a system can be considered inertial if there is no acceleration relative to the background stars. In other words, a system moving at constant velocity.
That is a workable definition over (astronomcally) small distances and time.

What about the rotation of such a system? If it rotates with a constant angular velocity, it it still considered an inertial syste?

Definitely not, as Pixel01 pointed out.

Danger said:
It might be dependent upon what definition you're going by. In the strictest sense, your personal frame is the only relevant one. If you are relying upon a GPS unit, then that unit's frame is the relevant one. If you have none of the above, then just nuke 'em until they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark.

Ulg! Zhug?
 
Shooting star said:
Ulg! Zhug?

Apparently my lack of formal education is showing.:redface:
From my reading about relativity (mostly SciAm, since I can't follow math), my understanding was that an inertial frame is one in which nothing moves relative to anything else. For instance, if I'm walking along, I'm not actually moving, nor is whatever I'm carrying; everything else is moving relative to me.
Sorry about the confusion.
 
An inertial reference frame is characterized by two things: An origin, and a set of axes. Suppose there does exist some true inertial reference frame. We want to test whether some other reference frame is inertial. Examining the translational behavior of the origin and the rotational behavior of the axes of this other frame will determine if this other frame is inertial. If the origin of this other frame is accelerating with respect to the origin of the true inertial frame, an observer fixed to this other frame will see objects not subject to external forces undergo acceleration. Similarly, If the frame's axes are rotating with respect to the inertial frame, our observer will see objects that are not subject to any external forces follow a curved path.

At one of my previous jobs I worked on devices that were flew from the middle of the ocean and ended their flight, rather spectacularly, over land. During a discussion with my supervisor, PhD in physics, he nonchalantly claimed "there is no such thing as an inertial reference frame." My reply was along the lines of "what?" "Name one."

The best we can do is to find something close to an inertial reference frame. Our best guess as far as axes is the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF). The US Naval Observatory website on the ICRF is http://rorf.usno.navy.mil/ICRF/" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D H said:
An inertial reference frame is characterized by two things: An origin, and a set of axes.
Any reference frame, inertial or not, has an origin and a set of axes.

D H said:
Suppose there does exist some true inertial reference frame. We want to test whether some other reference frame is inertial. Examining the translational behavior of the origin and the rotational behavior of the axes of this other frame will determine if this other frame is inertial. If the origin of this other frame is accelerating with respect to the origin of the true inertial frame, an observer fixed to this other frame will see objects not subject to external forces undergo acceleration. Similarly, If the frame's axes are rotating with respect to the inertial frame, our observer will see objects that are not subject to any external forces follow a curved path.
Although you can define inertial-ness this way I don't think that you should. How do you know that your "true inertial frame" is in fact inertial? This is unnecessarily complicated since you can determine the inertial-ness of a reference frame without comparing to any other reference frame. In fact, it is necessary to do so for your "true inertial frame" anyway, so you may as well discard the concept altogether.

D H said:
At one of my previous jobs I worked on devices that were flew from the middle of the ocean and ended their flight, rather spectacularly, over land. During a discussion with my supervisor, PhD in physics, he nonchalantly claimed "there is no such thing as an inertial reference frame." My reply was along the lines of "what?" "Name one."

The best we can do is to find something close to an inertial reference frame. Our best guess as far as axes is the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF). The US Naval Observatory website on the ICRF is http://rorf.usno.navy.mil/ICRF/" .
This is actually more along the lines of how I would define an inertial reference frame. An inertial frame is a coordinate system (origin and axes) in which an ideal inertial guidance device (like what you are describing above) at rest in the frame will register no acceleration and no rotation. This makes it clear that the term "inertial" is a physical description.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Danger said:
If you have none of the above, then just nuke 'em until they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark.

Well, I thought you were an alien about to nuke us. So I tried to ask hey dude what's up? :smile:
 
  • #10
Shooting star said:
Well, I thought you were an alien about to nuke us.
Ummm... er... no. I'm here merely to observe... :rolleyes:
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Axial angular momentum calculation
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Undergrad Velocity transformation between frames rotating relative to one another
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Law of inertia (inertial observer and inertial frames of reference)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Coriolis inertial acceleration
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
Undergrad Relative Motion & Local Frame’s Position - when projecting components
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Rotation: inertial frame vs. body-fixed frame
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Graduate How to check if frame is inertial?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
Undergrad Are Newton's Laws just definitions?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Undergrad Question about a Rotating system with mass moving inwards
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Graduate Is this point of contact an inertial frame?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K