Fictitious forces in rotating frames of reference

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the derivation of fictitious forces in rotating frames, specifically referencing a Wikipedia page for clarity. The user is struggling with the transport theorem and its application to vectors, particularly when substituting velocity for the vector Q. They derive an equation suggesting a relationship between forces but overlook the importance of mass in the context of Newton's second law. The key point is that acceleration, represented as dv/dt, does not equate to force without considering mass. This highlights a common misunderstanding in applying vector calculus to dynamics in rotating frames.
bigerst
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
I got stuck going over the derivation of fictitious forces in rotating frames.
see specifically
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame#Time_derivatives_in_the_two_frames
this page to see the proof I'm talking about
(sorry i'd love to be able to explain it by myself but wikipedia page is so much clearer)
the part I'm stuck on is the use of the transport theorem, it's supposed to work on any vectors right?
so let Q be any vector
then
dQ/dt = dQ'/dt + w×Q
so what if i let Q = v, the velocity of the particle, doesn't this directly giv
F =F' + w×v

PLEASE SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT I DID WRONG!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
you forgot about the mass of the particle. dv/dt is the acceleration, not the force
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Rectilinear movement seen from a rotating reference frame
Replies
17
Views
2K
Are vectors independent of reference frames?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Rate of Change of Vector in Rotating Frame
Replies
6
Views
4K
The period of oscillation of a bob in an accelerating frame
Replies
5
Views
1K
Effective acceleration due to gravity in non-inertial frame
Replies
6
Views
7K
Derive the equation of effective force on a rotating frame about Earth
Replies
1
Views
1K
Bernoulli’s equation for a rotating fluid
Replies
4
Views
3K
Fake forces on rotating frames of reference.
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Using reference frames for derivation of Lagrangian
Replies
25
Views
2K
Acceleration due to fictitious force independent of mass?
Replies
11
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top