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.
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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