The surface of the Earth as a reference frame

AI Thread Summary
Dr. Lewin calculates the centripetal acceleration due to Earth's spin and suggests that this small magnitude allows us to consider the Earth's surface an approximately inertial reference frame. The discussion raises questions about the definition of an inertial frame, particularly regarding acceleration and relative motion. It is noted that if centripetal acceleration were larger, the frame could still be considered approximately inertial since two observers would share the same acceleration. The conversation also highlights that in rotating frames, "mysterious" forces emerge, complicating interactions like throwing a ball. Additionally, the Coriolis effect, though minor, can lead to observable differences, such as wear patterns on train tracks.
PFuser1232
Messages
479
Reaction score
20


At about 05.30, Dr. Lewin makes a small calculation to find the centripetal acceleration one experiences due to Earth's spin (at the equator). He then says that because of how small the magnitude of this acceleration is, we could consider the Earth's surface to be an inertial reference frame (approximately). My question is, what if the centripetal acceleration were much larger? Wouldn't the frame be (approximately) inertial as well? For instance, two people standing somewhere near the equator would have the same acceleration relative to the centre of the Earth, and so they would be stationary relative to one another. Is there something I'm not getting right? I'm actually quite confused about the definition of an inertial reference frame; "a frame that is not accelerating", not accelerating relative to what?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think he means that the variation in centripetal acceleration across the globe is small enough to be ignored. Although, I don't see how that makes the Earth an Inertial reference frame.

Unless, of course, you consider gravity a real force. That makes sense.
 
Last edited:
MohammedRady97 said:


At about 05.30, Dr. Lewin makes a small calculation to find the centripetal acceleration one experiences due to Earth's spin (at the equator). He then says that because of how small the magnitude of this acceleration is, we could consider the Earth's surface to be an inertial reference frame (approximately). My question is, what if the centripetal acceleration were much larger? Wouldn't the frame be (approximately) inertial as well? For instance, two people standing somewhere near the equator would have the same acceleration relative to the centre of the Earth, and so they would be stationary relative to one another. Is there something I'm not getting right? I'm actually quite confused about the definition of an inertial reference frame; "a frame that is not accelerating", not accelerating relative to what?


In a rotating frame (accelerating) you will begin to see "mysterious" forces that require an explanation. If you and a friend tried to play catch with a ball on a quickly rotating platform, you would see odd, curving trajectories of the ball -- the origin of these forces is due to the fact that you are on a rotating frame. You and your friend can play catch with a ball on the surface of the earth, without compensating for these forces.

When I took a classical mechanics course in college, the professor remarked that although things like the Coriolis force are small (at our scael) for us on the earth, they give rise to measurable effects at our scale. The example he provided was the fact that N-S train tracks show different patterns of wear, when compared with E-W train tracks.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top