I was just wondering if there is any formal proof that two

  • Thread starter Thread starter cyber_paradox
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
Two perpendicular vectors do not affect each other, as their inner product equals zero, indicating no projection onto one another. This principle is evident in physics, such as how gravity influences only the vertical component of a projectile's motion, leaving the horizontal component unchanged. While the concept may seem trivial, it is rooted in the mathematical properties of orthogonal vectors. The discussion highlights the understanding that formal proof exists in the form of vector mathematics. Overall, the relationship between perpendicular vectors is well-established in both theory and application.
cyber_paradox
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
i was just wondering if there is any formal proof that two perpendicular vectors don't affect each other
i mean i do know that and understand it physically
for example that gravity does not have any affect on the horizontal component of the velocity of a projectile
but is there some proof of this
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Hello cyber paradox, welcome to physics forums.

What do you think about it?
 


thanks
i think there must be some proof of it.
 


do you know any?
 


You basically said it yourself. Orthogonal vectors can't be projected onto each other, their inner product equals zero. I don't think this can be proven any further, it's quite trivial.
 

Thread 'Reference frames, center of rotation, etc'

Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?
View full post »

Similar threads

Undergrad Deductive proof in logic formal systems
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
655
Undergrad Proof of the Equipartition Theorem
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad How deep does it need to go for a physics theory to be consistent?
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
High School Proving the Existence of Particles: An Exploration
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
6K
Formal proof of Thevenin theorem
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Suggestions for HS geometry book (proofs)
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Graduate Can the orientation of a body be defined by Euler angles?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
High School Determine forces acting on double inclined plane
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Undergrad Principle of relativity in the proof of invariance of interval
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
Undergrad Continuity of Hamiltonian at separatrix in action-angle variables
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K