Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Inertia frame of reference



What's the criterion for "best"? A standard exercise for mathematicians, when faced with multiple definitions - say A, B, C - of the same concept, is to require the student to prove that A -> B -> C -> A (where "->" means "implies"). In other words, all correct definitiions are equivalent. Some people might think of one definition as a bit more user friendly than another, but that gets you into pretty subjective territory.
It has already been noted that one statement in the posting below is incorrect.
Regards,
Jack

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, carmelo@pacific.net.sg wrote:

Hi everyone,

Does anyone know which is the best definition on inertia frame of reference?

Ohanian defines "inertial reference frame" as a frame in which Newton’s
laws of motion are valid to a first approximation.
Ludwig Lange argued that any three material points simultaneously
projected from a single point, and moving freely in noncoplanar
directions, constitute an inertial system.
In John Denker's website, he suggests "a freely-falling frame". (It
seems to suggest accelerated frame of reference.)


Best regards,
Alphonsus

Lange, ‘‘Ueber das Beharrungsgesetz,’’ Ber. der Ko¨nig. Sachsischen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Math.-Phys. Klasse 37, 331–
351 ~1885!.


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley