Velocities in inertial and rotating frames of reference

ryan88
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have a couple of questions about velocities in inertial and rotating frames of reference, related by the following equation:

\mathbf{v_i} \ \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\ \frac{d\mathbf{r}}{dt} = <br /> \left( \frac{d\mathbf{r}}{dt} \right)_{\mathrm{r}} + <br /> \boldsymbol\Omega \times \mathbf{r} = <br /> \mathbf{v}_{\mathrm{r}} + \boldsymbol\Omega \times \mathbf{r}

  1. \mathbf{v_i} and \mathbf{v_r} both state which frame of reference they are measured in, however \mathbf{r} does not. Is this supposed to be in the inertial or rotating frame of reference?
  2. If I use the equation to find the velocity in the rotating frame, does this mean that the value is represented in the rotating frame of reference? Or is it that the magnitude of that velocity is correct, but it still needs to be rotated to the rotating frame of reference?

Thanks,

Ryan
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
After taking a closer look at the post I linked to, I have another question. I thought that the time derivative of a rotation matrix was given by:

\frac{\mathrm{d}R}{\mathrm{d}t} = \tilde{\omega}R

However, in his post, D H states:

\mathbf T&#039;_{R\to I} = \mathbf T_{R\to I}\mathbf X(\mathbf \omega)

Since matrix products are non commutative, doesn't this make the following incorrect?

\mathbf q&#039;_I = <br /> \mathbf T_{R\to I}(\mathbf X(\mathbf \omega)\mathbf q_R + \mathbf q&#039;_R) <br /> = <br /> \mathbf T_{R\to I}(\mathbf \omega\times\mathbf q_R + \mathbf q&#039;_R)
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top