"Don't panic!"
- 600
- 8
I'm currently collating my own personal notes and would really appreciate some feedback on my description of the relativity of position and velocity in classical mechanics. Here is what I have written
"Position is clearly a relative quantity as two inertial frames S and S' displaced by a constant displacement vector \mathbb{r}_{0} will measure the position of an object to be at \mathbb{r} and \mathbb{r}' respectively, the two positions related by \mathbb{r} = \mathbb{r}' + \mathbb{r}_{0}. As these two frames are arbitrary and neither can be distinguished from the other as a preferred absolute rest frame (as a consequence of Galileo's principle of relativity), it must be that position is relative. This argument also holds if the two frames S and S' are in relative motion to one another, related by \mathbb{r} = \mathbb{r}'+\mathbb{v}t, where \mathbb{v} is the relative velocity between the two frames. Clearly it follows from this (by differentiating with respect to time) that velocity is also relative."
"Position is clearly a relative quantity as two inertial frames S and S' displaced by a constant displacement vector \mathbb{r}_{0} will measure the position of an object to be at \mathbb{r} and \mathbb{r}' respectively, the two positions related by \mathbb{r} = \mathbb{r}' + \mathbb{r}_{0}. As these two frames are arbitrary and neither can be distinguished from the other as a preferred absolute rest frame (as a consequence of Galileo's principle of relativity), it must be that position is relative. This argument also holds if the two frames S and S' are in relative motion to one another, related by \mathbb{r} = \mathbb{r}'+\mathbb{v}t, where \mathbb{v} is the relative velocity between the two frames. Clearly it follows from this (by differentiating with respect to time) that velocity is also relative."
Last edited: