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.
Great sir No one can chalange your knowledge. Jo log dislike karte hai unka mind perfect developed nhi ha physics ko samajhne ke liye i ya to vo jealous se bhare hai.
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.
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.
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
How to know if a particle has outer force acting in it or not? Like if its non-contact force, only way we say its there is based on acceleration right?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.." 🇧🇩🇧🇩
but i didnt get the point when sir said in non inertial frame the Fnet (ext) = 0 and a ≠ 0 ! i mean how can an accelerating body have a net external force equal to 0 ???
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.
Let's take a block slipping on a wedge. Everything is frictionless. So the wedge accelerates backwards. So does the block experience a pseudo force towards right? Why? I have problem in grasping this thing. Any help would be appreciated.
Well I think your question answers you. Just ask that why is that wedge moving, because of the force component when the block is accelerated downwards. So it is rather an action reaction couple not pseudo as far as I see
Sir ,I have a question regarding the above video. Sir a body in which the acceleration is acting how can it be possible that the net force acting on the body is 0 as we know that F=ma????
Bro that's because in a non inertial frame newtons laws are not applicable... So F=ma becomes null and void in a non inertial frame... In that case we are introduced with the concept of pseudo forces
Assume you are in car and your car is accelerating at some 5m/s^2 and then you open the window and see an object the object will seem to be coming towards you at the rate of 5 meters per second and you know that the net force on the object is zero so as to solve the problems we assume it is accelerated by some force which has magnitude of (acceleration of observer times mass of object), If you think it about carefully it makes sense.
Or you can assume that may be the frame from which u are seeing the object may be not at rest so actually the f=ma for that particle may be zero but u may see it is moving (may be sometimes true that the particle is really accelerating) so we can say that our frame is interial if we see it not accelerating or may be particle may be accelerating u never know ! Ever thing is relative u just need the right way😃✌ hope this helps
Sir , I have a question that How it happen that a force is 0N but it has acceleration . Sir, if you say mass is 0 then the particle which has no mass then it is not a matter so how it's have acceleration
In hc verma book, it is fully opposite the way the teacher is teaching now. The inertial and non inertial is justified by the relative with other point is said in book but sir told that it is not the case
Sir why force is not depend on frame of reference. When we see a duster which is in rest the duster has net force 0 and when we see the same Duster on moving we see that it has an acceleration so how we can say that force is independent of frame of reference?
But how would someone know if the net force on that particle 3:29 is 0 from that frame of reference? If we know that there is an acceleration, then the only statement we can certainly make is that there is a net force acting on that particle.
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.
@hcverma2928, If a particle is falling from 10th floor and is weightless, don't you think he is in inertial frame of reference. According to General relativity it's the experience which matters and is following a straight line.
Sir, with due respected please remove my confusions. @4:00 Frame is either inertial or noninertial and no question relative to this or that. But at @5:00 If the frame itself is noninertial (means relative) then the two frames of examples may be inertial.
Last line that verma sir said is the exact what the students asked him...So what is the answer actually...wrt a non inertial frame(A), what ll be the type of reference frame(B)if B is non inertial wrt to a inertial frame(C)..??? Plzz answer...Is it always the inertial frame that we have to view any non imertial frame from???
@@jalilkhan6251 to understand a frame of refrence what i usually do is i imagine if my one eye is in the place of the point particle from which you want to observe...the world seen by that eye is the frame of refrence ..yes it is 3d.....for example if i want to talk about the frame of refrence of a 'fired' bullet..i think i am the bullet...then i would be at rest and the whole world would go backward...if the bullet was accelerated...then every thing in this world ( frame of refrence of bullet) would experience a pseudo force in the opposite direction ( except the bullet ..it is on rest)..and so on ..if there is some irregular shaped body..i would put my eye in the place of its centre of mass and then i will imagine the world from that perspective...but for imagining something from the ground frame i would just think of my self as a spectator observing the events happening standing on the ground...so yeah BE the thing from which you want to observer the frame( the world from that things perspective...hope this was helpful
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 ..
So intertial frame is basically when any object in frame has zero acceleration. And Non inertial frame is when any object in frame has acceleration wrt any intertial frame taken into consideration
My dought is when earth is moving around sun bcoz of gravitational force in uniform motion a force is acted on it is gravitational but an uniformly moving object has no force acted on it from inertial law
Why a ball placed in a frictionless surface in a car moves with same velocity when the car is accelerated. What is the relationship between the ball and frictionless surface for moving the same velocity
If the contact surface is frictionless the ball doesn't move with same velocity it is the friction force which opposes any form of relative motion between the two surfaces in contact
noif the surface is actually frictionless. it will not move with the same velocity...from car's frame( for example from drivers seat)..you would see the ball going backwards with the same velocity as that of your car...in case of car accelerating ..a pseudo force would work on the ball from the car's frame which would accelrate the ball in backward direction
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
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.
The ease with which sir teaches is amazing.
I love your satisfying smile.. That says all about your passion on Physics!
I liked your English
@@devendramore9575 😍
3333333333333333333333333333433
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?
you are a legend sir plz keep doing videos i love physics because of you
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
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 😂
the best explanation of inertial fram I've found on UA-cam so far
Bhi alok sir ka vhi hain
This man needs no ruler scale or any compass. His hands are super still
Your simle at 5:00 was like....
Wait my children 😏physics isn't that easy
Ha ha 😈...
Yahi dekh bas tu
@@indiangamestic643😂😂😂
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.
What an excellent explaination it was! Each and every sentence sounds very logical.
Because this is science, everything in science is logical
The way sir concludes at last... 😅😅 superb
in the end I got more confused than i had been ever before
thank u sir, i was some confused in book but know when i came to your channel my all doubts are clear
Such a great explaination sir , the conclusion is if you observe acceleration on a frame then the frame is non-inertial .
HC Verma 😘😍 😘 the great one, 😍 respect
Sir u are a true legend. I was struggling with this concept from last two days but finally i got it.
Greatest teacher of physics 🙌👌👌
Great sir
No one can chalange your knowledge. Jo log dislike karte hai unka mind perfect developed nhi ha physics ko samajhne ke liye i ya to vo jealous se bhare hai.
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
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.
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...................
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 .
Amazing sir....... love from PAKISTAN
amazing teacher good content knowledge
👍
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
@@Vermaarush why are they unsubscribing? he is such a legend
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
How can the net force be zero but acceleration not be 0 at 3:30
Is it because the frame from which the particles is being observed is accelerating?
How to know if a particle has outer force acting in it or not? Like if its non-contact force, only way we say its there is based on acceleration right?
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
ye dislike kis nai ki hai sir ki video he is a God of physics or jo hc Verma sir ki videos like nhi karta Matlab vo physics nhi janata
How a body has force zero but acceleration not zero ??
you are very good at explaining, an asset of physics you are
But how can a body have net force equal to 0 but net acceleration not equal to 0?
Superb sir👍👍💐💐
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?
गजब सर 👌👌🤝👍👍🇮🇳🇮🇳2nd like and comment sb mera hai🤣😁😅
You are amazing and your book - concepts of physics is very helpful sir. Thank you sir
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
I love physics because of you..... I always used to read Concepts of physics by HCV 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.
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
Very well explained. Great video for all students. Thank you ! 🙏
"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
I always thought a frame of reference depends on another reference frame. I was in a dark place. Thank you HC Sir.
Nice sir. Lot of respect for you.
How is it possible that net force is zero but acceleration is not zero in non inertial frame....is there any example ?
When he smiles, a smile my face also comes automatically
Well this gave me inertiaception vibes... 😂
Lol😂
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
but i didnt get the point when sir said in non inertial frame the Fnet (ext) = 0 and a ≠ 0 ! i mean how can an accelerating body have a net external force equal to 0 ???
Explanation: When a body is observed wrt to non inertial frame of reference(a≠0) it appears to have non zero acceleration because of the pseudo forec.
*force. It appears that the body is accelerating. Hope it helps a little
It was suuppeerrr! Whenever I see your video..first of all I give it a big fat thums up and then watch the video..
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.
Great sir. Very clear & satisfied explanation. Thank you sir. #Respect
Sir .. you are god of physics for me .. ✌🖤
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.
Outstanding ....
Explanation ...👌👌👌
Sir u r really great sir
Let's take a block slipping on a wedge. Everything is frictionless. So the wedge accelerates backwards. So does the block experience a pseudo force towards right? Why? I have problem in grasping this thing. Any help would be appreciated.
Well I think your question answers you. Just ask that why is that wedge moving, because of the force component when the block is accelerated downwards. So it is rather an action reaction couple not pseudo as far as I see
Sir i liked..ur laugh .. at the end of the video.. And really understood better ... than before.. Thankyou sir
Sir ,I have a question regarding the above video.
Sir a body in which the acceleration is acting how can it be possible that the net force acting on the body is 0 as we know that F=ma????
Bro that's because in a non inertial frame newtons laws are not applicable... So F=ma becomes null and void in a non inertial frame... In that case we are introduced with the concept of pseudo forces
Assume you are in car and your car is accelerating at some 5m/s^2 and then you open the window and see an object the object will seem to be coming towards you at the rate of 5 meters per second and you know that the net force on the object is zero so as to solve the problems we assume it is accelerated by some force which has magnitude of (acceleration of observer times mass of object),
If you think it about carefully it makes sense.
Or you can assume that may be the frame from which u are seeing the object may be not at rest so actually the f=ma for that particle may be zero but u may see it is moving (may be sometimes true that the particle is really accelerating) so we can say that our frame is interial if we see it not accelerating or may be particle may be accelerating u never know ! Ever thing is relative u just need the right way😃✌ hope this helps
Concept of pseudo force bro.
Sir , I have a question that How it happen that a force is 0N but it has acceleration .
Sir, if you say mass is 0 then the particle which has no mass then it is not a matter so how it's have acceleration
In hc verma book, it is fully opposite the way the teacher is teaching now. The inertial and non inertial is justified by the relative with other point is said in book but sir told that it is not the case
The great padmasree HC verma ,"The DADU of Indian Physics"🔥🔥🔥
Nice sir ❤️👍
How the acceleration is not zero if the force is zero?
He always brings a smile on my face
Absolutely love to study physics from him❤
Nice video sir
Sir kya kis cheez ka maas km ho skta hai nuclear physics me.
Excellent 👍
It means free falling object is also an inertial frame.
Sir why force is not depend on frame of reference. When we see a duster which is in rest the duster has net force 0 and when we see the same Duster on moving we see that it has an acceleration so how we can say that force is independent of frame of reference?
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. ✌️🤭
It is given your book volume 1
Inertial frame other than earth
...🙏🙏🙏
But how would someone know if the net force on that particle 3:29 is 0 from that frame of reference? If we know that there is an acceleration, then the only statement we can certainly make is that there is a net force acting on that particle.
Sir you are very amazing and your book concept
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.
4:23 How the frame is inertial , if it is inertial then how the particles in the frame s and s' are in acceleration?
Please clear my doubt
Well at least the teacher agrees with me that earth is an accelerated frame and "free falling" is an inertial frame.
@hcverma2928, If a particle is falling from 10th floor and is weightless, don't you think he is in inertial frame of reference.
According to General relativity it's the experience which matters and is following a straight line.
Sir, with due respected please remove my confusions. @4:00 Frame is either inertial or noninertial and no question relative to this or that. But at @5:00 If the frame itself is noninertial (means relative) then the two frames of examples may be inertial.
Best teacher of india
Last line that verma sir said is the exact what the students asked him...So what is the answer actually...wrt a non inertial frame(A), what ll be the type of reference frame(B)if B is non inertial wrt to a inertial frame(C)..???
Plzz answer...Is it always the inertial frame that we have to view any non imertial frame from???
Happy gurupurnima sir
Sir you are the best concept explainer
But in case force is not equal to zero ?? Then what is the case for inertial and non inertial frame
Sir please make a video to explain pseudo force
very informative 😍
jnl
Can we define frame of reference as platform upon which observation is made?
Yes, the point from which observation is made the point of reference and the plane in which the point is lying is the frame of reference
Yeah,,exactly
ekta srivastava is frame of reference a plane or space? Because I read somewhere that it is 3d.
@@jalilkhan6251 to understand a frame of refrence what i usually do is i imagine if my one eye is in the place of the point particle from which you want to observe...the world seen by that eye is the frame of refrence ..yes it is 3d.....for example if i want to talk about the frame of refrence of a 'fired' bullet..i think i am the bullet...then i would be at rest and the whole world would go backward...if the bullet was accelerated...then every thing in this world ( frame of refrence of bullet) would experience a pseudo force in the opposite direction ( except the bullet ..it is on rest)..and so on
..if there is some irregular shaped body..i would put my eye in the place of its centre of mass and then i will imagine the world from that perspective...but for imagining something from the ground frame i would just think of my self as a spectator observing the events happening standing on the ground...so yeah BE the thing from which you want to observer the frame( the world from that things perspective...hope this was helpful
@@satyampanchal-1016 thanks bro.You are good at simplifying concepts.In which class do you read bro?
Thanks for this video sir..
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?
So intertial frame is basically when any object in frame has zero acceleration. And Non inertial frame is when any object in frame has acceleration wrt any intertial frame taken into consideration
My dought is when earth is moving around sun bcoz of gravitational force in uniform motion a force is acted on it is gravitational but an uniformly moving object has no force acted on it from inertial law
Why a ball placed in a frictionless surface in a car moves with same velocity when the car is accelerated. What is the relationship between the ball and frictionless surface for moving the same velocity
If the contact surface is frictionless the ball doesn't move with same velocity it is the friction force which opposes any form of relative motion between the two surfaces in contact
noif the surface is actually frictionless. it will not move with the same velocity...from car's frame( for example from drivers seat)..you would see the ball going backwards with the same velocity as that of your car...in case of car accelerating ..a pseudo force would work on the ball from the car's frame which would accelrate the ball in backward direction