Why must this be the case?chaoseverlasting said:Since the frame is non accelerated (inertial), speed of the particle should be constant in all frames.
An inertial frame is a reference frame in which Newton's first law of motion is valid, meaning that an object at rest will remain at rest and an object in motion will continue to move in a straight line at a constant speed, unless acted upon by an external force. In other words, an inertial frame is a frame of reference that is not accelerating or rotating.
A frame is considered inertial if the laws of motion hold true in that frame. This can be determined by observing the motion of objects in the frame and checking if they follow Newton's laws of motion. If the motion of objects does not match with the predictions of Newton's laws, then the frame is considered non-inertial.
Yes, an object can be in equilibrium in an inertial frame. This means that the object is either at rest or moving at a constant velocity in a straight line, with no net force acting on it. In an inertial frame, an object in equilibrium will remain in that state unless acted upon by an external force.
The principle of relativity states that the laws of physics should be the same in all inertial frames. This means that the laws of motion, as described by Newton's laws, should hold true in any inertial frame regardless of its position or velocity. This principle is the foundation of Newtonian mechanics.
Yes, there are many examples of inertial frames in our daily lives. For example, a car moving at a constant speed on a straight road can be considered an inertial frame. Similarly, an airplane flying at a constant altitude and speed can also be considered an inertial frame. However, it is important to note that these frames may experience slight non-inertial effects due to factors such as air resistance or friction.