Sidereal frame and conservative force.

Gwilim
Messages
126
Reaction score
0
Briefly describe a sidereal frame of reference, and then state Newton's laws of motion

I can't find sidereal in the index of my textbook, but my googling leads me to conclude that it's something to do with fixed stars. I'm not sure if a sidereal frame is also an inertial frame. Newtons laws are easy enough, but I get the feeling I'm not being asked for the classical formulations, but rather to append 'with reference to an inertial frame' or the like to the end.

State the properties satisfied by a conservative field of force, and then derive the energy equation for a particle of constant mass m moving under the influence of such a force

Umm, help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gwilim said:
I can't find sidereal in the index of my textbook, but my googling leads me to conclude that it's something to do with fixed stars. I'm not sure if a sidereal frame is also an inertial frame.

Hi Gwilim! :smile:

"sidereal" simply means fixed relative to the stars …

it's more inertial than a laboratory frame!

(because it doesn't pretend that the Earth isn't spinning. :biggrin:)
State the properties satisfied by a conservative field of force, and then derive the energy equation for a particle of constant mass m moving under the influence of such a force

Go on, start … what are the properties satisfied by a conservative field of force? :wink:
 
tiny-tim said:
Hi Gwilim! :smile:

"sidereal" simply means fixed relative to the stars …

it's more inertial than a laboratory frame!

(because it doesn't pretend that the Earth isn't spinning. :biggrin:)

So what would be acceptable wording in an exam?

"A sidereal frame of reference is one which uses fixed stars as a frame of reference"?

Seems a bit, uhh, self referential?

Go on, start … what are the properties satisfied by a conservative field of force? :wink:

I don't know :( I hear it's something about 0 curl but I don't think I'm expected to know what curl is so that can't be the answer they're looking for. Can't you just tell me?:rolleyes:
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...

Similar threads

Back
Top