A community for students.

Here's the question you clicked on:

55 members online
  • 0 replying
  • 0 viewing


  • 5 years ago

The §6.2 reading defines "relatively inertial reference frame" as follows: First, R is the vector from one frame's origin to another's. Then, A = d^2 R/dt^2. Finally, frames are "relatively inertial" if A=0. But suppose I have two frames that share a common origin for all time, but that rotate with respect to one another. Then R is 0 for all time, so A=0. These frames thus satisfy the definition of "relatively inertial," but this seems wrong. Indeed, none of the subsequent formulas (like the law of addition of velocities) are satisfied for this example.

  • This Question is Closed
  1. anonymous
    • 5 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    I took it from Wikipedia : "All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; they are not accelerating". You have missed the word "rectilinear"!!!

  2. anonymous
    • 5 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Yes, the Wikipedia def'n makes sense, even if it isn't very rigorous. Perhaps the MIT writers can correct the reading.

  3. Not the answer you are looking for?
    Search for more explanations.

    • Attachments:

Ask your own question

Sign Up
Find more explanations on OpenStudy
Privacy Policy

Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.

spraguer (Moderator)
5 → View Detailed Profile

is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...


  • Teamwork 19 Teammate
  • Problem Solving 19 Hero
  • You have blocked this person.
  • ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...

Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.

This is the testimonial you wrote.
You haven't written a testimonial for Owlfred.