This is a great video series. As an aerospace researcher, I have seen how difficult is to understand the concept of frames of reference. I teach young adults how to simulate, build, and test dynamical systems using vector differential equations. I appreciate the time to spend to create the visualizations in all your videos. Thank you
Oh my god. I spent half a day teaching a masters student that a vertical load on a diagonal roof rafter produces axial force in rafter. Plus that means a horizontal component at the end of rafter. They couldn't understand x-axis parallel to rafter center line, resolve from there..... They don't pay me enough....
beautifully done....thank you man...I was stuck on this thing for almost 2 years....now it's all clear..you got a new subscriber ;). I just want to say one more thing that plz make the animation more clear( which already is but still....) and don't ever listen to anyone saying "speak faster you are going slow"... THANKS AGAIN
Hey man, thanks very much for this video! I understand relativity and whatnot, but at school today it wasn't really clear which frame of reference was the inertial and non-inertial one. In other words I was unsure of if an observer on the platform was in a non-inertial frame of reference as well because the train was accelerating. So this video made it so much more clear that f somebody was in a non-inertial frame, then the observations they make inside it would appear to defy the law of inertia. That really cleared things up man, thanks again!
I had to come back to revist some physics concepts for my internship. This video makes so much more sense three years after my first classical mechanics class. 🙏🙏 Thank you.
Thanks much. Very helpful. Although I must take exception with the earth’s rotation in a clockwise direction with the axis of rotation centered in Jamaica. 😀
Nicely demonstrated, one more on the second condition, imagine you are very small and tied to the block , when a giant person releases the block+you ,and the train accelerates forward ; you would view the table below you getting forward AWAY (ahead of )from you because you+ the block are in an inertial frame of reference (moving with a constant velocity) , YOU don’t feel any force acting upon you, that’s why it’s fictitious
At 7:20 for accelerating train reference frame you said that the block moves horizontally even when we hadn't applied a force on it in the horizontal direction. HOW? When the train accelerates it is because of the force produced from engine, there must be the same force or acceleration on the block in the OTHER direction due to newton's 3rd law. So how is no force acting on block but pusedo force is? PLS EXPLAIN - HELP!
Block has acceleration only when it is in contact with train.After just released from table it has no acceleration other than gravity.Block don't remember the acceleration of train after flying off.
I am shooked to clear my this concept only by watching this video.thanks a lot sir make more videos.i have subscribed your channel to watch more videos.
really very very gud .....firstly i had no idea on it .....i was idealess but after watching 2 of ur episodes i have come to know a lot thanks very much.....
Hello! I found this concept while solving a question..i solved the question,got the concept but i was not sure if i was thinking right....i searched the whole internet....finally i found a awesome video...beautifully explained....thankyou for it😊
Good explanation but, for a while there I could not understand what he was calling the reference frame outside the train. It sounded like ULTS, the ULTS reference frame, ERTS reference frame. Some term I don't know ?? Cracked myself up when I figured out he meant the EARTH"S reference frame. Duh ! That kind of minor accent thing can really be distracting. Comes up at work sometimes as well. While studying in College/University I've was taught by many brilliant professors from many non-English speaking countries. Got to admire someone who can explain complicated topics in a language not their native language. Comes up even between American and UK or Australian speakers ! I got good at understanding accents or so I think. But sometimes I just can't. Had a Chinese professor who could not pronounce the word Entropy any differently than Enthalpy. Both sounded like Entipy. Professor insisted he was pronouncing them differently. We convinced him to write it on the black board each time, but it took a lot of convincing. A British Professor confused us all when talking about AL' You Miny-Um. Aluminum. Professors from India; Reesey Prickle = Reciprocal. Yem bye Ye Eye = M/EI ....M by E I where Americans say M over E I. Had many foreign professor who spoke better English than me, with my Philadelphia accent that many Americans can sometimes have a hard time understanding. LOL. Not trying to be critical or condescending. I can only speak one language fluently so I can image how I'd sound trying to explain anything in a foreign language. Try turning on RUclips's captions. They are comical.
so the block was going the same vertical direction downward but when the train accelerated the block did not keep up with that speed so compared to the table it looks like the block has moved backward a bit?
Question Sir: Suppose we have a train with x velocity with a box in it have same as train's velocity,holded by a man on train. IF train accelerates to x+10 m/sec velocity then, same will be done by the box it will accelerate too! now Suppose we have train with constant acceleration with a suspended box,then box too will accelerate as train , NOW if we release the box it should come down with the same uniform acceleration i.e it should come down PERPENDICULARLY DOWNWORDS!!. BUT IT DOES NOT HAPPEN,DOES IT??? :-(THEN wHY IT DONT HAPPEN)?? plEASE TELL, sORRY iF THIS IS a STUPID QUESTION.THANX FOR ANSWERSS
An elevator is moving upward at a speed of 3 meters per second. A passenger in the elevator drops a watch. Find the velocity and acceleration of the watch in a frame of reference attached to (a) the elevator (b) the building
what if let's say for the sake of the talking, we have a train which has 1 km height. And if it goes with a constant velocity, and you have a ball attached on the ceiling of the train. Then, you free the ball. Will it fall perpendicular with the spot from the ceiling?
@@arnabmit Wrong - you are forgeting Earth's round shape, that comes in to play with the 1 km high celing. Replace the 1km height with 100 km height and you will see that your answer can't be right.
No, it won´t. Height, or altittude, makes things very complicated (because of Earth's roundness). But the answer is certain: no, it won´t fall perpendicularly, and, more interestingly, in the process of lifting the ball perpendicularly, from the spot in the ground, you would feel a force, a lateral acceleration. This was an excellent question. To make things even more clear, imagine the height of the train being hundreds of kms.
the way you explained force in case of accelerating train from earth's frame using EOM, could you not explain the same from non-inertial (train) frame using the same EOM. I mean, same EOM could be used to explain pseudo force in non-inertial frame also..isn't it?
Due to the velocity of light, all other forces become negligible. However, if a light source accelerates to near the speed of light, you can see the light beam (eg: a laser beam) bending from a non-inertial frame of reference.
the official story is that light in a constant moving frame propagates in the same way as it would stationary. if there was a difference there would be an interference, and as far as i know there is not interference. this is contrary to the theory of special relativity, as the theory states that light is a far field/ free from source and does not propagate through a medium. if Einstein was right about light then a beam shot up at a right angle from a level table in a moving frame would propagate towards you at an angle less than 90 degrees. the non interference could be evidence that emr propagates through a medium and is not completely free from source.
Sir when train is accelerated then before the release, box is also accelerated with same acceleration and when box release it have some velocity v and according to the low of inertia this velocity v remain constant and this is happening in train non inertial frame so how we can say low of inertia doesn't work in non inertial frame??
Hi please answer The earths frame of reference was also inertial right .. But the block had a horizontal component ..umm I really do not know what I am thinking to ask but is the earths fram was also inertial ?
What happens when the block is projected so high that the time for it to return is, say, 10 minutes? Will it still carry the horizontal velocity with it and land at the same point? Of course, let's consider there's no air drag.
From the Earth's frame of reference, we see that the block has been displaced in the horizontal direction (because the train is moving at a constant velocity). Similarly, in the y direction, the gravitational force acts to accelerate the body at a constant rate (-9.8m/s^2). Mathematically, you can think of the falling body's velocity as being represented by the line y=-9.8t, so its integral (physically representing displacement) is -4.9t^2 (which is a parabola).
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???????
CHALLENGE to anyone who thinks earth is in an inertial frame of reference and "free falling" objects are an accelerated frame of reference......... Let us say you are in an elevator WITH NO WINDOWS on the moon so there is no air resistance to falling. And the rope holding the elevator breaks on the 500th floor and you and the elevator starts "free falling". And lets say i am in a space ship in outer space moving at constant velocity. WE BOTH WOULD SAY I AM IN AN INERTIAL FRAME. Now you say "free falling" is an accelerated frame of reference. So YOU ARE SAYING we would be in DIFFERENT frames of reference......you in an accelerated frame and me in an inertial frame. SO YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVE IT EXPERIMENTALLY...RIGHT??????????????????????? Cause if we do identical physics experiments there should be at least ONE experiment where we get different results.....right. WE BOTH AGREE WITH THAT RIGHT?????????????? So tell me what experiment would you do to PROVE you were in an accelerated frame of reference while you are "free falling" inside your elevator???????????? If you can NOT think of an experiment that would give us different results then you must admit that "free fall" is an inertial frame because WE BOTH AGREE THAT me in a space ship in outer space moving at constant velocity is AN INTERTIAL FRAME. And guess what. If you .......while in your "free falling" elevator would hold a ball out and let go of the ball with out applying any force to the ball. Guess what the ball will just float and not move relative to you. Just like it would for me in my space ship. So that would be the same result. What experiment will you tell me about that gives different results???????????
![CHILE vs. BRASIL [1-2] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5ObJt_71AYc/mqdefault.jpg)
This is a great video series.
As an aerospace researcher, I have seen how difficult is to understand the concept of frames of reference. I teach young adults how to simulate, build, and test dynamical systems using vector differential equations.
I appreciate the time to spend to create the visualizations in all your videos.
Thank you
Oh my god. I spent half a day teaching a masters student that a vertical load on a diagonal roof rafter produces axial force in rafter. Plus that means a horizontal component at the end of rafter. They couldn't understand x-axis parallel to rafter center line, resolve from there.....
They don't pay me enough....
By far the most comprehensive video on Pseudo forces!!!!! RUclips needs more contents like this.
beautifully done....thank you man...I was stuck on this thing for almost 2 years....now it's all clear..you got a new subscriber ;). I just want to say one more thing that plz make the animation more clear( which already is but still....) and don't ever listen to anyone saying "speak faster you are going slow"... THANKS AGAIN
Hey man, thanks very much for this video!
I understand relativity and whatnot, but at school today it wasn't really clear which frame of reference was the inertial and non-inertial one. In other words I was unsure of if an observer on the platform was in a non-inertial frame of reference as well because the train was accelerating. So this video made it so much more clear that f somebody was in a non-inertial frame, then the observations they make inside it would appear to defy the law of inertia.
That really cleared things up man, thanks again!
I had to come back to revist some physics concepts for my internship. This video makes so much more sense three years after my first classical mechanics class. 🙏🙏 Thank you.
clearly, you understand the value of plain explanation. Well explained.
I viewed this 7 times each time I understood better than the previous
Really great sir
My confusion is over
Francis Xavier
Tiruchirapalli
Thanks much. Very helpful. Although I must take exception with the earth’s rotation in a clockwise direction with the axis of rotation centered in Jamaica. 😀
The perfect vedio I've seen so far to understand the concept
Nicely demonstrated, one more on the second condition, imagine you are very small and tied to the block , when a giant person releases the block+you ,and the train accelerates forward ; you would view the table below you getting forward AWAY (ahead of )from you because you+ the block are in an inertial frame of reference (moving with a constant velocity) , YOU don’t feel any force acting upon you, that’s why it’s fictitious
At 7:20 for accelerating train reference frame you said that the block moves horizontally even when we hadn't applied a force on it in the horizontal direction. HOW? When the train accelerates it is because of the force produced from engine, there must be the same force or acceleration on the block in the OTHER direction due to newton's 3rd law. So how is no force acting on block but pusedo force is? PLS EXPLAIN - HELP!
Block has acceleration only when it is in contact with train.After just released from table it has no acceleration other than gravity.Block don't remember the acceleration of train after flying off.
Awesome class sir .... Easy to understand...hats off sir.
I am shooked to clear my this concept only by watching this video.thanks a lot sir make more videos.i have subscribed your channel to watch more videos.
It solved my doubts about non-inertial frame of reference.
Thank you for making these concepts less confusing!
hi, i was so confused in the inertial frame now i am clear thanks a lot sir.
no words you explained non inertial frame like a pro
Crystal clear explanation👍🏿👍🏿
6:14 shouldnt the path be parabolic than straight line?
really very very gud .....firstly i had no idea on it .....i was idealess but after watching 2 of ur episodes i have come to know a lot thanks very much.....
Hello! I found this concept while solving a question..i solved the question,got the concept but i was not sure if i was thinking right....i searched the whole internet....finally i found a awesome video...beautifully explained....thankyou for it😊
Amazing explanation...... cleared all my Doubts regarding inertial frames....tnx a lot
Your explanation is a Godsend. Thank you very, very much!!!
Good explanation but, for a while there I could not understand what he was calling the reference frame outside the train. It sounded like ULTS, the ULTS reference frame, ERTS reference frame. Some term I don't know ??
Cracked myself up when I figured out he meant the EARTH"S reference frame. Duh !
That kind of minor accent thing can really be distracting. Comes up at work sometimes as well.
While studying in College/University I've was taught by many brilliant professors from many non-English speaking countries. Got to admire someone who can explain complicated topics in a language not their native language. Comes up even between American and UK or Australian speakers !
I got good at understanding accents or so I think. But sometimes I just can't.
Had a Chinese professor who could not pronounce the word Entropy any differently than Enthalpy.
Both sounded like Entipy. Professor insisted he was pronouncing them differently. We convinced him to write it on the black board each time, but it took a lot of convincing.
A British Professor confused us all when talking about AL' You Miny-Um. Aluminum.
Professors from India; Reesey Prickle = Reciprocal. Yem bye Ye Eye = M/EI ....M by E I where Americans say M over E I.
Had many foreign professor who spoke better English than me, with my Philadelphia accent that many Americans can sometimes have a hard time understanding. LOL.
Not trying to be critical or condescending. I can only speak one language fluently so I can image how I'd sound trying to explain anything in a foreign language.
Try turning on RUclips's captions. They are comical.
You're amazing! Thanks for sharing your brilliance!
Thank you for the excellent explanation. Very clear!
so the block was going the same vertical direction downward but when the train accelerated the block did not keep up with that speed so compared to the table it looks like the block has moved backward a bit?
This is very well explained. Thanks a lot man.
Clear explanation, thank you sir
Francis Xavier
very good explanation ,,, thank you Sir.
really awesome.....very gud explanation.....
Question Sir: Suppose we have a train with x velocity with a box in it have same as train's velocity,holded by a man on train.
IF train accelerates to x+10 m/sec velocity then, same will be done by the box it will accelerate too!
now Suppose we have train with constant acceleration with a suspended box,then box too will accelerate as train , NOW if we release the box it should come down with the same uniform acceleration i.e it should come down PERPENDICULARLY DOWNWORDS!!. BUT IT DOES NOT HAPPEN,DOES IT??? :-(THEN wHY IT DONT HAPPEN)??
plEASE TELL, sORRY iF THIS IS a STUPID QUESTION.THANX FOR ANSWERSS
very beautifully explained thank you
An elevator is moving upward at a speed of 3 meters per second. A passenger in the elevator drops a watch. Find the velocity and acceleration of the watch in a frame of reference attached to (a) the elevator (b) the building
Beautifully explained
what if let's say for the sake of the talking, we have a train which has 1 km height. And if it goes with a constant velocity, and you have a ball attached on the ceiling of the train. Then, you free the ball. Will it fall perpendicular with the spot from the ceiling?
If the 1Km high train is moving at a constant velocity, then the ball will fall perpendicular to the spot from the ceiling.
@@arnabmit Wrong - you are forgeting Earth's round shape, that comes in to play with the 1 km high celing. Replace the 1km height with 100 km height and you will see that your answer can't be right.
No, it won´t. Height, or altittude, makes things very complicated (because of Earth's roundness). But the answer is certain: no, it won´t fall perpendicularly, and, more interestingly, in the process of lifting the ball perpendicularly, from the spot in the ground, you would feel a force, a lateral acceleration. This was an excellent question. To make things even more clear, imagine the height of the train being hundreds of kms.
This was super helpful! Keep up the great work!!
which textbook to follow to get deep knowlege in physics in lucid manner?
that was so clear and easy to understand, thanks a lot
Mohammad al-hashash same here.
the way you explained force in case of accelerating train from earth's frame using EOM, could you not explain the same from non-inertial (train) frame using the same EOM.
I mean, same EOM could be used to explain pseudo force in non-inertial frame also..isn't it?
can you explain what happens to a beam of light, say from a bulb on the ceiling?
thanks
Due to the velocity of light, all other forces become negligible. However, if a light source accelerates to near the speed of light, you can see the light beam (eg: a laser beam) bending from a non-inertial frame of reference.
the official story is that light in a constant moving frame propagates in the same way as it would stationary. if there was a difference there would be an interference, and as far as i know there is not interference.
this is contrary to the theory of special relativity, as the theory states that light is a far field/ free from source and does not propagate through a medium.
if Einstein was right about light then a beam shot up at a right angle from a level table in a moving frame would propagate towards you at an angle less than 90 degrees.
the non interference could be evidence that emr propagates through a medium and is not completely free from source.
Beautifully explained
Thanks man👍👍
Wow... It was great....
This thing was disturbing me badly...
Thank u sir ...
Great explanation Sir, thanks
Sir when train is accelerated then before the release, box is also accelerated with same acceleration and when box release it have some velocity v and according to the low of inertia this velocity v remain constant and this is happening in train non inertial frame so how we can say low of inertia doesn't work in non inertial frame??
O man u saved me please make more videos in such a easy way
Hi please answer
The earths frame of reference was also inertial right .. But the block had a horizontal component ..umm I really do not know what I am thinking to ask but is the earths fram was also inertial ?
Thank you so much for this explanation!! Very helpful :)
Amazing explanation sir
What happens when the block is projected so high that the time for it to return is, say, 10 minutes? Will it still carry the horizontal velocity with it and land at the same point? Of course, let's consider there's no air drag.
Very useful, great explanation!
effectively explained.......thanks dear...............
Mind blowing...finally relieved!!
thank you to give a beautiful explanation
why the block displaced when train accelerates???please tell..
the answer is in your question because of the change in acc the block gets displaced
Great explanations.
thanks.great explanation
great video! thanks for the help
Can someone plz explain why the falling block takes a parabolic trajectory ?
From the Earth's frame of reference, we see that the block has been displaced in the horizontal direction (because the train is moving at a constant velocity). Similarly, in the y direction, the gravitational force acts to accelerate the body at a constant rate (-9.8m/s^2). Mathematically, you can think of the falling body's velocity as being represented by the line y=-9.8t, so its integral (physically representing displacement) is -4.9t^2 (which is a parabola).
Thank you so so so so much very very well explained
wonderful explanation!
Clear explanation sir
great video. thanks for this
thnxz man..!!...it means everything in this universe has a non inertial frame of reference, huh..?!
Great explanation
The so called pseudo force is not it the reaction caused by force that caused the acceleration?
Very well 😊 explained
beautiful video.
thank you it was very helpful
Good work sir
great video sir
really sir I feel this topic thanks sir..........
Nice concept clearence...
nice explanation
Fantastic explanation. Thanks so much!
How earth is inertial frame
AMAZING!
best explained
it's very help to understand the topic I have project _😃
THANKS!!
Fantastic, thank you!
fabulous.
NO WORDS !
Well done
Thank u very much
i got the point of inertial and non inertial...thanks u
Please upload
Thank u brother
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???????
Thanks
beautiful❤
Super broo
👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌
Take away these frames and go for 1) the observer system 2) the other systems, 1) is always at rest 2) is always in motion.
CHALLENGE to anyone who thinks earth is in an inertial frame of reference and "free falling" objects are an accelerated frame of reference.........
Let us say you are in an elevator WITH NO WINDOWS on the moon so there is no air resistance to falling. And the rope holding the elevator breaks on the 500th floor and you and the elevator starts "free falling". And lets say i am in a space ship in outer space moving at constant velocity. WE BOTH WOULD SAY I AM IN AN INERTIAL FRAME. Now you say "free falling" is an accelerated frame of reference. So YOU ARE SAYING we would be in DIFFERENT frames of reference......you in an accelerated frame and me in an inertial frame. SO YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVE IT EXPERIMENTALLY...RIGHT??????????????????????? Cause if we do identical physics experiments there should be at least ONE experiment where we get different results.....right. WE BOTH AGREE WITH THAT RIGHT?????????????? So tell me what experiment would you do to PROVE you were in an accelerated frame of reference while you are "free falling" inside your elevator???????????? If you can NOT think of an experiment that would give us different results then you must admit that "free fall" is an inertial frame because WE BOTH AGREE THAT me in a space ship in outer space moving at constant velocity is AN INTERTIAL FRAME.
And guess what. If you .......while in your "free falling" elevator would hold a ball out and let go of the ball with out applying any force to the ball. Guess what the ball will just float and not move relative to you. Just like it would for me in my space ship. So that would be the same result. What experiment will you tell me about that gives different results???????????
Hi Pedro, sorry, but not anytime soon.
Tq mama bro
Would have been better for his picture of the earth to rotate about the poles of the earth, just to get the visualization clearer for students.
Best
Poli