Simple Question on Earth Rotation involving Newton III

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of Newton's Third Law of Motion to Earth's rotation and its effects on a pendulum. It explores the question of what force balances the Earth's rotation, with inertia being suggested as a possible factor. Participants clarify that rotation itself is not a force, and that momentum, both linear and angular, maintains motion without requiring an opposing force. The pendulum's behavior is explained through the interaction of forces, where the Earth subtly shifts in response to the pendulum's movement. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the complexities of motion and force in a rotating system.
Jaygo333
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Simple question with a simple answer, just want a little more description.

Newton III states: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

As the Earth rotates one way, what's the opposite force that keeps it "balanced"? Inertia?

Arrived at the question when was thinking about a pendulum in SHM but could not
figure out why if, in a perfect system, why it kept coming back to the same position with the Earth rotating only one way? Rationally thought there would be an over swing in the direction the Earth was rotating. But Newton III states there must be a force acting on opposite end and after much thought, still stumped.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No force is needed to keep the Earth rotating (remember Newton's 1st law) if you wanted to change the rotation then you would need something for the force to act against
 
If an object is moving in a straight line at a constant velocity, what's the force that keeps it balanced?

It takes a force to change an object's motion. Regardless of whether it's moving in a straight line or rotating, momentum keeps it moving at the same rate, while a force changes that motion.

Just as you have conservation of linear momentum, you also have conservation of angular momentum.
 
Assume the Earth is rotating left. Now, when watching a pendulum, swing left and right, shouldn't it swing farther left because the sum of all its forces, including the Earth's rotation would be greater that way than the sum of all its forces in the right direction because the Earth's rotation is missing in the equation?Thanks for that response BobG. You posted when I was in the middle of writing this.
 
Last edited:
Jaygo333 said:
Newton III states: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Newton III applies to forces.

As the Earth rotates one way, what's the opposite force that keeps it "balanced"? Inertia?
Rotation is not a force.

Arrived at the question when was thinking about a pendulum in SHM but could not
figure out why if, in a perfect system, why it kept coming back to the same position with the Earth rotating only one way? Rationally thought there would be an over swing in the direction the Earth was rotating. But Newton III states there must be a force acting on opposite end and after much thought, still stumped.
For a pendulum swinging back and forth, there are forces involved and thus Newton III applies. The result is that as the pendulum bob moves to the left of equilibrium, the support (and attached earth) moves ever so slightly to the right of equilibrium.
 
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...
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?
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...
Back
Top