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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Everything in this universe is moving with some acceleration... There is nothing as inertial frame if you consider every motions.. But as you change the perspective and put a bigger entity at rest... Motion of other bodies smaller than it can be described and hence we could say tha it is an initial or non inertial frame... So it depends on the *universe* you chose
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?
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
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
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.
@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.
@@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
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
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 ..
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
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???
Sir, in the timing 04:07 it has been Mentioned that if the net force acting on the body is zero and the acceleration is non zero then the body is said to be non inertial frame. But my question is that if the net force on a body is zero, how can the acceleration on that body be zero? we know : F=m.a so, 0= m.a since m can't be zero therefore a= 0
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 question was about the frames in question with respect to each other, not about some arbitrary third frame's perspective.....not a proper answer...
you cannot say for certain if they are inertial or inertial because to even say they both have some acceleration you need to have another frame w.r.t to which they have that acceleration.
@@satyampandey2222 Same acceleration is predetermined in here....and they both know that...we dont need third frame to determine that...question is what if both frames are travelling at same acceleration wrt each other....
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.
If a particle moves with a increase or decrease acceleration then it is a non innertial frame of reference but we know Newton laws are held in inneetial frame of reference .how does Newton law held here for a moving particle with an acceleration?
I cannot follow the details, but I think I understand the general idea. I think he is talking about a similar illusion of inertia as cintrifugal force. The delta between to objects with and acceleration in that speed could beg the question as to which is inertial or a force. My understanding is that an object at rest is not a force, but requires a force to change the inertia. So, what would be a term for this when two bodies are compared or partially connected with a minimally rigid body like a string? If a ball hanging from a car in motion swings backwards it seems to have a force deficit due to the failure of the rigid body to be highly rigid; the string. This perceived force is just the body wanting to say at rest.
I am confused and no one will help me. (1) I am told there is only ONE type of inertial frame of reference. (2) meaning if i do a physics experiment in ANY inertial frame i will get the SAME RESULTS no matter what inertial frame i am in (3) I am told earth is an inertial frame. (4) I am told being in outer space at a constant velocity is an inertial frame. OK THESE STATEMENTS CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because if that were ALL true then that would mean that i could do physics experiments in outer space (at a constant velocity) and then do the SAME PHYSICS EXPERIMENT on earth and get the SAME RESULTS. But that IS NOT TRUE. THAT IS A LIE. If i am in outer space(at constant velocity) and i hold a ball out and let go of the ball with out throwing it or pushing it in any direction the ball will just float there. But on earth if i do the SAME experiment the ball will fall to the ground. So there are (1) more than one TYPE of inertial frames of reference OR (2) earth is NOT an inertial frame of reference. SO WHICH IS IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why wont any one answer me???????
The reason you won't get the same result in a space rocket and Earth when you throw a ball is because of absence of gravitational force. For example, let's say I throw a ball in a place on Earth with no wind, and then I throw a ball in windy weather. They will not follow the same trajectory because in one case, the wind is imparting force on the ball. The reason you wouldn't get the same result despite the frame being inertial is that your situations aren't identical
Dear frnd earth isnt an inertial frame!! Earth is rotating around its own axis as well as revolving around the sun so any body in the outer space with net force zero will have an accln with respect to earth suggesting that earth is non inertial
f=0 , a= non zero. this is the situation when particle is not accelerated but the frame itself is accelerated. so F on particle is zerro. but accceleration if you measure you will say it is non zero. with some magical pseudo force( that which is not even there in reality) on it.
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
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
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
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?
Eistein once said " Everything is relative. even my wife also"
His wife: now sign the divorce papers
😂🤭🤣🤣🤣🤣
Sweet home ALABAMA
unironically true
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
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
Your simle at 5:00 was like....
Wait my children 😏physics isn't that easy
Ha ha 😈...
Yahi dekh bas tu
the best explanation of inertial fram I've found on UA-cam so far
Bhi alok sir ka vhi hain
The way sir concludes at last... 😅😅 superb
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
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 .
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
Sir u are a true legend. I was struggling with this concept from last two days but finally i got it.
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
@@Just_ishii why are they unsubscribing? he is such a legend
Well this gave me inertiaception vibes... 😂
Lol😂
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 .
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?
amazing sir !!!!!!!!!!!!! very much cherished by listenting to ur vedio...................
I love physics because of you..... I always used to read Concepts of physics by HCV sir
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?
Amazing sir....... love from PAKISTAN
@Rahul Ranjan Bhai russia ka irodov bhi to India me famous hai ♥️🇮🇳 education knows no boundaries
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.
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
amazing teacher good content knowledge
👍
गजब सर 👌👌🤝👍👍🇮🇳🇮🇳2nd like and comment sb mera hai🤣😁😅
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.
Sir , where can we find non inertial or pure inertial reference frames ?
Everything in this universe is moving with some acceleration... There is nothing as inertial frame if you consider every motions..
But as you change the perspective and put a bigger entity at rest... Motion of other bodies smaller than it can be described and hence we could say tha it is an initial or non inertial frame...
So it depends on the *universe* you chose
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?
Sir आसमान से गिरने वाली बिजली Ac होती है या Dc
Bhai vo na to ac hoti hai or na hi dc hoti hai
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
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 u r really great sir
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.
Nice sir. Lot of respect for you.
How the acceleration is not zero if the force is zero?
sir book return krna h
गर्दा मचा दीये सर
It is given your book volume 1
Inertial frame other than earth
...🙏🙏🙏
@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 please make a video to explain pseudo force
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?
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. ✌️🤭
Great sir. Very clear & satisfied explanation. Thank you sir. #Respect
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
He always brings a smile on my face
Absolutely love to study physics from him❤
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?
thank you for the great explanation.
Simply , HC VERMA god of physics concept
Sir can you please start teaching physics for class 11 and 12
Yes sir
Sir will not as he is legend he wrote whole book of physics so he will not be interested in studying 11 12 as it look so easy for him
Start studying by sachin sir .He is a great teacher for 11th and 12th .
Very well explained. Great video for all students. Thank you ! 🙏
Once a legend always be a legend
Watching this video while concepts of physics by HC Verma on my table
Same here xd;)
Same here (✷‿✷)( ╹▽╹ )( ╹▽╹ )
Same
I was actually confused in this example in HC Verma book and found it
It was suuppeerrr! Whenever I see your video..first of all I give it a big fat thums up and then watch the video..
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
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???
Thanks for this video sir..
But how is it possible sir that a particle is accelerated but zero force is acting on it.
YES...how could it possible.....without any force how could we accelerate the particle.........not understood.....please clear it ...if any one can
How is it possible that net force is zero but acceleration is not zero in non inertial frame....is there any example ?
Sir, in the timing 04:07 it has been Mentioned that if the net force acting on the body is zero and the acceleration is non zero then the body is said to be non inertial frame. But my question is that if the net force on a body is zero, how can the acceleration on that body be zero?
we know :
F=m.a
so, 0= m.a
since m can't be zero therefore a= 0
My question too
Mera bhi same Q. Hai 🤔
I got one example.... May be it will explained..... Planets revolving in space... And also moon
Net force is zero
@@swetha1287 How the net force is zero?In that case also there is some force i.e the gravitational force and there the acceleration is V^2/R
Nice video sir
Sir .. you are god of physics for me .. ✌🖤
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
Happy gurupurnima sir
The question was about the frames in question with respect to each other, not about some arbitrary third frame's perspective.....not a proper answer...
you cannot say for certain if they are inertial or inertial because to even say they both have some acceleration you need to have another frame w.r.t to which they have that acceleration.
@@satyampandey2222
Same acceleration is predetermined in here....and they both know that...we dont need third frame to determine that...question is what if both frames are travelling at same acceleration wrt each other....
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 came here, didn't understand a thing then I read his book, OMG book explains better.
Could you let me know the book name and author name ?
@@wildkami1345 HC Verma
Thank you so much sir for this video cleared my doubt😊
Sir please make a video for pseudo forces.
If a particle moves with a increase or decrease acceleration then it is a non innertial frame of reference but we know Newton laws are held in inneetial frame of reference .how does Newton law held here for a moving particle with an acceleration?
I cannot follow the details, but I think I understand the general idea. I think he is talking about a similar illusion of inertia as cintrifugal force. The delta between to objects with and acceleration in that speed could beg the question as to which is inertial or a force.
My understanding is that an object at rest is not a force, but requires a force to change the inertia. So, what would be a term for this when two bodies are compared or partially connected with a minimally rigid body like a string?
If a ball hanging from a car in motion swings backwards it seems to have a force deficit due to the failure of the rigid body to be highly rigid; the string.
This perceived force is just the body wanting to say at rest.
I am confused and no one will help me. (1) I am told there is only ONE type of inertial frame of reference. (2) meaning if i do a physics experiment in ANY inertial frame i will get the SAME RESULTS no matter what inertial frame i am in (3) I am told earth is an inertial frame. (4) I am told being in outer space at a constant velocity is an inertial frame. OK THESE STATEMENTS CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because if that were ALL true then that would mean that i could do physics experiments in outer space (at a constant velocity) and then do the SAME PHYSICS EXPERIMENT on earth and get the SAME RESULTS. But that IS NOT TRUE. THAT IS A LIE. If i am in outer space(at constant velocity) and i hold a ball out and let go of the ball with out throwing it or pushing it in any direction the ball will just float there. But on earth if i do the SAME experiment the ball will fall to the ground. So there are (1) more than one TYPE of inertial frames of reference OR (2) earth is NOT an inertial frame of reference. SO WHICH IS IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why wont any one answer me???????
The reason you won't get the same result in a space rocket and Earth when you throw a ball is because of absence of gravitational force. For example, let's say I throw a ball in a place on Earth with no wind, and then I throw a ball in windy weather. They will not follow the same trajectory because in one case, the wind is imparting force on the ball. The reason you wouldn't get the same result despite the frame being inertial is that your situations aren't identical
Dear frnd earth isnt an inertial frame!!
Earth is rotating around its own axis as well as revolving around the sun so any body in the outer space with net force zero will have an accln with respect to earth suggesting that earth is non inertial
How it's possible.. for non zero acceleration net force will become zero?? What kind of situation it is ??
f=0 , a= non zero. this is the situation when particle is not accelerated but the frame itself is accelerated. so F on particle is zerro. but accceleration if you measure you will say it is non zero. with some magical pseudo force( that which is not even there in reality) on it.
The legend himself !
last part like "i m physics,jst hold my beer"😂😂
Thanks sir
Sir you are very amazing and your book concept
Dhanyavaad guru ji.. 🙏
How can a particle be accelerated without net force ?
great question
When S0 is non inertial than how S and S' may be inertial frame??? Please tell....
Honestly Just now I got to know the confusion behind this old topic and now I am also confused!!!!!!!!
Sir how we will write second law of motion w.r.t non inertial frame... with vectors and pseudo force
I am starting a pure research institute like xerox and paarc but will make it profitable.Donate on phonepe 7259293140.
Thank you sir
Yeh channel HC Verma sir aapki he kya ??
Your explanation is mind blowing
THANK U SIR TO CLEAR BASIC DOUBTS
Very nicely explained Sir.
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
Very good sir. Great.
Is h c verma sir right? Anyone please
Saad wazir Saad wazir are you doubting Prof HC Verma ?
How is acceleration not equal not zero when there is no force?
GOD AUTHOR WITH GOD CONCEPT VIDEOS OF PHYSICS
Outstanding ....
Explanation ...👌👌👌
Thank you!
Thank you sir for such beautiful concept.....
Sir please explain mathematically
how a frame of reference moving with a constant velocity with respect to an inertial frame is also inertial.
Because acceleration is zero