Rotation,at classical mechanics at least, is always absolute but linear movement is not.
What is the reason for this distinction?
I will add a second question. Why this is not the case in general relativity?
Asked
Active
Viewed 96 times
0
-
3Can you clarify your question a bit? In the frame of the rotating body, there is no rotation. Do you mean to say that uniform linear motion is immaterial in writing Newton's laws but uniform rotation does make a difference in the equations? – Amey Joshi Mar 14 '17 at 17:45
-
My guess (I'm not sure what exactly you're asking) is that rotation requires a specific point (in $\mathbb{R}^2$) to be specified (as the origin) (i.e. the point around which the rotation occurs). This corresponds to a vector space, i.e. an absolute frame of reference. Linear movement, on the other hand, corresponds to an affine space, which doesn't require any specific choice of origin, thus a relative frame of reference suffices. Again, just a guess on my part. – Chill2Macht Mar 14 '17 at 17:46
-
4Do you mean that angular velocity is absolute? If so that's because circular motion involves acceleration and in Newtonian mechanics acceleration is absolute. – John Rennie Mar 14 '17 at 17:54
-
-1. Unclear. I admire succinct questions and answers, but I think that more explanation is required here. Please also consider providing an authority for your claim that there is a distinction between rotational and translational diplacements, and about "this" not being the case in GR. – sammy gerbil Mar 14 '17 at 18:49