Why Do You Move Backwards When Jumping Inside an Accelerating Bus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stop1it
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bus Inertia
AI Thread Summary
Jumping inside an accelerating bus while not touching any part of it results in moving backward relative to the bus due to inertia. This occurs because the bus accelerates forward while your body, momentarily in the air, tends to remain at rest. The effect is subtle, as a short jump may not be noticeable unless timed precisely with the bus's acceleration. In contrast, jumping on Earth does not produce the same relative backward motion because the forces acting on you, such as gravity and the Earth's centripetal acceleration, are significantly stronger and more constant. Thus, while inertia affects movement in both scenarios, the context and forces involved lead to different outcomes.
stop1it
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Does Jumping on a bus such that you are not touching any part of the bus (i.e. only the air inside the bus), when the bus is accelerating forward, result in you moving backward relative to the bus (due to inertia)?

If yes, why isn't it the same when you are jumping on the Earth? If no, why not?

Elaborate Answer needed. [out of curiousity]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You shouldn't be moving backward relative to the bus, simply because your body is not in contact with the floor of the bus. Recall that inertia acts on passengers in the bus who are sitting or standing in the bus. That is because some part of their body is in contact with the bus, which is moving relative to earth. So when it suddenly stops or accelerates faster, the inertia of the upper body tries to stay at rest, thereby resulting in the jerk.
Not sure I completely get your question, but I hope its what I think it is. :-)
 
stop1it said:
Does Jumping on a bus such that you are not touching any part of the bus (i.e. only the air inside the bus), when the bus is accelerating forward, result in you moving backward relative to the bus (due to inertia)?
Yes, definitely. But considering that a jump of 30cm high will only result in a jump that lasts a quarter of a second, you won't notice much. You would need to time it quite well, so if you ever see the lights ahead turning orange and the bus is in a position that you need to floor the brake, it's the best time to jump :wink:

In a more simple scenario, we can stop time at the moment you are in the air, by removing gravity. In a spaceship bus, of course you will move relative to the bus if it accelerates.

stop1it said:
If yes, why isn't it the same when you are jumping on the Earth? If no, why not?
The centripetal accelerations due to the Earth's orbit are minute compared to the strength of gravity. Your trajectory on an Earth that neither orbits the sun nor rotates will be very slightly different to the way it is now. These tiny differences do add up however, and such examples are of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
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?
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...
Back
Top