Rotational Vectors not merely a bookkeeping device?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the role of rotational vectors in physics, particularly in 2D and 3D motion. While some argue that vectors are merely bookkeeping tools for distinguishing rotation directions, others assert that they are essential for accurately describing gyroscopic motion and angular velocity. The conversation highlights the need for vectors to represent both magnitude and direction in 3D, emphasizing that the right-hand rule is a convention that aids in understanding rotational dynamics. It is noted that while rotational quantities can be represented as scalars in 2D, the complexity of 3D motion necessitates the use of vectors. Ultimately, the necessity of vectors in physics is underscored, particularly when analyzing gyroscopic effects and ensuring consistent application of rotation conventions.
  • #31
FallenApple said:
Wow, that is a really good video. I especially like the part of expanation of the force moving around constantly on the maximum tilt, making the tilt glide around.
Yes, I like it too. Although I personally find it more intuitive to consider the torques around the center of mass of an object, rather than the pivot. Gravity creates no such torque, it also creates no differential internal stresses, because it's uniform on such small scales. The support force is the one applied non-uniformly and off center, which is transmitted with differential stresses to the outer rim. In the blowing-on-spining-disk-model from the video, the blow force is also such a local off center force.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K