Reference frame in relative motion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between two observers, F1 (at rest) and F2 (in motion), and their observations of a particle P. The position vectors of the particle in both frames are related, and the velocity of the particle is derived from differentiating its position vector. A key point of contention is whether the velocity of the particle can be assumed equal in both frames, which some participants argue is incorrect. Clarification is sought regarding the notation used and the assumptions made in the referenced book. The conversation highlights the complexities of relative motion in classical mechanics.
manimaran1605
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
I red a classical mechanics concept in a book. Imagine that we have two observers with two frames of reference F1 and F2 observing a particle P in motion. One of the observer is in motion and another is at rest,(lets take F1 is at rest and F2 is in translation motion with velocity V) let r1 be the position vector of particle with relative to frame of reference F1 and r2 be the position vector of particle with relative to frame of reference r2, the relation between r1 and r2 be r1-D=r2 ( D be the postion vector of F2 relative to F1), to find it velocity at any time t we differentiate r1 with respect to 't', we get v=V+(dr2/dt)F1 where v is the velocity of the particle relative to the frame of reference F1, V is the velocity of the F2 relative to F in straight line, (dr2/dt)F1 is the velocity of the particle relative to F1, How? in the book it is also taken that velocity of particle relative to F1 is taken equal to velocity of particle relative to F2 and said velocity of the particle is equal to the sum of velocity of particle relative to F2 and velocity of frame F2, How can we assume the velocity of particle relative to F1 is taken equal to velocity of particle relative to F2?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
manimaran1605 said:
I red a classical mechanics concept in a book.
Which book - citations are important.

Imagine that we have two observers with two frames of reference F1 and F2 observing a particle P in motion.
Is this particle in motion with respect to both F1 and F2?

One of the observer is in motion and another is at rest, (lets take F1 is at rest and F2 is in translation motion with velocity V) let r1 be the position vector of particle with relative to frame of reference F1 and r2 be the position vector of particle with relative to frame of reference r2, the relation between r1 and r2 be r1-D=r2 ( D be the postion vector of F2 relative to F1),
... when D=0, the origin's coincide.

to find it velocity at any time t we differentiate r1 with respect to 't', we get v=V+(dr2/dt)F1 where v is the velocity of the particle relative to the frame of reference F1,
What is F1 "stationary" with respect to then?
I have a feeling this is the crux of the matter for you.

V is the velocity of the F2 relative to F in straight line, (dr2/dt)F1 is the velocity of the particle relative to F1,
If r1 is the displacement of the particle in F1, then v=dr1/dt would be the velocity of the particle in F1. dr2/dt would be the velocity of the particle in F2. The notation "(dr2/dt)F1" needs to be clarified.

How? in the book it is also taken that velocity of particle relative to F1 is taken equal to velocity of particle relative to F2 and said velocity of the particle is equal to the sum of velocity of particle relative to F2 and velocity of frame F2, How can we assume the velocity of particle relative to F1 is taken equal to velocity of particle relative to F2?
You can't. Either the book is talking rubbish or you have misunderstood something.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
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...
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...
Back
Top