What is the Effect of a Non-Inertial Frame on Motion?

Click For Summary
The discussion explores the effects of non-inertial frames on motion, using the example of a puck sliding on ice. When viewed from a stationary frame in space, the puck moves south in a straight line, while from a ground-based perspective, it appears to deflect westward due to Earth's rotation. This deflection is not caused by a real force but is a result of observing the puck from a rotating frame, which is considered non-inertial. The conversation highlights the confusion surrounding fictitious forces that arise in non-inertial frames, illustrated further by comparing it to a puck on a rotating turntable. Understanding these concepts is essential for grasping the principles of motion in different reference frames.
jdawg
Messages
366
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



So I'm having some trouble understanding this paragraph from my textbook. I was hoping that maybe someone could explain it to me.

For example, we can assume that the ground is an inertial frame provided we can neglect Earth's astronomical motions(such as its rotation). That assumption works well if, say, a puck is sent sliding along a short strip of frictionless ice-we would find that the puck's motion obeys Newton's laws. However, suppose the puck is sent sliding along a long ice strip extending from the north pole. If we view the puck from a stationary frame in space, the puck moves south along a simple straight line because Earth's rotation around the north pole merely slides the ice beneath the puck. However, if we view the puck from a point on the ground so that we rotate with Earth, the puck's path is not a simple straight line. Because the eastward speed of the ground beneath the puck is greater the farther south the puck slides from our ground-based view the puck appears to be deflected westward. However, this apparent deflection is caused not by a force as required by Newton's laws but by the fact that we see the puck from a rotating frame. In this situation, the ground is a noninertial frame, and trying to explain the deflection in terms of a force would lead us to a fictitious force, A more common example of inventing such a nonexistent force can occur in a car that is rapidly increasing in speed. You might claim that a force to the rear shoves you hard into the seat back.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Which part is unclear?
 
All of it! I'm beginning to get a grasp on the idea of inertial frames, but that specific example is throwing me off for some reason. I like to be able to put it into my own words when I'm outlining the chapter and I'm having difficulty visualizing what its trying to say.
 
hi jdawg! :smile:

jdawg said:
However, suppose the puck is sent sliding along a long ice strip extending from the north pole. If we view the puck from a stationary frame in space, the puck moves south along a simple straight line because Earth's rotation around the north pole merely slides the ice beneath the puck. However, if we view the puck from a point on the ground so that we rotate with Earth, the puck's path is not a simple straight line. Because the eastward speed of the ground beneath the puck is greater the farther south the puck slides from our ground-based view the puck appears to be deflected westward.

the ice (in theory) has no friction, so the puck is not affected by whether the ice is moving

perhaps this is clearer on a rotating turntable made of ice …

if you slide a puck along the ice, it will move in the same straight line (relative to the ground) as if the turntable was stationary

relative to the rotating turntable, however, that straight line will not be straight
 
tiny-tim said:
hi jdawg! :smile:



the ice (in theory) has no friction, so the puck is not affected by whether the ice is moving

perhaps this is clearer on a rotating turntable made of ice …

if you slide a puck along the ice, it will move in the same straight line (relative to the ground) as if the turntable was stationary

relative to the rotating turntable, however, that straight line will not be straight

Ohh thank you so much! That makes so much more sense :)
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
Replies
40
Views
8K