If in a rigid motion there is a point at rest, then all speeds are normal to $\vec{\omega}$ (assumed $ \neq \vec{0}$), to prove choose the rest point as origin and explot fundamental equation of rigid motion: you find $\vec{v}_P = \vec{\omega} \times \vec{r}_P$. But how can i prove the vice versa: if all speeds are ${\perp}$ to $\vec{\omega}$ then it exists a rest point (and so infinite rest points)?
3 Answers
I think you need to add at least one extra assumption and/or to more precisely state your hypothesis and thesis.
Here is the (silly, but still...) counterexample: consider a translation at a uniform velocity perpendicular to your $\vec{\omega}$... it is rigid and it has no rest point.
[Addition after first comment]
Sure, you assumed that $\vec{\omega}\neq\vec{0}$ but you have not declared WHAT $\vec{\omega}$ is. In the absence of further info, to me this is just a generic vector. Based on your comment I guess you also want to assume that $\vec{\omega}$ is some sort of "rotation direction"? Then my next question is: what do you mean by that, exactly?
I continue with guessing here... then I guess that indeed your initial assumption is that the velocity field has the form
$\vec{v}(\vec{r}) = \vec{v}_0 + \vec{r}\times\vec{\omega}$
for some unknown $\vec{v}_0$ and what you are wondering here is if/how this can be written as $\vec{v}(\vec{r})=(\vec{r}-\vec{r}_0)\times\omega$, with a fixed point $\vec{r}=\vec{r}_0$? If I am guessing right and I am interpreting correctly your initial hypothesis, then the proof is not difficult. Requiring $\vec{v}(\vec{r})$ to be always perpendicular to $\vec{\omega}$ is equivalent to state that
$\vec{v}(\vec{r})\cdot\vec{\omega}=0$
for any $\vec{r}$, which in turn implies
$(\vec{v}_0+\vec{r}\times\vec{\omega})\cdot\vec{\omega}=\vec{v}_0\cdot\vec{\omega}=0$
so the hypothesis implies that our unknown $\vec{v}_0$ has to be perpendicular to $\vec{\omega}$ too. You can then exploit the expansion of the triple product
$(\vec{v}_0\times\vec{\omega})\times\vec{\omega} = -\vec{v}_0(\vec{\omega}\cdot\vec{\omega})+\vec{\omega}(\vec{v}_0\cdot\vec{\omega}) = -\omega^2\vec{v}_0$
where $\omega$ is obviously the norm $|\vec{\omega}|$ (note here we used $\vec{v}_0\cdot\vec{\omega}=0$ to drop one term, otherwise we end up with a screw transformation). If $\omega$ is not zero (and here we exclude the silly counterexample above), then you can rewrite your velocity field as follows
$\vec{v}(\vec{r}) = -(\vec{v}_0\times\vec{\omega})\times\vec{\omega}/\omega^2+\vec{r}\times\vec{\omega} = [\vec{r}-(\vec{v}_0\times\vec{\omega})/\omega^2]\times\vec{\omega}$.
So here is your fixed point:
$\vec{r}_0 = (\vec{v}_0\times\vec{\omega})/\omega^2$
and the whole axis $\vec{r}_0+\lambda\vec{\omega}$ for $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$ is fixed... the rotation axis.

- 491
-
I assumed $\vec{\omega}\neq\vec{0}$ so translatory motion Is excluded. – May 31 '21 at 15:05
-
Ok but you have not said what $\vec{\omega}$ is for you! In the absence of info to me this is just a vector ¯_(ツ)_/¯. But I guess that to you this is not a generic vector, so next question is ... what is ur exact initial hypothesis on the velocity field? Possible guessed answers in the updated text above! – Ste May 31 '21 at 20:13
-
$\vec{\omega}$ is nothing but the vector that we know exists by Poisson's theorem. Anyway thank you I will reflect on what you and others have written. – May 31 '21 at 21:28
-
Welcome. Can you formulate Poisson's theorem or provide a link? I know about Poisson brackets, about the Poisson distribution... I cannot recall any "Poisson's theorem" in connection to rigid motion. – Ste Jun 01 '21 at 10:09
-
I found this theorem in the beginning of this very interesting page : https://www.dma.unifi.it/~frosali/meclab/labanc/motrigid/motrigid.htm I can't understadnd the proof after "rimarrebbero da da definire" but anyway I developed a different proof by myself – Jun 01 '21 at 11:32
Your strategy might be
- Show that all rigid motion is a combination of rotation plus translation
- Rotation is rotation around an axis. If there is no translation, the axis is fixed.
- If there is translation, the axis is moved to another place. Find the place.

- 38,487
- 5
- 49
- 129
Theorize there exists such a point C such that the velocity of any other arbitrary point P is found with
$$\vec{v}_P = \vec{\omega} \times (\vec{r}_P -\vec{r}_C) \tag{1}$$
Now find where $\vec{r}_C$ by using the vector triple product $a\times(b \times c) = b ( a \cdot c) - c (a \cdot b)$
$$ \require{cancel} \begin{aligned} \vec{\omega} \times \vec{v}_P & = \vec{\omega} \times \left( \vec{\omega} \times (\vec{r}_P -\vec{r}_C) \right) \\ & = \vec{\omega}( \cancel{\vec{\omega}\cdot(\vec{r}_P -\vec{r}_C)}) - (\vec{r}_P -\vec{r}_C) ( \vec{\omega}\cdot \vec{\omega}) \\ & = (\vec{r}_C - \vec{r}_P) \omega^2 \\ \vec{r}_C &= \vec{r}_P + \frac{\vec{\omega}\times \vec{v}_P}{\omega^2} \end{aligned}$$
The above assumes we are considering only points on the plane of rotation about P which is why $\vec{\omega}\cdot ( \vec{r}_P - \vec{r}_C) = 0$. Also above I use the shortcut $\omega = \| \vec{\omega} \|$, or $\omega^2 = \sqrt{ \vec{\omega}\cdot \vec{\omega}}$.
So we can always find a point C located at $$\vec{r}_C = \vec{r}_P + \frac{\vec{\omega}\times \vec{v}_P}{\omega^2} \tag{2}$$
which describes the location of the rotation axis. Now, this point isn't unique, as any point parallel to $\vec{\omega}$ would also be valid for (1).
Edit 1
The general motion of a rigid body is described as the translational velocity of a point P, and a rotation about P at the same time. This motion has 6 independent quantities that can be specified.
There exist an axis in space (rotation axis), parallel to $\vec{\omega}$ and through a point C such that the translational velocity of the body on this locus in space is purely parallel to the rotation, $\vec{v}_C = h\,\vec{\omega}$. The ratio of magnitudes between the translational and rotational velocity at C is a scalar value called pitch $h$.
The velocity of P is found by
$$ \vec{v}_P = h\,\vec{\omega} + \vec{\omega} \times (\vec{r}_P - \vec{r}_C) \tag{3} $$
So given the rotation $\vec{\omega}$ (3 components) the location long the rotation axis $\vec{r}_C$ (2 components, since C can slide along the axis) and the scalar pitch value $h$ (1 component) , equation (3) gives the translational velocity of any other point. There is a 1:1 relationship between the general motion $\{\vec{v}_P,\vec{\omega}\}$, and describing the motion by the rotation axis, rotational velocity and pitch $\{\vec{r}_C, \vec{\omega},h \}$.
So how do we go in reverse? Use $\vec{\omega} \cdot \vec{v}_P$ and $\vec{\omega} \times \vec{v}_P$ to come up with the rotation decomposition parameters
$$ \vec{r}_C = \vec{r}_P + \frac{\vec{\omega} \times \vec{v}_P}{\omega^2} \tag{4}$$
$$ h = \frac{\vec{\omega} \cdot \vec{v}_P}{\omega^2} \tag{5}$$
You can prove the 1:1 relationship by plugging in (4) and (5) into(3). The 1:1 relationship also proves the existence since each motion possible can be described by the rotation axis location and pitch.
There is a special case of pure translation with $\omega=0$, and in that case, the rotation axis is at infinity, and pitch is infinite also. When this is the case then $\vec{v}_P = \vec{v}_C$.
Appendix
Read more about the rotation axis and the terms twist and wrench that describe the motion and loading of rigid bodies geometrically.

- 38,341
-
It looks that that proof works if we assume that a rest point exists, and if it exists we can find it with (2), but in general we are not sure a rest point exists (think to a rigid body rotating while moving forward) and this confuses me. Where the proof fails in this case? I suppose in assuming the existence of some point C such that (1) works. – May 31 '21 at 23:12
-
Point C is not a physical point and therefore can move around arbitrarily. The velocity of the rigid body at C is guaranteed to be parallel to the rotation axis. The point does not have velocity in terms of rate of change of position, it has a velocity of whatever particle on the rigid body happens to pass over that location. – John Alexiou May 31 '21 at 23:22
-
1@Haumea - see edit to expand more on the idea of a rotation axis, and let me know if this helps, or if you have any further comments. – John Alexiou May 31 '21 at 23:44
-
I thought what follow. You generalize by using (3) instead of (1). This doesn't trouble me, it is Mozzi's theorem. And it is a good idea because going on the previous proof is the same because of cross product with $\vec{\omega}$. But in this case the point $\vec{r}_C$ we found is in motion at speed $h\vec{\omega}$. It is at rest iff $h=0$. But looking to (3) this condiction is the same as saying that $\vec{v}_P \perp \vec{\omega} \quad \forall P$. This would answer my question. This looks working. – Jun 01 '21 at 13:26