I read this in HC Verma and was confused about inertial frames and then I searched (Inertial frames) on UA-cam . Guess what , The author of the book came to clear my doubts. 😅
I’m 31 now, and it’s now that I’m finding the right places to resolve my doubts. I had read Verma sir’s books throughout my senior school days but I never had an avenue to pick his brains or directly learn from him and channels like 3Blue1Brown. But now I have a newfound love for Physics and Mathematics all over again. I guess I was born too early. 😂 But I guess, I also hated to learn back then because we were learning to chase exam after exam, and not to actually understand these very concepts in an applied manner. It’s rather now that I don’t have to learn to quench the dogma of someone evaluating my knowledge that I have this rekindled love for this beautiful subject. We’re generations of victims of a flawed education system.
Thanks. From this I was able to determine my bedroom is inertial. My laundry is not accelerating toward the washroom and I'm definitely not about to apply a force to it.
Thank you for suggesting and setting up a criteria for judging weather a frame of reference is inertial or non inertial. Most teachers I know are not so clear on this subject.
If f is zero then acceleration is zero and if f is non zero then acceleration is not zero,does it still inertial frame but acceleration is zero in inertial frame so how does it follows Newton's law and at the same time it is non accelerating.I m confused if you know the answer please reply
Some statements by HC Verma Sir in this video are wrong, but this is still better than what is there in the book. 1. First improvement can be made by saying "any particle at any time" instead of "a particle" when defining Inertial Frame. HCV: If you look at A PARTICLE with no net force acting on the particle, and if from a frame of reference F if the particle has no acceleration, then the frame is inertial Better: If you look at ANY PARTICLE at ANY TIME with no net force acting on the particle, and if from a frame of reference F if the particle has no acceleration, then the frame is inertial 2. Second improvement needs to be made to incorporate rotational frames. While the above will NEVER give you a false positive for inertial frame, it may still give you a false impression for the test of inertial frame. The way relative motion is defined in HCV Book and most other books, it gives an impression that if a frame F1 is non-inertial wrt an inertial frame F0, then F1 has an acceleration wrt F0, say a1(vector). Students then wrongly imply that a particle with no acceleration wrt F0 would have an acceleration -a1(vector) wrt F1. Well, the particle may still have 0 acceleration wrt F1 as well if F1 is not translating but purely rotating wrt F0 and the particle is on its axis of rotation.
@@chathuminiudawatta4612 Let F0 be the inertial frame (say something like your room with a ceiling fan). Let the fan be rotating uniformly wrt F0. Let this fan be the reference frame F1. Let there be a ball just below the axis of rotation of F1. Now, F1 (ceiling fan) is a non-inertial frame of reference and ball has no acceleration in either F0 or F1.
ChatGPT Yes, if two frames of reference are accelerated with the same acceleration, they can be considered as inertial frames of reference, at least for the duration of their synchronized acceleration. An inertial frame of reference is a frame in which Newton's first law of motion holds true. Newton's first law states that an object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will remain in motion with a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force. In other words, there is no acceleration (change in velocity) in an inertial frame unless an external force is applied. When two frames of reference are accelerated together with the same acceleration, the relative motion between the two frames remains constant during the acceleration period. This means that any observer in one frame of reference will not be able to detect the acceleration of their own frame relative to the other frame. Since no relative acceleration is perceived, both frames can be considered as inertial frames with respect to each other during the period of synchronized acceleration. However, it's important to note that if the acceleration of one frame relative to the other changes, or if there are non-inertial forces present within either of the frames, then they would no longer be considered inertial frames. Inertial frames are only valid in the absence of external forces or accelerations.
That means if I'm on earth watching a bottle kept on ground , in my perspective the bottle is at rest but we both,me and bottle are moving along with earth with a equal acceleration.
I think if it mainly depends on where we are seeing if we are having same accelerated then it will be inertial to us and if some other guy is seeing us who is at a rest then he finds us at non inertial frame
"If u love physics then look at the black board,but if u do not have any idea about physics then just stare to his eyes and his loveable innocent smile.obviously u will fall in love with H C Verma and in Physics.." 🇧🇩🇧🇩
No we don't need another frame to determine if s & s' is inertial or not. Sir just gave an example to explain that it's not relative, don't take it in wrong meaning. Either a frame is inertial or non inertial, there's no relativity between them.
These are the same frame . If t1=t2 , if t1 =| t2 v=u+at .. if those events started at different times they are non inertial to each other. If that's not the case if all have same event of starting All are in same frame what we called for s the s' is absolute frame . . But if the observation is outside ..it non inertial ..
Very good explanation of inertial and non inertial concept. That means to say whether two frames are inertial or non inertial it depends on the observer's frame.
No! That is not what he said. He said whether a frame is inertial / non-inertial is absolute and not relative. From a frame if you see a particle not acted upon by any force accelerate, it is a non-inertial frame.
He is a great person and he wrote the book H.C VERMA. In that book we can find excellent problems and theory . By reading the theory and by doing the problems we can get a grip about the topic. The book is excellent.
Dear ideal sir, Still the confusion remains the same.as u ended that the 3rd frame with respect to which there two frames are being obseved can be non inertial, then that 3rd frame is accelerating with acceleration 'a' then in that case will these frames s and s' be inertial or not with respect to that frame?
Finding an External unbalanced force existing applied on to a frame is not the sure diagnostic to assign a frame to be an inertial or non inertial. For assigning a frame to be non inertial it is enough and all enough to know if the frame is accelerated ie; the frame is not maintaining its state of motion the same along the same straight line at every instant always and all the time. One thing more important and highly important is that acceleration doesn't need any reference frame for any comparison. When bodies do not execute equal displacement in all the equal intervals of time (instants of time), whether, the time inerval may be very very small the bodies are held to be in acceleration, obviously non inertial.
I read this in HC Verma and was confused about inertial frames and then I searched (Inertial frames) on UA-cam . Guess what , The author of the book came to clear my doubts. 😅
You be like : magic w(°ｏ°)w
😂😂
@@jiya8016 according to my magic I came to know that you uses telegram for free books just like me
@@jiya8016 👏👏😂
Really is he the author ok the book
I’m 31 now, and it’s now that I’m finding the right places to resolve my doubts. I had read Verma sir’s books throughout my senior school days but I never had an avenue to pick his brains or directly learn from him and channels like 3Blue1Brown. But now I have a newfound love for Physics and Mathematics all over again. I guess I was born too early. 😂
But I guess, I also hated to learn back then because we were learning to chase exam after exam, and not to actually understand these very concepts in an applied manner. It’s rather now that I don’t have to learn to quench the dogma of someone evaluating my knowledge that I have this rekindled love for this beautiful subject. We’re generations of victims of a flawed education system.
Good luck!!
True we can fight for this together, I have found some one like me and that's you , I am thinking the same thing about education System of India
"We’re generations of victims of a flawed education system." That hit hard.
@@wildfacts8863 How do we fight this? Is there any way besides becoming a politician?
@@aakashsrivastava133 yes brother I wanna become an influence
I have been trying to understand this for years, and this is by far the best explanation that I have seen on the topic. Thank you!!
Watching hc verma sir lecture to solve hc verma book 😂😂 not even kidding
Then you are an ultra legend 😂😂😂👏
Me too😂😂😂
Me too
But lectures are topic wise and not complete
😔
@@swapnilsingh5788 you are correct
The ease with which sir teaches is amazing.
Thanks. From this I was able to determine my bedroom is inertial. My laundry is not accelerating toward the washroom and I'm definitely not about to apply a force to it.
Wow, you're great man. Are you a Physics student??
@@name8166 fool he is in the field of physics then only he is watching this
@@rajnishkumar-ol3wu Okay, but 'fool' word doesn't sounds good bro 🙏🙏🙏.
I didn't say anything wrong. I was just asking
@@name8166 You replied to him much politely. Nowadays, people never reply like this.
@@Itsjustme0212 Yeah, Humanity is best regardless how much knowledge anyone posses.
you are a legend sir plz keep doing videos i love physics because of you
Eistein once said " Everything is relative. even my wife also"
His wife: now sign the divorce papers
😂🤭🤣🤣🤣🤣
Sweet home ALABAMA
unironically true
An underated comment man 😂
studying from you is my dream a legend teaching us is the greatest thing ever thank you sir my all concepts gets cleared.
Mai physics ka student hun but i want to feel. How it's possible?
the best of physics teachers like alakh sir refer to ur book ur book is the best physics book and even ur teaching is really good
I love your satisfying smile.. That says all about your passion on Physics!
I liked your English
@@devendramore9575 😍
3333333333333333333333333333433
Thank you for suggesting and setting up a criteria for judging weather a frame of
reference is inertial or non inertial.
Most teachers I know are not so clear on this subject.
the best explanation of inertial fram I've found on UA-cam so far
Bhi alok sir ka vhi hain
What an excellent explaination it was! Each and every sentence sounds very logical.
Because this is science, everything in science is logical
This man needs no ruler scale or any compass. His hands are super still
Such a great explaination sir , the conclusion is if you observe acceleration on a frame then the frame is non-inertial .
thank u sir, i was some confused in book but know when i came to your channel my all doubts are clear
Sir u are a true legend. I was struggling with this concept from last two days but finally i got it.
Your simle at 5:00 was like....
Wait my children 😏physics isn't that easy
Ha ha 😈...
Yahi dekh bas tu
@@indiangamestic643😂😂😂
The way sir concludes at last... 😅😅 superb
Amazing sir....... love from PAKISTAN
HC Verma 😘😍 😘 the great one, 😍 respect
Thank you very much sir .I couldnot understand this concept for last 6 months but today i know all the physics of this by see this video .
Greatest teacher of physics 🙌👌👌
at 5:00 i said the same thing to myself, and Sir and i smiled at the same time, this feeling of understanding physics 🥰😍
Me to bro
amazing sir !!!!!!!!!!!!! very much cherished by listenting to ur vedio...................
in the end I got more confused than i had been ever before
I dint understand in coaching and I found it right here
If f is zero then acceleration is zero and if f is non zero then acceleration is not zero,does it still inertial frame but acceleration is zero in inertial frame so how does it follows Newton's law and at the same time it is non accelerating.I m confused if you know the answer please reply
you are very good at explaining, an asset of physics you are
Some statements by HC Verma Sir in this video are wrong, but this is still better than what is there in the book.
1. First improvement can be made by saying "any particle at any time" instead of "a particle" when defining Inertial Frame.
HCV: If you look at A PARTICLE with no net force acting on the particle, and if from a frame of reference F if the particle has no acceleration, then the frame is inertial
Better: If you look at ANY PARTICLE at ANY TIME with no net force acting on the particle, and if from a frame of reference F if the particle has no acceleration, then the frame is inertial
2. Second improvement needs to be made to incorporate rotational frames. While the above will NEVER give you a false positive for inertial frame, it may still give you a false impression for the test of inertial frame. The way relative motion is defined in HCV Book and most other books, it gives an impression that if a frame F1 is non-inertial wrt an inertial frame F0, then F1 has an acceleration wrt F0, say a1(vector). Students then wrongly imply that a particle with no acceleration wrt F0 would have an acceleration -a1(vector) wrt F1. Well, the particle may still have 0 acceleration wrt F1 as well if F1 is not translating but purely rotating wrt F0 and the particle is on its axis of rotation.
Wow fasinating.. And can you please give an example on the second point? I didn't understand the concept fully
@@chathuminiudawatta4612
Let F0 be the inertial frame (say something like your room with a ceiling fan).
Let the fan be rotating uniformly wrt F0.
Let this fan be the reference frame F1.
Let there be a ball just below the axis of rotation of F1.
Now, F1 (ceiling fan) is a non-inertial frame of reference and ball has no acceleration in either F0 or F1.
When he smiles, a smile my face also comes automatically
I love physics because of you..... I always used to read Concepts of physics by HCV sir
You are amazing and your book - concepts of physics is very helpful sir. Thank you sir
ChatGPT
Yes, if two frames of reference are accelerated with the same acceleration, they can be considered as inertial frames of reference, at least for the duration of their synchronized acceleration.
An inertial frame of reference is a frame in which Newton's first law of motion holds true. Newton's first law states that an object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will remain in motion with a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force. In other words, there is no acceleration (change in velocity) in an inertial frame unless an external force is applied.
When two frames of reference are accelerated together with the same acceleration, the relative motion between the two frames remains constant during the acceleration period. This means that any observer in one frame of reference will not be able to detect the acceleration of their own frame relative to the other frame. Since no relative acceleration is perceived, both frames can be considered as inertial frames with respect to each other during the period of synchronized acceleration.
However, it's important to note that if the acceleration of one frame relative to the other changes, or if there are non-inertial forces present within either of the frames, then they would no longer be considered inertial frames. Inertial frames are only valid in the absence of external forces or accelerations.
amazing teacher good content knowledge
👍
Great sir. Very clear & satisfied explanation. Thank you sir. #Respect
Very well explained. Great video for all students. Thank you ! 🙏
Once a legend always be a legend
That means if I'm on earth watching a bottle kept on ground , in my perspective the bottle is at rest but we both,me and bottle are moving along with earth with a equal acceleration.
Rightt
only channel in youtube with 927k subs without even a logo. his name only is enough
Bro many people unsubscribed 😢
Now it's 919 k
@@aiims_delhi_is_heaven why are they unsubscribing? he is such a legend
I think if it mainly depends on where we are seeing if we are having same accelerated then it will be inertial to us and if some other guy is seeing us who is at a rest then he finds us at non inertial frame
Well this gave me inertiaception vibes... 😂
Lol😂
Sir teaches very well, he should write a book.
thank you for the great explanation.
Sir .. you are god of physics for me .. ✌🖤
Sir i liked..ur laugh .. at the end of the video.. And really understood better ... than before.. Thankyou sir
"If u love physics then look at the black board,but if u do not have any idea about physics then just stare to his eyes and his loveable innocent smile.obviously u will fall in love with H C Verma and in Physics.."
🇧🇩🇧🇩
True
@AP 309 so what
@AP 309 do you have any problem with that person, due to his country
@@itsDhiran those people sucks ! We give them their country but still they send rohingya and all , they don't want to friend with India
Nice sir. Lot of respect for you.
Sir u r really great sir
THANK U SIR TO CLEAR BASIC DOUBTS
Thank you sir I now completely understood what is inertial amd non inertial now I can do the questions from your book
And now you're in IITB 😳✌️
@@ShivamSrma true
@@ShivamSrma I still watch his videos on quantum mechanics helpful for 1st semester as well
@@satyajeetiitbombay5532 Yes, I would still study his books and Lectures even when I will be employed. ✌️🤭
To explain S & S' frame you still need a frame . Then why it is not relative sir?
Exactly
No we don't need another frame to determine if s & s' is inertial or not. Sir just gave an example to explain that it's not relative, don't take it in wrong meaning. Either a frame is inertial or non inertial, there's no relativity between them.
We need to see the motion of frame that it is accelerating or not but not for determining inertial or non inertial
Simply , HC VERMA god of physics concept
It is given your book volume 1
Inertial frame other than earth
...🙏🙏🙏
Sir you are very amazing and your book concept
Sir you are the best concept explainer
Your explanation is mind blowing
It was suuppeerrr! Whenever I see your video..first of all I give it a big fat thums up and then watch the video..
GOD AUTHOR WITH GOD CONCEPT VIDEOS OF PHYSICS
गर्दा मचा दीये सर
Superb sir👍👍💐💐
Best teacher of india
He always brings a smile on my face
Absolutely love to study physics from him❤
Dhanyavaad guru ji.. 🙏
Excellent 👍
These are the same frame . If t1=t2 , if t1 =| t2 v=u+at .. if those events started at different times they are non inertial to each other. If that's not the case if all have same event of starting All are in same frame what we called for s the s' is absolute frame .
. But if the observation is outside ..it non inertial ..
Abbe pagalkhane so aaya hai kya?
Watching this video while concepts of physics by HC Verma on my table
Same here xd;)
Same here (✷‿✷)( ╹▽╹ )( ╹▽╹ )
Same
Thank you so much sir for this video cleared my doubt😊
Watching this video again has helped me understand it
Thanks for this video sir..
Thank you sir for such beautiful concept.....
Outstanding ....
Explanation ...👌👌👌
Very good explanation of inertial and non inertial concept. That means to say whether two frames are inertial or non inertial it depends on the observer's frame.
Well said!!!
No! That is not what he said. He said whether a frame is inertial / non-inertial is absolute and not relative. From a frame if you see a particle not acted upon by any force accelerate, it is a non-inertial frame.
I was actually confused in this example in HC Verma book and found it
He is a great person and he wrote the book H.C VERMA. In that book we can find excellent problems and theory . By reading the theory and by doing the problems we can get a grip about the topic. The book is excellent.
actually the name of the book is Concepts of Physics
The great padmasree HC verma ,"The DADU of Indian Physics"🔥🔥🔥
Sir please bring some video for class 11 please it is an humble request to you. You are the best please sir.
Sir does not follow any syllabus. Syllabus oriented teaching killed the strength ,joy and feeling of science
Thanks you sir u are just amazing sir I understand the concept in my first try
Really really thank u sir
The legend himself !
Ofcourse it is relative.
It is evident in your video sir.
I think the same.
Great explanation
Perfect !! Just whats needed ! Crisp !
Thanku so much🙏 guru ji
Sir thank you. Know I understood it perfectly
Kohinoor for india prides for Bihar
गजब सर 👌👌🤝👍👍🇮🇳🇮🇳2nd like and comment sb mera hai🤣😁😅
Nice sir ❤️👍
Sir,teacher like you making physics non interesting but your book is interesting
Dear ideal sir,
Still the confusion remains the same.as u ended that the 3rd frame with respect to which there two frames are being obseved can be non inertial, then that 3rd frame is accelerating with acceleration 'a' then in that case will these frames s and s' be inertial or not with respect to that frame?
Very nicely explained Sir.
i m ur big fan sir. really u shoulg be called THE GEAT TEACHER
Very good sir. Great.
Nice video sir
Old is Gold
God of physics
Thanks sir very helpfull video
you are my best teacher
Finding an External unbalanced force existing applied on to a frame is not the sure diagnostic to assign a frame to be an inertial or non inertial. For assigning a frame to be non inertial it is enough and all enough to know if the frame is accelerated ie; the frame is not maintaining its state of motion the same along the same straight line at every instant always and all the time. One thing more important and highly important is that acceleration doesn't need any reference frame for any comparison. When bodies do not execute equal displacement in all the equal intervals of time (instants of time), whether, the time inerval may be very very small the bodies are held to be in acceleration, obviously non inertial.
5:00 smile sir darane waali hai
Thank you very much sir 👍😊
Sir i just wanted to be taught by you... It was my dream that came true!😇❤ feeling blessed!🙈❤😇
I am starting a pure research institute like xerox and paarc but will make it profitable.Donate on phonepe 7259293140.