Why Can't I See the Earth Rotating Below Me?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nil1996
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around why individuals cannot perceive the Earth's rotation while floating in the air, despite its speed of 465.1 m/s. Participants explain that when someone jumps or hovers, they retain the Earth's rotational speed due to inertia, meaning no external force is acting to change their velocity. Newton's first law is highlighted, emphasizing that without acceleration or an external force, objects continue moving at a constant velocity. The conversation also touches on the misconception that a force is needed to maintain motion, clarifying that it's friction that stops a moving object, not a natural tendency to rest. Ultimately, the inability to see the Earth's rotation is attributed to the fact that both the person and the Earth are moving together at the same speed.
nil1996
Messages
301
Reaction score
7
I found that Earth rotates with a speed of 465.1 m/s.So if i take a jetpack and stand floating in air why can't i see the Earth rotating below me??
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
nil1996 said:
I found that Earth rotates with a speed of 465.1 m/s.So if i take a jetpack and stand floating in air why can't i see the Earth rotating below me??
1. Acceleration (Newton's 1st Law).
2. Wind.
 
russ_watters said:
1. Acceleration (Newton's 1st Law).

i have not understood what do you mean by acceleration.
 
Because as you go up, you still have that rotationspeed with you. As you move up, there is only a change in vertical speed (up/down), not in horizontal speed (the rotation of the earth).

It's like jumping in a train, the train doesn't 'move' beneath you.
 
nil1996 said:
i have not understood what do you mean by acceleration.
You start off moving along with the Earth's surface. In order to gain a speed of 465 m/s with respect to the Earth's surface, you have to accelerate.
 
thats because you are also moving at the same rate, while walking through a ball up, does it fall back or in your hand again??

But i did not understand what russ watters meant by acceleration ?!
 
russ_watters said:
You start off moving along with the Earth's surface. In order to gain a speed of 465 m/s with respect to the Earth's surface, you have to accelerate.

This could be confusing, I think. What you mean is that, at some stage, you (or the various bits of your body) had to have been accelerated to the same speed as the surface of the Earth (which, of course, also had to be accelerated), Bottom line is that both are traveling at the same speed (velocity, actually) when the jump occurs - so they will keep moving together, despite lack of actual contact.

This was a problem that Newton etc. had to deal with when people said that the Earth couldn't be rotating or we'd all be blown off our feet by the (static) air we are traveling through. Reasonable idea but wrong!
 
sugeet said:
But i did not understand what russ watters meant by acceleration ?!
Newton's first law, which says that an external force is needed to change the velocity of some object. Without that external force, there is no acceleration, no change in velocity.

Newton's first law goes against the grain of everyday common sense. Common sense tells us that a force is needed to keep an object moving. Suppose you are pushing some object across the floor. Stop pushing for one instance and the object comes to a stop. Our everyday world apparently is one of Aristotelian physics.

Students need to notch up their way of looking at the world so that Newtonian mechanics becomes common sense thinking. The reason that that pushed object comes to a stop is not because objects have a natural tendency to be at rest, the Aristotelian POV. It's because of friction. It's an external force is responsible for the change in velocity. With no external forces, the natural tendency is to continue going along at a constant velocity. That's Newton's first law.
 
D H said:
Newton's first law, which says that an external force is needed to change the velocity of some object. Without that external force, there is no acceleration, no change in velocity.

Newton's first law goes against the grain of everyday common sense. Common sense tells us that a force is needed to keep an object moving. Suppose you are pushing some object across the floor. Stop pushing for one instance and the object comes to a stop. Our everyday world apparently is one of Aristotelian physics.

Students need to notch up their way of looking at the world so that Newtonian mechanics becomes common sense thinking. The reason that that pushed object comes to a stop is not because objects have a natural tendency to be at rest, the Aristotelian POV. It's because of friction. It's an external force is responsible for the change in velocity. With no external forces, the natural tendency is to continue going along at a constant velocity. That's Newton's first law.

I Do understand Newtons Laws well, but how do you connect acceleration as an answer to the above question.

I believe here we are interested relative velocity, the notion of inertia is to impress the fact that we are moving with the same speed as the earth, so we cannot make out the difference. Where does acceleration feature here!
 
  • #10
No acceleration means no change in velocity, and vice versa.
 
  • #11
ok I get it, you meant No acceleration! :smile:
 
  • #12
got it

thanks
 
Back
Top