How to relate kinematics of a moving frame and that of a laboratory frame?

AI Thread Summary
To relate the kinematics of a moving frame to a laboratory frame, one can use the Galilean transformation for velocities and rotations when dealing with non-relativistic speeds. If the object's velocities are known in a moving frame, it is essential to clarify the frame's relationship to the object to obtain accurate information. For scenarios involving speeds approaching the speed of light, the Lorentz transformation must be applied to account for relativistic effects. The discussion emphasizes the importance of clearly defining the frame of reference to derive meaningful kinematic relationships. Understanding these transformations is crucial for accurate analysis in physics.
stevenphy2
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hi all, if I have the velocities and rotations of an object with respect to a moving frame.
Are there relations that I can obtain the velocities and rotations of the object with respect to a fixed frame?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Euler transform
 
I think you need to state your question more clearly edoctor.

Usually when you say that you have information about an object in a certain frame it presupposes that this frame is fixed relative to the object so no more velocities and so on need to be added into get the "real" information.. If you don't have the "real" information already, you don't have information about the object in this frame of reference...
 
Use the Galilean transformation. If there are velocities involved close to the speed of light, then you will need to include effects due to Einstein's relativity by using the Lorentz transformation.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Velocity transformation between frames rotating relative to one another
Replies
1
Views
2K
Rotation: inertial frame vs. body-fixed frame
Replies
12
Views
4K
I Relative Motion & Local Frame’s Position - when projecting components
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Reference frames in terms of homogenity/isotropy
Replies
18
Views
2K
Classical Rotation: Referencing Rotational Motion in Mechanics
Replies
5
Views
1K
Reference frame in collision problems
Replies
9
Views
1K
Derive the equation of effective force on a rotating frame about Earth
Replies
1
Views
1K
B Inertial vs non inertial frames
Replies
3
Views
2K
Is Mach's Principle truly a paradox in rotational frames?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Are vectors independent of reference frames?
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top