I Gravitational field in Galilean relativity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the behavior of gravitational fields in Galilean relativity, particularly why the direction of a gravitational field remains unchanged for a moving observer. It emphasizes that in a uniform gravitational field, the acceleration is invariant across all inertial frames. The conversation also touches on the challenges of using LaTeX for equations on mobile devices, noting a specific forum issue that affects rendering. A workaround is suggested for users encountering this problem. Ultimately, the gravitational field's consistency aligns with the core principles of Galilean relativity.
member 743765
My question is why the direction of gravitational field doesn't change relative to moving observer take for example gravitational field in the y direction relative to stationary observer but relative to an observer moving with velocity v in the x direction the field should have x component
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are talking about a uniform field, I infer. It would be helpful to state that clearly if so.

Do you know how a force transforms under a Galilean boost? Hint: what is ##\frac{d^2x'}{dt'^2}## in terms of ##x## and ##t##?
 
Ibix said:
You are talking about a uniform field, I infer. It would be helpful to state that clearly if so.

Do you know how a force transforms under a Galilean boost? Hint: what is ##\frac{d^2x'}{dt'^2}## in terms of ##x## and ##t##?
The acceleration is the same for all inertial frames in galilean relativity and now I understand .
Just one thing : why I cannot write equations using latex here while using android mobile?
 
phyahmad said:
Just one thing : why I cannot write equations using latex here while using android mobile?
It should be possible, although quite tedious:
$$\vec F = m\vec a$$
 
  • Like
Likes member 743765
phyahmad said:
The acceleration is the same for all inertial frames in galilean relativity and now I understand
Exactly.
phyahmad said:
Just one thing : why I cannot write equations using latex here while using android mobile?
It isn't a browser issue, as far as I am aware. There is a known problem with this forum that LaTeX doesn't get rendered if there is not yet any LaTeX on the page. This seems to be difficult to fix. LaTeX should work for you now on this page because of my earlier post - try entering something and previewing.

The workaround when you're the first one using LaTeX on a page or you're creating a new thread is to enter some LaTeX (even something trivial like ##x##), preview your post (it won't render), then refresh the page while still previewing. You'll be back in edit mode, but you should now see rendered LaTeX if you preview again.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes member 743765 and PeroK
The gravitational field changing direction would be directly incompatible with the fundamentals of Galilean relativity, where acceleration is invariant.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top