# Reference frames

pmb

Front Matter (pdf file, ~95K)
Introduces the approach and describes the content of the book.

http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/front_matter.pdf

Chapter 1: Speeding (pdf file, ~422K)
Background in special relativity needed for general relativity.

http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter1.pdf

Chapter 2: Curving (pdf file, ~332K)
Introduces curved spacetime and the Schwarzschild metric.

http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter2.pdf

Student Project on the Global Positioning System (pdf file, ~62K)
The global positioning system is useless without general relativity.

http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf

Revised Project F, The Spinning Black Hole (pdf file ~200k)
Includes fourth-printing correction of an error described in Errata file.

http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/SpinNEW.pdf

Errata for Printed Textbook (text file)

http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/errata.txt

Pete

Thanks for all the info Pete. Looks like I'm going to be busy for a while.

Err...name's Carter. LOL.

Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Ah! Okay. I thought that was the case. Yes. And that's what I meant by curvilinear coordinates.
I objected because you sounded like you're implying that the non-rotating reference frame is special, and the rotating frame is just a deformation of the "right" thing through a change of coordinates rather than a reference frame with equal standing to the non-rotating one.

dr-dock
Originally posted by CJames
Just a little question.

I'm a little curious. In the classical sense, a reference frame in freefall would, of course, be said to accelerate. However, no forces are felt within a freefalling reference frame. Am I correct, then, in assuming a freefalling reference frame to be an inertial reference frame? Am I also correct in stating that a reference frame on the surface of Earth is an accelerating reference frame, since a force of gravity is felt toward the ground? (Even though in the classical sense, this reference frame is "at rest.")

Don't limit this thread to an answer to my question. I would like a continuous discussion. Please? LOL.

Good day everybody.
no man that's all wrong.
if a object is in freefall then ask your self why it is moving constantly if you make a tunnel thru earth.for mua constant displacement suggest constant presence of nonzero force. the force and the equilibrium distance never actually drop down to zero but they(those vectors) only rotate around the constant energy vector. therefore freefall freame is inertial frame.i guess it's hard to understand me at first but i'll try to explain my self prety soon after i finish the particle simulator i'm developing right now.

FZ+
Err... it isn't moving constantly. You have then a case of simple harmonic motion.

pmb
Originally posted by CJames
Thanks for all the info Pete. Looks like I'm going to be busy for a while.

Err...name's Carter. LOL.
Oh MAN! I keep forgetting that. Sorry Clark!

Pete

pmb
Originally posted by Hurkyl
I objected because you sounded like you're implying that the non-rotating reference frame is special, and the rotating frame is just a deformation of the "right" thing through a change of coordinates rather than a reference frame with equal standing to the non-rotating one.
Why did I sound like the non-rotating frame was special and where did sound like that? When I say "change coordinates" I'm talking changing from one system of spacetime coordinates to another system of spacetime coordinates.

pete