Timeline for Why is Newton second law only valid in inertial observer [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2023 at 9:28 | comment | added | GiorgioP-DoomsdayClockIsAt-90 | I think your question has already more than one answer here: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/723604/… | |
| Apr 4, 2023 at 7:38 | history | closed |
d_b Agnius Vasiliauskas John Rennie |
Needs details or clarity | |
| Apr 4, 2023 at 6:57 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 4, 2023 at 7:46 | |||||
| Apr 4, 2023 at 6:49 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 4, 2023 at 6:48 | comment | added | nickbros123 | Your question is unclear. Kindly rephrase your question. From my interpretation of your question: 1st law establishes inertial frames ' existence. 2nd law is intrinsically written to link the relation between "real physical" forces with the acceleration it causes. This law need not always work in non inertial frames without correction terms, but is true in all inertial frames. For example, a ball suspended from the roof of an accelerating car, cannot obey $F_{real}=MA$ in the car's frame, we need the fictitious force $- ma_{c}$ to account for it. | |
| Apr 4, 2023 at 6:45 | history | edited | Roger V. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
| Apr 4, 2023 at 6:45 | answer | added | Roger V. | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Apr 4, 2023 at 6:33 | review | First questions | |||
| Apr 4, 2023 at 6:39 | |||||
| S Apr 4, 2023 at 6:33 | history | asked | Faichney Lam | CC BY-SA 4.0 |