Understanding Newton's First Law and Referential Inertial on a Moving Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bianca
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    inertial
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of inertial frames of reference in the context of Newton's First Law, particularly considering the Earth's constant motion. It raises the question of how to define an inertial frame if everything, including the Earth, is in motion. While the Earth's surface is generally treated as an inertial frame for practical purposes, it technically exhibits non-inertial characteristics due to minor centripetal forces. These forces are often negligible in many classical physics scenarios, allowing for simplified analysis. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of applying Newton's First Law in a moving Earth context.
Bianca
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
How we talk about referential inertial if the Earth always is in motion? Because if the Earth is in motion, everything is in motion with the Earth. So nothing is a inertial referential.
How can we talk about Newton's First Law?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
An inertial frame of reference in classical physics is one that is moving at constant velocity. The earth’s surface may be considered as an inertial frame, although in theory it is non inertial because of small centripetal forces etc which are often neglected because such forces are not significant in many examples.
 

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

I Using reference frames for derivation of Lagrangian
Replies
25
Views
2K
B To displace the Earth from its orbit
Replies
20
Views
2K
Law of inertia (inertial observer and inertial frames of reference)
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Is there a way in Lagrangian mechanics to incorporate the inertial response from initial momentum when using initial conditions instead of BCs?
Replies
9
Views
921
I Reference frames in terms of homogenity/isotropy
Replies
18
Views
2K
Doubt in Inertial frame of reference
Replies
2
Views
2K
A Puzzle Involving the Moon's Orbital Motion
Replies
19
Views
2K
B Is Newton's first law of motion applicable when walking?
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Kepler orbits for planets of similar masses
Replies
2
Views
1K
Galilean Relativity and Newton's Laws
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top