How fast would you have to walk to be stationary while the earth spins?

How fast would you have to walk to be stationary while the earth spins?

At the same rate as the earth rotates under your feet. But you still won't be truly stationary considering the earth revolves around the sun, and the sun moves too and so on.

It's like you aren't even trying. Maybe you can't do this over a long distance, but suppose there is a hill that you can walk up over a very short distance whilst remaining stationary relative to the sun while respect rotation and revolution. What would the speed be that you would need to walk up said hill, and in what direction?

What do you cinsider to be zero velocity? Relative to the sun? You'll need to specify

Around 1000 mph. But you said walk, so at least one foot must be in contact with the ground at all times.

the rotation speed at a given Latitude = cos(Latitude) x 1670 km/hr

So theoretically could you get in a vessel match earths speed and then you would stop moving? Kind of?

Isn't that just standing still?

Stationary with respect to what? I would argue the Earth and I are always stationary and it's the rest of the universe that's revolving around us.

stationary with respect to the spin of the earth but as the earth flies around the sun you would still be moving in space locked in a position relative to the center of the earth only

What you are asking is impossible.
You'd need to run.

There is no absolute motion, only motion relative to an observer.
Relative to the surface of the Earth, you must stand still to be at rest.

What I don't get is this.

The solar system and the galaxy are both hurtling at fucking crazy speeds. When we sent out Voyager, did we shoot it out behind the way the solar system is moving? If we shot it out in front of the way we were moving, could we catch up to it?

Are there solar systems that are moving slower than us? Would we need to throw thrust hard in one direction to land on one of the planers there?

Tldr how does relativity works in terms of landing on a planet whose solar system is moving at a different speed than ours

Yes, that's been done many times. Most interestingly people have chased solar eclipses in jets.

And extended the duration in totality by a few minutes. Nobody has kept up with an eclipse shadow, they cross the ground at something around 2,000 mph, depending on the exact geometry of a particular eclipse.

Going the other way.

Relative to the sun, I guess you mean. It would require moving west at the speed appropriate to your latitude -- one fun way to do something lik that would be to lay a 24-hour clock on the ground at the North pole -- the hour hand would remain stationary, relative to the sun, while the Earth turned under it.

Rotation isn't relative. So he doesn't need to clarify. Bunch of brainlets here.

>>>Rotation isn't relative
Jesus Christ user get it together

In what way is rotation relative? How do does it change with shifting frames? Common now.

picture rolling on a log in water. The log is rolling but the person is staionary

the probes are still moving with those fucking crazy speeds the solar system and the galaxy are moving through space with. They had those speeds when they were being built on earth and never lost them once they were shot out into space. The velocity you're thinking of is directed away from the center of the solar system, but the probes are still also moving "with" the solar system and the galaxy

N/S Pole, stand still

Another funny point about that... the Moon's shadow moves generally west to east across the surface of the Earth. So to extend the observed duration, you *increase* your rotation

And yet I'm a complete shithead for claiming there is such a thing as absolute motion and location.

Work it out. Figure out the circumference of the Earth, and how long it takes to do a day. Speed is distance divided by time. The trick is, stationary relative to the Sun, or the stars? The difference is about 4 minutes.

But that's at the equator. If you were at a pole, you'd just be spinning around. So you'd just be rotating your body for your day.

In between? Well, in traveling from equator to pole, you're moving along a line across a sphere's surface: a circle. What kind of function involves calculating 'things' on a circle? Trig. So what trig function returns a 1 for angle 0 (at the equator) and 0 at +/- 90° (the poles)? Cosine.

So multiply the speed at the equator times the cosine of your latitude. That's the speed you need to go due west along your line of latitude to counter-rotate the Earth.

Much faster than you can run. Unless you are very far north. How far north? You figure it out.

This is when I highly recommend you download the free PC game, "Kerbal Space Program." You'll understand and have fun blowing stuff up, too.

The nice thing about velocity being relative is that you can always consider yourself stationary. So if we just say the earth is our reference frame, then taking of from it and leaving it will be no different from any other movement. You can totally ignore your relative velocity to other objects.

If you then want to land on another planet. Then again you just consider yourself stationary in space and see what velocity that body has relative to you. No different from any other example of catching up or matching your velocity to something. Of course space you also have to consider gravity, but its not that hard to understand how that works out in most cases.

Velocity is always entirely relative. Talking about speed without comparing two objects is totally meaningless. Its like talking about distance between one object, nonsense.

You are a complete shithead because you are intentionally being difficult by bringing in relativity into a problem that doesn't even need it.

What OP is describing is counteracting the earth's spin by walking. And rotation is absolute, so you don't need to describe it in a reference frame for it to make sense, we can just measure it's effect directly by centrifugal or centripetal force. When there is not such force on us, then we are no longer rotating. And OP already pretty much picked your reference frame in the question.

This is what I was talking, about although the cryptic question was intentional. Would I just need real big steps?

>rotation isnt relative.
Kek'd. this must be bait?
there isnt any way a human being could run anywhere close enough to the speed of rotation near the surface of the earth anywhere close to the equator. Youd either have to be at one of the poles, and even then the wobble of the earth is far faster than any human can move. youd need to go a max 85ish miles out from the center of the earth to be able to run at roughly the same velocity.
Quit asking such stupid questions. Tard.

>How fast would you have to walk to be stationary while the earth spins?
Depends entirely on your latitude. Not fast at all near the north or south pole. You couldn't walk fast enough at the equator.

>Kek'd. this must be bait?
You don't really understand what relativity is about do you?

How can it be relative when you can directly measure it without any external references? Sure you can match something's rotation, and it will visually look like of you aren't rotating, but physicist are not really concerned with how things look.
Relativity isn't about what looks like its moving or not. Its a principle because there is literally no way to have a velocity without comparing it to something else. This means that there is no absolute momentum at all.

Explain yourself, insted of just shitposting.

I'm not trying to do it you pompous fuck

this is what globeheads really believe

The earth dosen't spin, the universe spins.

The reason no one explained it is because you're an idiot who should find out why he's wrong instead of assuming you're right. There's a reason why people have asked if it was bait, go figure it out, you'll learn better that way.

The circumference of the Earth at the equator:
40,075.16 kilometers

at the equator, to go 40,075km in a day you'd need to be going 1670kph, or about mach 1.35 at sea level.

but in reality you'd want to do it as 45,000ft in an F-22 and a shitload of gas tanks/ refueling, something that can supercruise. at 45k' it should be mach 1.57

speed of light

>just consider yourself stationary in space and see what velocity that body has relative to you. No different from any other example of catching up or matching your velocity to something

Thanks user, that makes sense.

Go to one of the poles and you can walk around the planet as slow as you wish

You’ve got the only right answer in this whole discussion. Exercise for the user: solve for a 3mph walk.

Lurk more.

>Thanks user, that makes sense.

Yeah, like counting the legs in a herd of cattle and divide by four to figure out how many head you have.

You're a fucking retard
The Earth dosen't move. The moon and solar system does you stupid bitch HOLY SHIT "PEOPLE" ON THIS BOARD ARWE AUTISTYIC I SWEAR

Gee, that doesn't sound like senseless bait at all.

You don't think the earth spins?

Probably about 4

I am the OP, things are convoluted, let's say you have a big ball floating in water. If you run on this ball the ball spins but you remain in the same space. I assume this is possible in outer space as well

Just go to one of the poles, brainlet.

>I am the OP, things are convoluted,
No, not really. And again:
So yes, you can move counter to the rotation such that the sky would appear stationary, but if you're going to do it on foot, you'll have to be very far north or south. The use of various steeds or motorized vehicles will allow you do it from latitudes farther from the poles, ultimately needing supersonic aircraft to keep up.