Why do objects always rotate about their centre of mass?

AI Thread Summary
Unconstrained objects rotate about their center of mass (CM) when tangential forces are applied because this ensures that the CM moves in a straight line, adhering to Newton's first law. If rotation occurred around a point other than the CM, it would imply that the CM is also moving in a circular path, contradicting the law of inertia. The external forces acting on the object lead to both translational and rotational effects, with the net force determining the acceleration of the CM. When external forces are removed, the object continues to rotate around its CM, as this axis maintains inertial motion. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between translational motion and rotation in rigid body dynamics.
  • #51
Leo Liu said:
Summary:: Conceptual question on rotation.

Why do unconstrained objects always rotate about the lines passing through their CMs when tangential forces are applied to them? I understand that if an object does not rotate about its CM, th
1) a free rigid body is not obliged to have a fixed axis of rotation;
2) instantaneous axis of rotation is not obliged to pass through the center of mass.
All these things can change from one inertial frame to another one.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, A.T. and etotheipi
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
wrobel said:
a free rigid body is not obliged to have a fixed axis of rotation;
Can you please explain what this means?
wrobel said:
instantaneous axis of rotation is not obliged to pass through the center of mass.
Why? Can you give me a proof?
 
  • #53
Leo Liu said:
Can you please explain what this means?
@wrobel is using a axis of rotation to mean the set of points on a rigid body that are instantaneously at rest in a given inertial frame of reference.

Consider, for instance, an ideal car wheel as the car rolls down the highway and use the frame of reference of the road. The axle is not instantaneously at rest. So it does not qualify as the axis of rotation in this sense.

The points that are at rest are at the contact patch of tire on road. So the "axis of rotation" as he uses the term would be the line of points running across the width of the tire where it meets the road. Obviously, this is only the axis of rotation for an instant. A little bit later the axis of rotation will be a new line a little bit further down the road.

You can see that if we changed to a frame of reference anchored to the car that the axis of rotation would then be at the axle.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, wrobel, Leo Liu and 1 other person
  • #54
Also, if we allow non-inertial frames, you could imagine a coordinate system with its origin fixed to a specific moving point on the tire, with axes always aligned with a coordinate system fixed in the road frame. The motion of the wheel in this frame is now restricted to rotations about this point, even though it is not the centre-of-mass!
 
  • #55
jbriggs444 said:
I want to expand a bit on @Dale's pithy response in #2 while staying away from the math in @Delta2's response in #4.

The idea is that we have this object. It has been subject to a tangential force but we remove the force and look at its motion. What axis is it now rotating around?

Well, what does it mean to say that the object is rotating around a particular axis? Likely what you have in mind is that there is a single point on the object that is moving at a constant speed in a straight line and that all of the other points on the object are rotating around that single point in lock step.

Since we removed the external force, the center of mass of the object is guaranteed to be moving in a straight line at a constant speed. So it would make a good axis. As @Dale points out, if some other point were the axis, moving in a straight line at a constant speed, then the center of mass would be moving around that point -- in violation of Newton's laws.
Does object rotate about center of mass only if external forces dont exist and in case where sum of all external forces=0 ?
 
  • #56
It's also rotating around the center of mass, if it's free falling in a constant gravitational field (as is usually a good approximation for motion close to the surface of the Earth).
 
  • #57
vanhees71 said:
It's also rotating around the center of mass, if it's free falling in a constant gravitational field (as is usually a good approximation for motion close to the surface of the Earth).
Isnt here air drag, external force?
 
  • #58
I said "free falling". If there's air drag, it's not freely falling ;-)).
 
  • #59
vanhees71 said:
I said "free falling". If there's air drag, it's not freely falling ;-))
Yes that make sense.

If gust of wind hit the arrow in flight from side, arrow will rotate with nose upwind,because of feathers at the back.

Is arrow rotate around c.m. during time to align with new apparent wind(head wind+side gust wind) and translate downwind?
 
  • #60
Any infinitesimal rigid body motion can be described as an infinitesimal translation of any arbitrary material point on the body and an infinitesimal rotation about that point.

The thing that makes the center of mass special is not the rotation, that happens about every point. The thing that makes the center of mass special is that its translational motion is simple. Rotation occurs about every point, as does translation of that point. But the simple translation of the center of mass makes analysis easier if we choose that as our reference.
 
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban, hutchphd, jbriggs444 and 3 others
  • #61
In addition if you take the center of mass as the body-fixed point of reference, there's no spin-orbit coupling.
 
  • Like
Likes nasu, Ibix and Dale
  • #62
vanhees71 said:
In addition if you take the center of mass as the body-fixed point of reference, there's no spin-orbit coupling.
Yes, which again makes the analysis simpler.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Ibix
  • #63
Dale said:
Any infinitesimal rigid body motion can be described as an infinitesimal translation of any arbitrary material point on the body and an infinitesimal rotation about that point.

The thing that makes the center of mass special is not the rotation, that happens about every point. The thing that makes the center of mass special is that its translational motion is simple. Rotation occurs about every point, as does translation of that point. But the simple translation of the center of mass makes analysis easier if we choose that as our reference.
If referenece frame is ground, about what arrow rotate?
 
  • #64
John Mcrain said:
If referenece frame is ground, about what arrow rotate?
It rotates about any point.
 
  • #65
Dale said:
It rotates about any point.
C.m. of arrow rotate about any point? what gives centripetal force for such rotation?
 
  • #66
John Mcrain said:
C.m. of arrow rotate about any point? what gives centripetal force for such rotation?
Drag and gravity exert any necessary force. But recall that angular momentum is conserved even in the absence of an external torque. So you have to be careful in demanding a centripetal force.
 
  • #67
Dale said:
Drag and gravity exert any necessary force. But recall that angular momentum is conserved even in the absence of an external torque. So you have to be careful in demanding a centripetal force.
Dont understand this concept "it can rotate around any point"...
There is huge difference is arrow rotate around cm or rotate around some other point, because in second case we must have centripetal force...
Dont understand this concept where you can invent forces at will..
 
  • #68
John Mcrain said:
C.m. of arrow rotate about any point?
Sure. Imagine the arrow is rotating in the vertical plane and there's an ant standing on the arrow. The ant is sometimes going to see the tip of the arrow between it and the sky and sometimes between it and the ground. And this is true wherever the ant is along the arrow - hence the arrow is rotating about any arbitrary point.

The key point about the center of mass is that (edit: in free fall) this point is not moving in circles itself. So an ant standing there, alone among all points, will see no force (or "force", because it's an inertial force and not a real one) pushing it towards the end of the arrow.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban and vanhees71
  • #69
Ibix said:
Sure. Imagine the arrow is rotating in the vertical plane and there's an ant standing on the arrow. The ant is sometimes going to see the tip of the arrow between it and the sky and sometimes between it and the ground. And this is true wherever the ant is along the arrow - hence the arrow is rotating about any arbitrary point.

The key point about the center of mass is that (edit: in free fall) this point is not moving in circles itself. So an ant standing there, alone among all points, will see no force (or "force", because it's an inertial force and not a real one) pushing it towards the end of the arrow.
How can you say here that triangle rotate about any point?
I see only rotate around center of mass, and if cm rotate around some other point then we must have centripetal force, path of cm will be curve not straight line
You cant move cm in curve path without external force.
 
  • #70
John Mcrain said:
How can you say here that triangle rotate about any point?
Imagine being an ant sitting somewhere on that triangle. Is the nearest tip of the triangle sometimes between you and the left edge and sometimes between you and the right edge? Yes! So the triangle is rotating about you. If it's not rotating, how is the tip pointing in different directions at different times?

You are implicitly adding another constraint, that to be "a point a body rotates around", that point must move in a straight line. Neither @Dale nor I are including that restriction. Thus we can say that the body rotates around any point and that point moves in a cycloid.
 
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban and vanhees71
  • #72
Ibix said:
Imagine being an ant sitting somewhere on that triangle. Is the nearest tip of the triangle sometimes between you and the left edge and sometimes between you and the right edge? Yes! So the triangle is rotating about you. If it's not rotating, how is the tip pointing in different directions at different times?

You are implicitly adding another constraint, that to be "a point a body rotates around", that point must move in a straight line. Neither @Dale nor I are including that restriction. Thus we can say that the body rotates around any point and that point moves in a cycloid.
If I am ant I will see outside world rotate around me not trinagle about me.
Same like at merry go round.
 
  • #73
John Mcrain said:
If I am ant I will see outside world rotate around me not trinagle about me.
Same like at merry go round.
That's true, and it's true at the center of mass too.

If you want, give the ant a compass so it has an axis fixed in the inertial frame to work with. Or better yet, glue a compass to the triangle and have the ant sit on the compass needle. It'll see the triangle rotate under it wherever it is, and if it isn't at the center of mass it'll also "feel" inertial forces.
 
  • #74
Dale said:
If they did not then the center of mass would not be traveling in a straight line. This would violate Newton’s first law.
Didnt we just say that object rotate about any point?
What is difference in instantaneous center of rotation and center of rotation?
 
Last edited:
  • #75
John Mcrain said:
Didnt we just say that object rotate about any point?
What is difference in instantaneous center of rotation and center of rotation?
For me, "instantaneous center of rotation" means that one has already chosen a frame of reference. The "instantaneous center of rotation" is the point where the rotating object (or a wire frame extension thereof) is momentarily motionless according to that choice of frame.

So if you pick the road frame, the center of the tire's contact patch is at the "instantaneous center of rotation". If you pick the car frame, the axle is at the "instantaneous center of rotation". If you pick the rest frame of an aircraft passing the car at a 600 mph while the car is moving at 60 mph and the tire has a radius of 12 inches then the "instantaneous center of rotation" will be at a point 10 feet above the axle.

By contrast, I would take "center of rotation" to mean that you have instead first chosen the point and then allowed that choice to dictate your frame of reference.

If you choose a point that is fixed to the wheel at the axle, you get a nice inertial frame of reference moving at 60 mph down the road. If you choose a point that is fixed to the surface of the tire then you get a nasty non-inertial (but non-rotating) reference frame whose origin is tracing a cycloidal path down the highway.

Looking at it another way, I do not think that either "center of rotation" or "instantaneous center of rotation" are physical attributes of an object at all. They are merely choices about how to describe the motion of that object. You are free to choose. Some choices make for easy calculations. Other choices do not.

This last is what @Dale said, much more succinctly, in #60.
 
  • #76
jbriggs444 said:
For me, "instantaneous center of rotation" means that one has already chosen a frame of reference. The "instantaneous center of rotation" is the point where the rotating object (or a wire frame extension thereof) is momentarily motionless according to that choice of frame.

So if you pick the road frame, the center of the tire's contact patch is at the "instantaneous center of rotation". If you pick the car frame, the axle is at the "instantaneous center of rotation". If you pick the rest frame of an aircraft passing the car at a 600 mph while the car is moving at 60 mph and the tire has a radius of 12 inches then the "instantaneous center of rotation" will be at a point 10 feet above the axle.

By contrast, I would take "center of rotation" to mean that you have instead first chosen the point and then allowed that choice to dictate your frame of reference.

If you choose a point that is fixed to the wheel at the axle, you get a nice inertial frame of reference moving at 60 mph down the road. If you choose a point that is fixed to the surface of the tire then you get a nasty non-inertial (but non-rotating) reference frame whose origin is tracing a cycloidal path down the highway.

Looking at it another way, I do not think that either "center of rotation" or "instantaneous center of rotation" are physical attributes of an object at all. They are merely choices about how to describe the motion of that object. You are free to choose. Some choices make for easy calculations. Other choices do not.

This last is what @Dale said, much more succinctly, in #60
Chief ask engineer: about what point will tanker rotate if our wokers push with tugboat 30m from stern?
Engineer answer: tanker will rotate about any point

Chief: What??

Tell that object rotate about any point is useless ,complety unphysical?
 
  • #77
John Mcrain said:
Chief ask engineer: about what point will tanker rotate if our wokers push with tugboat 30m from stern?
Engineer answer: tanker will rotate about any point
If one is docking a tanker, the frame of reference of the dock would be a good choice for describing the tanker's motion.
John Mcrain said:
Tell that object rotate about any point is useless ,complety unphysical?
Unphysical and useless are not synonymous

For instance, potential energy is unphysical. Only differences in potential energy are physically meaningful. But that does not stop us from setting an arbitrary zero, pretending that the resulting figure for potential energy means something and using it in a calculation that produces a useful result.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, nasu and Dale
  • #78
jbriggs444 said:
If one is docking a tanker, the frame of reference of the dock would be a good choice for describing the tanker's motion.
Lets say if tanker has diffrent location of c.m. and center of water lateral resistance (clr).

If you slowly push with only one tugboat at tanker clr, tanker will only translate,no rotation.

But if you push at tanker c.m., it will rotate around some other point that is not c.m. this mean c.m. is moving in curve path.

How is this possible, tugboat push perpedicular to radius of turn, so what produce centripetal force?
 
  • #79
Dale said:
Any infinitesimal rigid body motion can be described as an infinitesimal translation of any arbitrary material point on the body and an infinitesimal rotation about that point.
John Mcrain said:
Dont understand this concept "it can rotate around any point"...
This is just a mathematical fact of rigid body motion, purely kinematically. It has nothing to do with forces, just the way that rigid body motion behaves mathematically.

Suppose I have a rigid disk which is spinning about its center of mass. At a given instant I can plot the velocity of each point on the disk as follows:

center.png

The formula for the velocity field is ##\vec v=(y,-x)##. This is rotation around the center, as expected.

However, suppose instead of a disk rotating, we have a wheel rolling. Kinematically these are the same motion in different reference frames. Then at any given instant I can plot the velocity of each point on the wheel as follows:
bottom.png

The formula for the velocity field is ##\vec v=(y,-x)+(1,0)##. Notice that this motion is also a pure rotation, but about the bottom of the wheel, the point that it contacts the ground. Again, this is kinematically identical to the disk rotating about the center in a different reference frame.

These two points are not special. In fact, for any point on the wheel you can pick a reference frame where that point is momentarily at rest. When you do so the motion is as follows:
random.png

The formula for this velocity field is ##\vec v=(y,-x)+(0,0.7)##. Notice again that this motion is momentarily a pure rotation about the chosen point which happens to be ##(0.7,0)##.

This is a general feature of rigid body motion. You can always decompose the velocity of the material points in a rigid body into a pure rotation about any point and a rigid translation.

So again, it isn't that the rotation is about the center of mass, but that the translation of the center of mass is particularly simple.
 
Last edited:
  • #80
Dale said:
This is just a mathematical fact of rigid body motion, purely kinematically. It has nothing to do with forces, just the way that rigid body motion behaves mathematically.

Suppose I have a rigid disk which is spinning about its center of mass. At a given instant I can plot the velocity of each point on the disk as follows:

View attachment 319993
This is rotation around the center, as expected.

However, suppose instead of a disk rotating, we have a wheel rolling. Kinematically these are the same motion in different reference frames. Then at any given instant I can plot the velocity of each point on the wheel as follows:
View attachment 319994
Notice that this motion is also a pure rotation, but about the bottom of the wheel, the point that it contacts the ground. Again, this is kinematically identical to the disk rotating about the center in a different reference frame.

These two points are not special. In fact, for any point on the wheel you can pick a reference frame where that point is momentarily at rest. When you do so the motion is as follows:
View attachment 319996
Notice again that this motion is momentarily a pure rotation about the chosen point.

This is a general feature of rigid body motion. You can always decompose the velocity of the material points in a rigid body into a pure rotation about any point and a rigid translation.

So again, it isn't that the rotation is about the center of mass, but that the translation of the center of mass is particularly simple.
This last diagram is hard to coprehend..
 
  • #81
John Mcrain said:
This last diagram is hard to coprehend..
There exists a frame where the motion is momentarily pure rotation about the random point. It is just to show that neither the center nor the edge are special points. Any point can be considered the center of rotation.
 
  • #82
John Mcrain said:
Chief ask engineer: about what point will tanker rotate if our wokers push with tugboat 30m from stern?
Engineer answer: tanker will rotate about any point

Chief: What??

Tell that object rotate about any point is useless ,complety unphysical?
Chief didn't say angle of push.
 
Last edited:
  • #83
hmmm27 said:
Chief didn't say angle of push.
Obviusly perpendicular to tanker, if not, tugboat will slide and scratsh tunker, worker knows that.
Worker must know how tunker is rotate, othervise it will crash into dock.

So tell them tunker rotate about any point doesnt help at all.

So mathematicians wonder why they even ask so stupid question about what point will tanker rotate, chief and worker dont understand mathematicians answer at all!

There is only one position about tanker will rotate for each position of tugboat push.
Tanker will not rotate only when you push at center of lateral resistance,but with constant speed.
During acceleration phase it will slightly rotate becuase c.m. is not at CLR.

Obviusly relevant reference frame for workers is dock, not Jupiter or maybe rotating cranckshaft inside engine of tugboat.
 
Last edited:
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy and jbriggs444
  • #84
John Mcrain said:
So mathematicians wonder why they even ask so stupid question about what point will tanker rotate, chief and worker dont understand mathematicians answer at all!
This is not conducive to a good discussion. You will need more than petulance and stubbornness to learn physics and math.

The topic of the OP is actually more clear than the tugboat, so the tugboat isn't necessarily a good example. The topic of the thread is a free object. In a free object the choice of the center of mass as a convenient reference point is clear. That is the unique point which travels in a straight line at constant speed. So although for a free object you can express the motion as rotation around any point, the translation becomes particularly simple for a single point.

For the tugboat there is no point which travels in a straight line at constant speed. So the motion is less straightforward. You have to deal with acceleration regardless of which point you choose for analyzing the rotation. Correctly judging that motion is not trivial and a simple stubborn "center of mass" doesn't necessarily reflect what is actually going on in the mind of the chief and worker.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444 and russ_watters
  • #85
Let's take a closed system of point particles with only pair-particle interactions at a distance, i.e., the paradigmatic Newtonian model. Then you have
$$m_i \ddot{\vec{x}_i}=\sum_{j \neq i} \vec{F}_{ij}(\vec{x}_i-\vec{x}_j).$$
Thanks to Newton's Lex III we have
$$\vec{F}_{ij}=-\vec{F}_{ji}, \quad F_{ii}=0.$$
This implies
$$\sum_i m_i \ddot{\vec{x}_i} = \sum_j \sum_{i \neq j} \vec{F}_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_j \sum_{i \neq j} [\vec{F}_{ij} +\vec{F}_{ji}]=0,$$
i.e., the center of mass,
$$\vec{R}=\frac{1}{M} \sum m_i \vec{x}_i, \quad M=\sum_i m_i$$
moves like a free particle,
$$M \ddot{\vec{R}}=0.$$
If you have in addition a homogeneous gravitational field like close to the Earth, then you add
$$m_i \ddot{\vec{x}}_i=\sum_{j \neq i} \vec{F}_{ij}+m_i \vec{g},$$
and then for the center of mass you have
$$M \ddot{\vec{R}}=\vec{g} \sum_i m_i = M \vec{g},$$
i.e., the center of mass is freely falling.

That's what can be said with really simple math about a Newtonian system of point particles that's closed or one in an external homogeneous gravitational field.

For the special case of a closed two-particle system, you can reduce the problem to the free motion of the center of mass and an effective one-body problem moving in an external force field by simply introducing ##\vec{R}## and the relative coordinates ##\vec{r}=\vec{r}_1-\vec{r}_2##. Then you get
$$M \ddot{\vec{R}}=0, \quad \mu \ddot{\vec{r}}=\vec{F}_{12}(\vec{r}),$$
where ##\mu=m_1 m_2/M## is the reduced mass.

The case of a rigid body is treated in my above quoted manuscript:

https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/spinning-top.pdf

using, however, the Lagrangian form of the Hamilton principle.
 
  • #86
Dale said:
For the tugboat there is no point which travels in a straight line at constant speed. So the motion is less straightforward. You have to deal with acceleration regardless of which point you choose for analyzing the rotation. Correctly judging that motion is not trivial and a simple stubborn "center of mass" doesn't necessarily reflect what is actually going on in the mind of the chief and worker.
Lets say CLR and cm of tanker are not in same place.

If tugboat start to push tanker perpendicualar to tanker at CLR point;
during acceleration phase(from 0-2mph) it will slightly rotate because c.m. is not at CLR, cm will rotate toward tugboat because of inertia.

after tanker reach constant speed (2mph) it will not rotate any more, because hydrodynamic moment, left and right from CLR is equal.
So tugboat and tanker travel at costant speed(2mph) in straight line..
(I neglected here lateral aerodynamic drag of tanker, because at 2mph water drag is 99% of total drag)

Dont agree?
 
  • #87
John Mcrain said:
Dont agree?
Don't care.
Not the original question.

/
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #88
@John Mcrain You are missing the actual issue. The issue is to explain what you mean when you say that “an object rotates around a point”.

Mathematically you can instantaneously decompose rigid body motion into a translation and a rotation about any point. So what rule do you use to determine which specific point to claim that something is rotating around?

John Mcrain said:
Lets say CLR and cm of tanker are not in same place.

If tugboat start to push tanker perpendicualar to tanker at CLR point;
during acceleration phase(from 0-2mph) it will slightly rotate
About which point does it rotate? Please write down the actual mathematical expression for the motion here.

Whatever expression you write, and whatever point you claim is the center of rotation, I can write another expression that has the same rotation about a different point. The translation will be different, but the rotations will be the same.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #89
I have to say I am not happy about the way this thread is going.

Bodies do not rotate about a point. They rotate about an axis.

Why does the axis contain the COM? It doesn't have to, but that's usually what we mwan by the word "rotation". The earth rotates about its axis (which contains the COM) but revolves around the sun. It's a convention to aid discussion.

Now one might say "yeah, but this is just terminology" and it is. But when trying to understand something, it's better to keep the potential miscommunications to a minimum.
 
  • #90
Dale said:
@John Mcrain You are missing the actual issue. The issue is to explain what you mean when you say that “an object rotates around a point”.
About wich point boat rotate? A,B,C,D or any point ?

My answer is A.

istockphoto-1178510098-640x640.jpg
 
  • #91
That is a very nice answer. It is not the only answer. Thank you for sharing.
 
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444 and russ_watters
  • #92
John Mcrain said:
About wich point boat rotate? A,B,C,D or any point ?

My answer is A.

View attachment 320072
Why? Write down the math and the criteria you used. What do you mean when you say an object rotates around a point? Did you just randomly pick A or was there some reason you used?
 
Last edited:
  • #93
Dale said:
Why?
Because my eyes see this, same like I see that ocean is blue.
Isnt that so obvious?

Because if you swimm inside or outside of white circle(boat path),boat will not hit you, but if you swimm at white circle, boat will hit you.

Because centripetal force that keep boat rotating around point A is equal to m x v2 / r , where r is distance from A to boat...

etc
 
  • Skeptical
  • Sad
Likes russ_watters and weirdoguy
  • #94
John Mcrain said:
Because my eyes see this, same like I see that ocean is blue.
Isnt that so obvious?
So to determine the point something rotates around we have to submit a picture to @John Mcrain and get your eyes on it. That is a terrible rule.

Try again. What rule can you write that gives the unique point it rotates around?

John Mcrain said:
Because if you swimm inside or outside of white circle(boat path),boat will not hit you, but if you swimm at white circle, boat will hit you.

Because centripetal force that keep boat rotating around point A is equal to m x v2 / r , where r is distance from A to boat...
You should have a single rule. Not multiple rules.

You are trying to act like this is a trivial exercise, but it is quite difficult. If you actually made the effort here you might learn something.
 
  • Like
Likes nasu, russ_watters and hutchphd
  • #95
John Mcrain said:
About wich point boat rotate? A,B,C,D or any point ?

My answer is A.

View attachment 320072
I'm disappointed it doesn't include "E" - about its center of mass!

Extra credit for mixing together rotation and revolution. The Webb telescope would like a word...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444, Dale and SammyS
  • #96
John Mcrain said:
About wich point boat rotate? A,B,C,D or any point ?

My answer is A.

istockphoto-1178510098-640x640-jpg.jpg

If you:
- choose to describe the motion in the rest frame of the water
- choose to describe the motion as pure rotation, without translation
then A is the center of rotation implied by your choices. But these are choices you make, not something absolute.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale and jbriggs444
  • #97
John Mcrain said:
Because centripetal force that keep boat rotating around point A ...
You are confusing "rotation" with "translation along a circular path".
 
Last edited:
  • #98
A.T. said:
If you:
- choose to describe the motion in the rest frame of the water
- choose to describe the motion as pure rotation, without translation
then A is the center of rotation implied by your choices. But these are choices you make, not something absolute.
Camera show reference frame of water, so I answer for this frame.
Yes nothing is absolute, this boat move around Sun, but this is irrelvant for this case.
A.T. said:
You are confusing "rotation" with "translation along a circular path".
You mean roatition is spin around point(cm) inside object ,and translation along circular path is around point outside of object?
Isnt this game of words?
 
Last edited:
  • #99
John Mcrain said:
Dont understand..
A boat rotates while driving in a circular path, but in general rotation is not required while tracing/translating a circular path. A space telescope (my example) will move in a circle (orbit) without rotating.
Camera show reference frame of water, so I answer for this frame.
What if you're driving the boat?
 
  • #100
russ_watters said:
A boat rotates while driving in a circular path, but in general rotation is not required while tracing/translating a circular path. A space telescope (my example) will move in a circle (orbit) without rotating.

What if you're driving the boat?
Around what boat rotate?
 
Back
Top