Newtons first law and inertial reference systems. (noob)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of inertial reference frames in classical physics, particularly in relation to Newton's first law. The initial confusion stems from the idea that if the net force on an object is zero, it should not accelerate, yet the effects of gravitational and centripetal forces complicate this understanding. It is clarified that while Earth is not a perfect inertial frame due to its rotations and accelerations, it can be treated as quasi-inertial for practical purposes because the accelerations involved are relatively small. The conversation emphasizes that textbooks often simplify this concept, leading to misunderstandings, and suggests that a true inertial frame would not interact with any forces in the universe. Overall, the exchange highlights the nuances of applying Newtonian mechanics in real-world scenarios.
bremvil
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

Recently i started a self-study in classical physics by reading through some books. In the section that described Newton's first law I stumbled upon something that did not make much sense. The following section of text got me confused.

"If the net force acting on a body is zero, then it is possible to find a set of reference frames in which that body has no acceleration". (these frames are later referred to as inertial reference frames).

My problem started here. Let's assume for simplicity that our solar system is the only thing in the universe (also ignoring the rotation of the Earth around its axis). There is a centripetal force that keeps objects rotating around the sun. Let's assume there is an object on Earth with a net force of 0 exerted on it. This means that the centripetal force required to rotate around the sun is canceled by other forces. This object will not rotate around the sun like the Earth does, so it will accelerate and move relative to any reference frame on the earth. Therefore there can not be any inertial reference frame on the earth, since any object with net force = 0 will move relative to the earth!

Using the same reasoning, the solar system will also rotate around the centre of the Milky Way. Any object in the solar system with a net force of 0 will have its centripetal force for rotation around the centre of the milky-way cancelled. This object will accelerate and move relative to any reference frame in the solar system (because this reference system does rotate around the centre of the Milky Way).

The only real inertial reference system I can think of is one that does not move relative to the centre of the universe. But this is not really practical for applications on Earth. The book I'm using does use examples with inertial reference frames on Earth. For example a person observing a car hitting the brakes really hard (he sees the objects inside the car move without a change in velocity although the person inside the car seems to observe objects accelerate with no force exerted on them). But according to my reasoning before there can not be an inertial reference frame on Earth! Am I over-thinking right now or do I maybe misunderstand the concept of inertial reference frames? (or does this require relativity theory or something?) Thanks for reading this far! I hope you can give me a tip.

With kind regards,

Bremvil
 
Science news on Phys.org
Yes, if you assume the center of the universe as an inertial system, then only systems moving with respect to it at constant velocity are inertial systems (Galileo's Relativity). This, of course, in the framework of Newtonian mechanics. Every system that has acceleration respect the center of the universe is not inertial. However, if the acceleration is small compared to the typical acceleration of the body you are observing, then your system is quasi-inertial, and, for practical purposes, you can regard it as inertial. So, for example, you can take the Earth as inertial even if it rotates about itself, around the Sun, around the Milky Way, etc. Try calculating the centrifugal acceleration on the Earth's surface due to its rotation, or due to rotation around the Sun, and you will see that it is much smaller than 9.81 m/s^2. However, if your measurements are accurate enough, you can see the non inertiality of Earth, so, for example, you weigh more at the poles than on the equator.
 
Thanks :)! That clears it up for me. It would be nice if (introductory) physics books were more focusing on these details. Now it caused unnecessary confusion.
 
Well I guess you already got the answer, but clearing it up again for you,
"Earth is not an inertial system", so you are right about that. Almost all textbooks "mention this fact". I wonder how yours doesn't. All textbooks do mention the fact that Earth is "approximately" an inertial frame, for practical purposes.

Since there is no "center of the universe", a better way to think about an actual inertial frame, is to say, a frame that does not interact with any other thing in the universe. The only way of interaction as far as we know are the four fundamental forces about which, I presume, you already know.
So a frame which doesn't interact with any other thing, will not feel any force on it, and thus "will not accelerate with respect to any other thing in the universe and nor will any other object accelerate with respect to this frame".

Cheers!
 
Thanks for the help! It's much clearer for me now.
 
I need to calculate the amount of water condensed from a DX cooling coil per hour given the size of the expansion coil (the total condensing surface area), the incoming air temperature, the amount of air flow from the fan, the BTU capacity of the compressor and the incoming air humidity. There are lots of condenser calculators around but they all need the air flow and incoming and outgoing humidity and then give a total volume of condensed water but I need more than that. The size of the...
Thread 'Why work is PdV and not (P+dP)dV in an isothermal process?'
Let's say we have a cylinder of volume V1 with a frictionless movable piston and some gas trapped inside with pressure P1 and temperature T1. On top of the piston lay some small pebbles that add weight and essentially create the pressure P1. Also the system is inside a reservoir of water that keeps its temperature constant at T1. The system is in equilibrium at V1, P1, T1. Now let's say i put another very small pebble on top of the piston (0,00001kg) and after some seconds the system...
I was watching a Khan Academy video on entropy called: Reconciling thermodynamic and state definitions of entropy. So in the video it says: Let's say I have a container. And in that container, I have gas particles and they're bouncing around like gas particles tend to do, creating some pressure on the container of a certain volume. And let's say I have n particles. Now, each of these particles could be in x different states. Now, if each of them can be in x different states, how many total...
Back
Top