Relative velocity video (review and rate)

In summary: However, from the viewpoint of the pedestrian, there was no transformation - they are still in the same reference system. The car is moving, but the pedestrian is not. I think a better way to clarify this would be to show an example where the transformation is not transparent, and have the viewer ask "why does this happen?" Exactly. A system transformation is when you change the coordinate system. An example where this is transparent is when you use a map. The map coordinates are in a different coordinate system than the real world coordinates.
  • #1
maheshshenoy
24
3
Hey Guys I am making a series of physics tutorials.. with an aim to solve problems and understand concepts without making using of any formulae by making use of animations and some real life examples

I started with conceps of relative velocity.. Please tell me if its useful..

I am sorry if this is against the forum policy :frown:.. but its an educational video! Cheers :smile:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Physics is well done.
One suggestion: Please remove the background music. Its noise adds nothing and only distracts.
 
  • #3
maheshshenoy said:
Hey Guys I am making a series of physics tutorials.. with an aim to solve problems and understand concepts without making using of any formulae by making use of animations and some real life examples

I started with conceps of relative velocity.. Please tell me if its useful..

I am sorry if this is against the forum policy :frown:.. but its an educational video! Cheers :smile:


Hi welcome to physicsforums!
That's a nice instructive video but with an important issue.

A problem that regularly occurs is confusion due to mix-up between reference system transformation and velocity difference calculation. That mix-up has led to disagreement about "relative velocity" in textbooks (many textbooks mean with "relative velocity", simply "velocity", so that "relative" has been made meaningless). Regretfully this mix-up also happens in your presentation.

It is of no practical consequence in classical physics but goes wrong in relativity. The mixed-up understanding that is engrained in some people's head makes them think that basic rules of mathematics magically don't work in relativistic mechanics.

So, it would be better if you either do not make a stealth system transformation in your discussion, or explicitly mention that you do so, and that this makes no difference in classical mechanics.

Also you have to decide which definition to adopt, see my explanation here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3992825&postcount=2

Oh and remove the typo in Refrence :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Thank you for your replies.. Bobby why .. I ll make sure i won't add any music anymore :D.

Harrylin.. so you saying when students would want to study relativity they would get confused why they had learned something before (simple vector addition) doesn't work at relativistic speeds??

But i thought.. relativity is usually taught by giving them examples of non relativistic speeds and telling that in those examples we make use of one important assumption , that the time and length do not change when we move (and even mass for that matter).. so they actually DO change but at normal speeds insignificant and hence simple vector addition works.. However at relativistic speeds we need to take into account the lorentz transformation (or something like that :D) for length contraction and time dialization which would make them realize why things "seem" to go weird at such speeds..

can you elaborate the meaning of "stealth system transformation" ?? Cause I didn't really get it :(.. thanks for the analysis though :)
 
  • #5
maheshshenoy said:
[..] Harrylin.. so you saying when students would want to study relativity they would get confused why they had learned something before (simple vector addition) doesn't work at relativistic speeds??
To the contrary: vector addition always works. A theory of physics cannot change the mathematical fact that 2x+2x=4x, whatever the x. Einstein even used vector addition to re-derive the Lorentz Transformations. Regretfully I have discussed with several people who thought that the laws of mathematics don't always work, because they were confused by mixed-up explanations early on. Thus the clarity with which you explain this can be important.
But i thought.. relativity is usually taught by giving them examples of non relativistic speeds and telling that in those examples we make use of one important assumption , that the time and length do not change when we move (and even mass for that matter).. so they actually DO change but at normal speeds insignificant
Exactly. However:
and hence simple vector addition works..
:bugeye: Vector addition of the same things always works. Therefore, a velocity difference in a single reference system is a vector subtraction that always works. That is different from a system transformation.
However at relativistic speeds we need to take into account the lorentz transformation (or something like that :D) for length contraction and time dialization which would make them realize why things "seem" to go weird at such speeds..
Right - if you make a transformation. :smile: So, what definition of "relative velocity" do you use, and why? What is the difference according to your definitions between "velocity" and "relative velocity"?
can you elaborate the meaning of "stealth system transformation" ?? Cause I didn't really get it :(.. thanks for the analysis though :)
When you say "from the viewpoint of the car", I suppose that you mean wrt the car - thus as measured by the car - there you probably made a transformation from the road reference system to the car reference system!
 
  • #6
"Right - if you make a transformation. So, what definition of "relative velocity" do you use, and why? What is the difference according to your definitions between "velocity" and "relative velocity"? "

Hmmmmm.. well I thought .. when we say velocity.. it actually means relative velocity WITH RESPECT TO earth.. and when we usually say RELATIVE VELOCITY.. it means velocity with respect to something else

when i mean't simple vector addition, i mean't without considering the effects of time dilatation :D..

ok now i get the stealth system transformation thing that you mention i think.. so you saying people get confused whether to use VELOCITIES (wrto earth) and ADD THEM (vectorially) or do system transformation

OHHH I GET IT NOWWW>> why that's the same in CLASSICAL PHYSICS and ITS NOT IN RELATIVITY :O :O .. i just got it while composing this reply lol :D..

But i think system transformation works in relativity right??
 
  • #7
I'm not sure if you now fully understand it... maybe you do!
However I feel handicapped for I wished I had a nice video like the one you made to explain this! :uhh:

So, let's have a look at your video together.

For some reason that escapes me, you make a difference between "with respect to" and "relative", although you don't really make use of that difference. Still your good word choice may be helpful for my explanation to you! I will consistently use "relative" for a difference in velocities (a vector subtraction), and "with respect to the ground" for the ground as reference system.

First you compare a velocity measurement of the bike by the ground with a velocity measurement of the ground by the bike.

That is called a "system transformation", which happens when you make a conversion of measurements of one reference system to those of another one. And the transformation that you use is called a "Galilean" transformation. Coincidentally, also in special relativity, v_bike-ground = -v_ground-bike; so you can indeed say "always". But that is really an exception.

I suppose that with v_bike-ground you do NOT intend the - as a minus sign, which would indicate a velocity difference (=relative velocity in some textbooks). You clearly say "velocity of the bike with respect to the ground", and "velocity of the bike as seen by the ground". Thus with that you take the ground as reference system. Perfect. :smile:

But then (2:20) you arrive at slippery ground. You claim that this is true for the velocity between any two objects: that velocity of B wrt A is always the negative of the velocity of A wrt B. That is not necessarily true. It is where many textbooks go wrong; an object is not always a reference system. In fact it usually is not!

Take for example the moon. From the Earth you always see the same side of the moon. What is its motion with respect to the Earth? And what is the motion of the Earth with respect to the moon? An astronaut who lands on this side of the moon, will not see the Earth go down or rise.

Next you nicely introduce the concept of a "reference". Good!
My suggestion is that you say somewhere (after 4:00) that the rule that you are going to give is only true in classical mechanics. And if a student asks you why, I know that you will give the right answer.

Then, at 5:40 you introduce (but hardly noticeable!) a new concept: relative velocity.
You say that the relative velocity of the road and the limousine "cancel out". You probably mean that with respect to the car, the velocity of the ground relative to the car is the negative of the velocity of the limousine relative to the ground, so that the velocity of the limousine relative to the car is zero. That is a straightforward vector subtraction, although in one dimension; it is all calculated using a single reference system, the car.

If that is indeed what you did, then you used there "relative velocity" definition 1 of my explanation in the link of my first reply. Do you copy that?
The advantage of that definition is that it is equally valid in special relativity. The advantage of the other definition (no.2) is that it looks somewhat simpler, even though it is in fact a system transformation. However, I noticed in discussions that it can hinder the capability to arrive at a good understanding of special relativity (which is why I nickname it "Newspeak"; you will know what I mean if you read Orwell!).

Using definition 1, I would say that the relative velocity of the limousine and the car are zero with respect to the car. And in such a case the relative velocity of the limousine and the car with respect to the ground is of course also zero.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Oki .. wow.. i should be so careful when using words :O.. anyways thank you for that :) :) :)..
 
  • #9
maheshshenoy said:
Oki .. wow.. i should be so careful when using words :O.. anyways thank you for that :) :) :)..
Hi it's not too bad, I think that you are better than most! But it is always possible to improve, and I had in mind to go over your video with you from start to end - it can become one of the best on internet on that topic. :tongue2:

However, that is only feasible if you give more precise feedback.
I'm even still not sure what exact definition of "relative velocity" you use and want to explain, despite the fact that it is the title of your video. :wink:
 
  • #10
"But then (2:20) you arrive at slippery ground. You claim that this is true for the velocity between any two objects: that velocity of B wrt A is always the negative of the velocity of A wrt B. That is not necessarily true. It is where many textbooks go wrong; an object is not always a reference system. In fact it usually is not!"

what if i said .. this is strictly restricted to ONE DIMENSION motion?? then??
 
  • #11
I had always thought RELATIVE VELOCITY only mean's VELOCITY with respect to anything BUT ground! :D
 
  • #12
maheshshenoy said:
"But then (2:20) you arrive at slippery ground. You claim that this is true for the velocity between any two objects: that velocity of B wrt A is always the negative of the velocity of A wrt B. That is not necessarily true. It is where many textbooks go wrong; an object is not always a reference system. In fact it usually is not!"

what if i said .. this is strictly restricted to ONE DIMENSION motion?? then??
I considered that, but it's perhaps too vague. For example you can have "one-dimensional motion" of a ball that is rolling over the street. It doesn't work for that, if you use the ball as reference - imagine how the street passes by as seen from a camera that is stuck inside the ball! The simplest and easiest fix is perhaps to leave "always" out or to replace "always" with something like "for such cases". No need (and not useful) to explain everything at once; that can come later. :smile:
maheshshenoy said:
I had always thought RELATIVE VELOCITY only mean's VELOCITY with respect to anything BUT ground! :D
In mechanics, the ground is just another object that can be used as reference.

PS. If you like I can send you a PDF copy of a chapter of a university textbook that explains it rather well in technical terms; just email me.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
"In mechanics, the ground is just another object that can be used as reference."

exactly and when we say only velocity.. for example i am going at 10 km per hour.. i mean its with respect to ground.. so usually with respect to ground we say just velocity

and when we want to take anything ELSE as the refrence.. we would explicitly mention saying velocity with RESPECT to something (other than ground) and we name it as RELATIVE VELOCITY.. (not that normal velocity is NOT relative velocity with respect to ground.. but since we most of the times use ground as the refrence we would drop RELATIVE.. and put it back only when we want to use something else as the reference.. ).. that's what I HAD thought :)
 
  • #14
"I considered that, but it's perhaps too vague. For example you can have "one-dimensional motion" of a ball that is rolling over the street. It doesn't work for that. The simplest and easiest fix is perhaps to leave "always" out or to replace "always" with something like "for such cases". No need (and not useful) to explain everything at once; that can come later. "

how about one dimensional and PURELY TRANSLATIONAL motion?? :D
 
  • #15
maheshshenoy said:
"In mechanics, the ground is just another object that can be used as reference."

exactly and when we say only velocity.. for example i am going at 10 km per hour.. i mean its with respect to ground.. so usually with respect to ground we say just velocity

and when we want to take anything ELSE as the refrence.. we would explicitly mention saying velocity with RESPECT to something (other than ground) and we name it as RELATIVE VELOCITY.. (not that normal velocity is NOT relative velocity with respect to ground.. but since we most of the times use ground as the refrence we would drop RELATIVE.. and put it back only when we want to use something else as the reference.. ).. that's what I HAD thought :)
I see what you mean, but I'm afraid that your definition does not correspond to either of the two definitions that I summarized. I don't think that it is of any use for students to introduce a third definition - it's bad enough to have two definitions! In physics the ground is only used as reference for laws of physics when its motion can be neglected (or alternatively all kinds of corrections must be made).
maheshshenoy said:
"I considered that, but it's perhaps too vague. For example you can have "one-dimensional motion" of a ball that is rolling over the street. It doesn't work for that. The simplest and easiest fix is perhaps to leave "always" out or to replace "always" with something like "for such cases". No need (and not useful) to explain everything at once; that can come later. "

how about one dimensional and PURELY TRANSLATIONAL motion?? :D
I think that that is fine, if your students already know what that means.
maheshshenoy said:
yea man i would love to ..
my email id is
xxxxx
thanks in advance :) :)
OK! (tonight, and better remove that address from internet to keep SpAm limited - you can still edit it out and I have it now :tongue2:)
 
Last edited:
  • #16
LOL THANK YOU :D for the heads up!
 

What is relative velocity?

Relative velocity is the measurement of the velocity of one object in relation to another object. It takes into account the motion of both objects and how they affect each other.

Why is understanding relative velocity important?

Understanding relative velocity is important because it allows us to accurately describe the motion of objects in relation to each other. It is essential in fields such as physics, engineering, and astronomy.

How is relative velocity calculated?

Relative velocity is calculated by subtracting the velocity of one object from the velocity of another object. This can be done using vector addition or by using the relative velocity formula, which takes into account the angles and directions of the two objects' velocities.

Can relative velocity be negative?

Yes, relative velocity can be negative. This means that the two objects are moving in opposite directions and the difference in their velocities is represented by a negative value.

What is the difference between relative velocity and absolute velocity?

The main difference between relative velocity and absolute velocity is that relative velocity takes into account the motion of two objects, while absolute velocity only measures the motion of one object in relation to a fixed point. Absolute velocity is also independent of an observer's frame of reference, while relative velocity is dependent on the observer's point of view.

Similar threads

  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
4
Views
776
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
438
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
923
Replies
68
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
60
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
Back
Top