Talk:Rotating reference frame

message: Im attempting to expand this article using some of the ideas on this talk page. However, this stuff will need rewriting as it has been copied from a web page. Any help in rewriting, paraphrasing etc, is welcome.--Light current 16:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion- help welcomed 

message: Had a go at replacing the first para with something a bit longer. Feel free to improve/revert/whatever. ErkDemon 05:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  expanded intro 

message: I am not exactly sure on what has to go there atm, but products into nothing, or the bracets in the first formula in the acceleration part are just messed up. Really gotta be fixed…--Seberg 13:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation between speeds and accellerations missing things 

message: To be brutal, this page is a disaster. I would propose a total rewrite form the ground up by an expert. ObsessiveMathsFreak 22:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest deletion of the page and redirect to Fictitious force. Brews ohare (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Rewrite

message: A proposal has been made to merge and/or redirect this page to Fictitious force.  Please join the conversation there.  Rossami (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge and redirect to [[Fictitious force]] 

message: 200px|thumb|right|The nominal libration of Haumea in a rotating frame.
I'm here from the featured article, Haumea (dwarf planet) and it's cool libration diagram. Rotating frame redirects here. This article is confusing. This page makes sense. Can we help this situation? --Knulclunk (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotating Frame 

message: The coriolis force is written in terms of v_r, i.e. the velocity in the rotating frame of reference, but the centrifugal and euler forces are written in terms of r, i.e. the stationary reference frame. 
The sentrifugal force, for example, depends on both v_r and r_r, where r_r is taken to be the position in the rotating reference frame. Would it not be clearer to write these forces depending on either only stationary reference frame quantities and/or only rotating reference frame quantities?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpej (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The above statement is not very clear, but keep in mind that the centrifugal and euler forces do not depend on the velocity in the rotating reference system. Apart from the rotation vector, they are fully determined by the location only. The Coriolis force does depend on the velocity in the rotational frame. −Woodstone (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference frame mixed in "Newton's second law in the two frames" section 

message: Where I went to school, we always used a lower case omega for angular velocity. The linked wikipedia page also says that the proper symbol is the lower case letter omega ω, or rarely an upper case omega Ω.
I believe this page would be a lot easier to read if we used the conventional symbol instead of the rarely used one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.200.192.1 (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upper case omega? 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Transport theorem and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Transport theorem until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  DVdm (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Transport theorem" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]