Why don't we feel the Earth's rotation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of why we do not perceive the Earth's rotation and how this relates to the validity of Newton's laws of motion within a rotating frame of reference. Participants explore concepts from classical mechanics, including inertial and non-inertial frames, the Coriolis effect, and practical implications in fields such as artillery targeting.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the Earth's rotation is not felt because the non-inertial effects are minimal at small scales, but become noticeable at larger scales, such as in weather patterns influenced by the Coriolis effect.
  • There is a discussion about whether Newton's laws are approximations on Earth, with some arguing that they apply in a rotating frame but do not take the familiar form, while others note that momentum and energy conservation still hold.
  • One participant mentions that sensitive experiments can detect the Earth's rotation, but human sensory organs are not capable of perceiving these effects directly.
  • Another point raised is that accurate weighing scales must be calibrated based on latitude due to the Earth's rotation, which causes a slight variation in apparent weight.
  • Participants discuss the practical implications of the Earth's rotation in long-range artillery fire, noting that it must be accounted for to ensure accuracy over significant distances.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the Earth's rotation has effects that can be measured and that Newton's laws can be applied in a rotating frame, but there is no consensus on the extent to which these laws are approximations or how they manifest in practical scenarios.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on the scale of observation, the sensitivity of measurement tools, and the specific definitions of inertial versus non-inertial frames. The discussion does not resolve the nuances of how Newton's laws apply in different contexts.

CrazyNeutrino
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Pardon me if this seems like an incredibly naive question. Perhaps the question could also be rephrased as such: "Why do the laws of classical mechanics hold true with Earth as a frame of reference?"

A quick google search turned up the usual answer: the Earth rotates at a constant speed. Regardless of what speed the Earth is rotating at doesn't the fact that it is rotating/changing velocity mean that objects on the surface of the Earth are constantly accelerating? If so then why don't we feel the Earth's rotation and why is Newton's second law valid? Isn't it no longer an inertial frame of reference if the Earth is accelerating.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You don't notice it because the non-inertial effects are very small on an "across the room" kind of scale. But go up in scale and you will notice that the Earth's surface frame isn't inertial. You may wish to look up the Coriolis effect - a non-inertial-frame effect, the standard example of which is the way storm systems rotate.
 
Ibix said:
You don't notice it because the non-inertial effects are very small on an "across the room" kind of scale. But go up in scale and you will notice that the Earth's surface frame isn't inertial. You may wish to look up the Coriolis effect - a non-inertial-frame effect, the standard example of which is the way storm systems rotate.
So are Newtons laws an approximation on earth?
 
In the frame attached to the Earth's surface, yes. It's a rotating frame. I gather that long range artillery fire will miss if you don't account for that fact, and I've already mentioned the weather. But you'll need to be an extremely careful experimentalist to spot the errors in the lab.

That said, you can always pick an inertial frame and work in that; Newton's laws will be exact (up to relativistic corrections, anyway). But the Earth's surface is not stationary in such a frame.

Edit: Actually, I think it depends what you mean by Newton's Laws. In some senses they apply in any frame; they just don't take the familiar simple form in a non-inertial frame. You'll still find that momentum and energy are conserved and things like that. It's just that what you (in your rotating frame) are calling a straight line is not what an inertial frame calls a straight line. Inertial forces (like the Coriolis force) drop out of the maths to explain why things don't follow what you want to call a straight line.

Edit 2: xkcd: https://xkcd.com/123/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
CrazyNeutrino said:
f so then why don't we feel the Earth's rotation and why is Newton's second law valid?
Sufficiently sensitive experiments do feel the Earth's rotation. Our inner ear and other proprioceptive organs are just not sensitive enough.
 
CrazyNeutrino said:
A quick google search turned up the usual answer: the Earth rotates at a constant speed. Regardless of what speed the Earth is rotating at doesn't the fact that it is rotating/changing velocity mean that objects on the surface of the Earth are constantly accelerating? If so then why don't we feel the Earth's rotation and why is Newton's second law valid? Isn't it no longer an inertial frame of reference if the Earth is accelerating.

Perhaps I misunderstand but..

Accurate weighing scales have to be calibrated according to the latitude where they will be used. As I recall the apparent weigh of an object is 0.3% less at the equator due to the Earth's rotation. Not enough for us to feel it.

There is also this effect if you are moving but the variation is even less significant..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eötvös_effect
 
Ibix said:
I gather that long range artillery fire will miss if you don't account for that fact

Absolutely. I recently saw an old manual on the targeting of battleship cannons and they had to take the Earth's rotation into account in order to accurately fire at long ranges. When your shell has a flight time of around a minute and a half and goes around 20 miles, you start to approach the scale at which the Earth's rotation has an appreciable effect.
 
Drakkith said:
Absolutely. I recently saw an old manual on the targeting of battleship cannons and they had to take the Earth's rotation into account in order to accurately fire at long ranges. When your shell has a flight time of around a minute and a half and goes around 20 miles, you start to approach the scale at which the Earth's rotation has an appreciable effect.
Are you thinking of this thread? https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/coriolis-effect-on-ballistics-and-old-chart.917776/
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 114 ·
4
Replies
114
Views
6K