Euler angles in latitude longitude space

meteo student
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
In most physics introductions Euler angles(pitch, roll, yaw) are defined with respect to Cartesian coordinate system.

If I chose not to use a Cartersian coordinate system but instead use a latitude, longitude and a proprietary vertical coordinate(and no back transformations to Cartersian coordinate system permitted) basis vector space how would the pitch, yaw, roll Euler angles be defined ?

What I mean by this is the following

Initially I have a point defined in terms of λ,∅ and the vertical coordinate is defined as ζ.

Now I rotate the axes (not the point !) to a new set of axes λ',∅',ξ'.

I want to be able to define the Euler angles with respect to these two sets of orthonormal vectors.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I want to correct what I wrote yesterday. When a proprietary vertical coordinate is used there is no restriction of basis vectors being orthonormal. These are basically curvilinear coordinates in which the rotations are being performed.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top