- #1
calculus_jy
- 56
- 0
since last time i post about the defiinition, i read up about it, how i am still a bit unclear after reading few more post about this topic :
einstein: a set of frames which move without acceleration to one another and that the laws of physics hold in the simplest-is the a definition or that just a assumption that are existence of such frame,
i have beeen told about using acclerometer, but the problem is that even acceleration and force is also relative -what is acclerometer measuring( a force(relative to what) but how do you conclude it is fictiticious ie with no actor of force, such that Newton's 1st law does not hold)
and is it not possible that Newtons law is always valid... because if you observe acceleration then you must conclude acted on by a force??(and don't say the actor of force cannot be found so the force is fictiticious...)
the concept is still a bit vague... can some help me find logic to this seemingly circular definition?
einstein: a set of frames which move without acceleration to one another and that the laws of physics hold in the simplest-is the a definition or that just a assumption that are existence of such frame,
i have beeen told about using acclerometer, but the problem is that even acceleration and force is also relative -what is acclerometer measuring( a force(relative to what) but how do you conclude it is fictiticious ie with no actor of force, such that Newton's 1st law does not hold)
and is it not possible that Newtons law is always valid... because if you observe acceleration then you must conclude acted on by a force??(and don't say the actor of force cannot be found so the force is fictiticious...)
the concept is still a bit vague... can some help me find logic to this seemingly circular definition?
Last edited: