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.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top