Is the earth in a non-inertial reference frame?

AI Thread Summary
The Earth exhibits a uniform tangential velocity but is considered a non-inertial reference frame due to its rotation. The centripetal acceleration resulting from this rotation contributes to its non-inertial status. In Newtonian physics, gravity is viewed as a real force causing proper acceleration, which categorizes orbiting bodies as non-inertial. Conversely, in general relativity, free-falling objects are considered inertial, but inertial frames are only locally valid at the planet's center, making the surface non-inertial. Therefore, the Earth is classified as a non-inertial frame due to its rotational dynamics and gravitational influences.
deadscientist
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
So I would agree that it has a uniform tangential velocity but would the centripetal acceleration of the Earth put it in a non inertial frame.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The rest frame of the Earth is noninertial due to rotaion around its own axis. As for the centripetal accelleration due to suns gravity, it depends which theory of gravity you use:

In Newtons model gravity is a real force that causes proper acceleration, which makes orbiting bodies noninertial (even nonrotationg ones).

In general relativity free falling objects are inertial, but inertial frames exist only locally, at the center of the planet. The surface is very noninertial.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Inertial vs non inertial frames
Replies
3
Views
2K
Whether a non-inertial frame is absolute
2
Replies
94
Views
6K
I Reference frames in terms of homogenity/isotropy
Replies
18
Views
2K
Inertial Reference Frame Proof
Replies
13
Views
2K
Is the Earth's frame considered inertial in a moving car?
Replies
8
Views
2K
What are non-inertial frames of reference?
Replies
15
Views
3K
Is this point of contact an inertial frame?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Which inertial frame is used when resolving toward the centre
Replies
15
Views
1K
I Using reference frames for derivation of Lagrangian
Replies
25
Views
2K
How earth is a non-inertial frame
Replies
18
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top