Why do we treat earth and why does it work as an inertial frame

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the treatment of Earth as an inertial frame despite its orbital motion and rotation. Participants explore the implications of this treatment in the context of physics, particularly in relation to the laws of motion and the effects of gravity and acceleration.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that Earth is not an inertial frame due to its orbit and rotation, questioning why it is treated as one in physics.
  • Others propose that Earth's motion can be approximated as inertial under certain conditions, suggesting that the effects of its orbit and rotation are negligible for many practical applications.
  • A participant mentions that while Earth is not a true inertial frame, it behaves more or less inertially because its rotation and mass have minimal effects on its orbit.
  • Some contributions highlight that in thought experiments, treating Earth as an inertial frame simplifies analysis, especially in discussions related to Special Relativity.
  • One participant notes that third body effects, such as tidal forces from the Sun and Moon, are small perturbations that can often be ignored in calculations.
  • Another participant clarifies that in Newtonian mechanics, Earth's motion can be considered an accelerating but non-rotating frame, with tiny effects noted in general relativity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the classification of Earth as an inertial frame, with multiple competing views on the implications of its motion and the relevance of various effects. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the extent to which these factors should influence the treatment of Earth in physics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific assumptions about the scale of effects being considered, as well as the context in which Earth is treated as an inertial frame. There are unresolved mathematical steps regarding the precise effects of Earth's motion and the implications for different physical scenarios.

1MileCrash
Messages
1,338
Reaction score
41
Earth is clearly not an inertial frame, its in orbit and not following a single direction of movement.

Why then do we treat it as one?

Are there any slight differences in the laws of motion in a true inertial frame in contrast with those on earth?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Orbiting the sun would not make the frame non-inertial, because an orbit is a geodesic. It's the fact that we are not on a geodesic that disqualifies the 'dirt' frame.

You'll prpbably recall seeing video of people floating about in the sapce-stations, as if they were in the 'vomit comet'.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomit_Comet

Excuse me, where's that bucket ?
 
Last edited:
1MileCrash said:
Earth is clearly not an inertial frame, its in orbit and not following a single direction of movement.

Why then do we treat it as one?
The Earth travels more or less inertially, since its rotation, mass and volume has a negligible effect on its orbit. The change in direction is due to spacetime curvature.
 
Last edited:
We treat the Earth as an inertial frame in our thought experiments to make them simpler and because we are examining some feature of Special Relativity where we want to ignore the motions and gravitational effects of the earth.

There are slight differences in a true inertial frame compared to those on Earth but they are so slight that we can ignore them most of the time, especially when limiting the discussion to Special Relativity.

Just think about the notion of a twin traveling at half the speed of light for 1 year. We are just pretending. Except for tiny particles traveling in circles, we cannot accelerate anything to anywhere near the speed of light and we cannot do it for any length of time. It's all pretend. But we are always pretending when explaining concept in physics. If we say two twins are located in the same place, we don't really mean that, we just mean for purposes of our discussion, we will treat them as if they were in the same place because the very small difference that we would have to take into account to be perfectly accurate and precise would make the problem so cumbersome that we would lose sight of the relevant feature that we were trying to examine.
 
1MileCrash said:
Why then do we treat it as one?
Because in some circumstances we can do so without losing much accuracy. Third body effects are rather small perturbations. Even the Earth's rotation rate can be ignored in lots of settings. Suppose you are using a barometer to measure the height of a building by measuring the time it takes the barometer to fall from the top of the building to the ground. This is a crude measurement; does it really matter that you are ignoring that the Earth is not an inertial frame?
 
1MileCrash said:
Earth is clearly not an inertial frame, its in orbit and not following a single direction of movement.

Why then do we treat it as one?

Are there any slight differences in the laws of motion in a true inertial frame in contrast with those on earth?

As others have mentioned, if you actually work out the effects of the Earth orbiting, they are small. You basically have a rotation rate of once/year (dwarfed by the fact that the Earth's natural rotation is greater than that, once per day), plus the small tidal effects from the sun.


For some discussion of the later see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tide.html
 
pervect said:
You basically have a rotation rate of once/year
In Newtonian mechanics this is not a rotating frame. It is an accelerating but non-rotating frame that happens to be following a curved path. There is a tiny effect here in general relativity, de Sitter precession. For the Earth's motion about the Sun, this is *tiny*.

plus the small tidal effects from the sun.
That is what I meant when I said "third body effect": Third body acceleration = tidal gravity. The term "third body effect" is used in the aerospace community and by some astronomers because "tidal gravity" has a completely different meaning in their world. The Sun and the Moon raise tides on the Earth. Those tides change the shape of the Earth and that in turn results in some very tiny perturbations on a satellite's orbit.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
8K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
6K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K