# Tag Info

## New answers tagged inertial-frames

1

So my question is: is this formula, that I frequently encounter in syllabi and books, correct? Where lies my mistake. The procedure $$\mathbf F = \frac{d\mathbf p}{dt} = \frac{d}{dt}(m\mathbf v) = \frac{dm}{dt}\mathbf v + m\mathbf a,$$ is based on the erroneous idea that the equation $$\mathbf F = \frac{d\mathbf p}{dt}$$ is valid for systems with ...

1

Actually it was that maxwellian electromagnetism had no problems, in contrast to the newtonian classical mechanics framework. Theory of Relativity alters the Newtonian framework not the Maxwellian framework. i would say that even if Einstein hadn't invented SR, someone else would (as indeed many others notably Poincare, Lorentz et al) were alredy on the ...

2

Option 4, none of the above. Your option 1 is wrong because points don't rotate. Your option 2 is closer to correct, but ultimately still wrong. You're overly hung up on points (the origin). It might help to get a handle on what "rotation" is. Points don't rotate. Better said, a rotated point is indistinguishable from the original. What about one ...

0

A very late answer, one that I hope adds to the excellent answers by Mark and Luboš. From the perspective of Newtonian mechanics, there's nothing wrong per se with using a geocentric point of view. Such a point of view does require adding fictitious forces and torques that would otherwise be absent in an inertial perspective, but if makes sense to do that, ...

Top 50 recent answers are included