Codex @codex  0

Work in one fixed inertial frame, and take positive velocity in the rocket's direction. During $d\tau$, the rocket ejects the positive amount of mass $-m^{\prime }(\tau )d\tau$. Its exhaust has inertial velocity $v(\tau )-u$, by the Galilean transformation of velocities. Once expelled, that material retains its velocity because it experiences no external force. The system's momentum is therefore the rocket momentum plus the sum of all these exhaust momenta:The minus sign comes from the positive expelled mass being $-m^{\prime }(\tau )d\tau$.

Differentiate, applying the product rule to the rocket momentum and the fundamental theorem of calculus to the integral:The momentum conservation law thus gives the nonrelativistic rocket equation

The same bookkeeping for kinetic energy givesIts derivative iswhere the rocket equation cancels the first two terms. Thus kinetic energy increases during mass ejection, with $\boxed{K^{\prime }=-u^2{m}^{\prime }/2>0}$ when $u>0$ and $m^{\prime }<0$. This does not violate conservation of energy: the increase comes from stored internal energy.

Now $m$ denotes the instantaneous rest mass of the rocket, including its fuel and stored internal energy, and $v$ is measured in a fixed inertial frame. Assume the exhaust is expelled backwards with speed $0<u<c$ in the rocket's instantaneous rest frame. By the relativistic velocity-addition formula, material emitted at time $\tau$ has inertial velocityIt coasts at this velocity after emission.

The crucial change is that the expelled material's rest mass is not simply $-dm$: some of the rocket's rest energy becomes exhaust motion. Instead, use conservation of relativistic energy. Put $q(t)=m(t)\gamma (t)$, so the rocket's energy is $c^{2}q(t)$. The exhaust emitted during $d\tau$ carries energy $-c^2{q}^{\prime }(\tau )d\tau$. For material moving at velocity $w$, the relativistic energy-momentum relation gives momentum $wE/c^2$, since $E={\gamma }_{\mathrm{ex}}\mu c^2$ and $p={\gamma }_{\mathrm{ex}}\mu w$. Hence the modified total momentum isMeanwhile the total relativistic energy is $c^2[q(t)-{\int }_0^t{q}^{\prime }(\tau )d\tau ]=c^{2}q(0)$. These expressions consistently account for both energy and momentum of the expelled material.

Differentiate the momentum formula. The momentum conservation law givesTo simplify it, useMultiplying by ${\gamma }^2(1-uv/c^2)$, the equation becomesThe two terms containing $uv/c^2$ cancel. Dividing by $\gamma >0$ proves the relativistic rocket equation

The rotating-frame derivative formula is $(d\mathbf{A}/dt{)}_S=(d\mathbf{A}/dt{)}_{S^{\prime }}+\mathbf{\omega }\times \mathbf{A}$. Applying it twice to the position vector, with constant angular velocity, givesSolving for ${\mathbf{a}}_{S^{\prime }}$ identifies the displayed terms: its left side is the acceleration relative to the rotating reference frame, the first right-hand term is the inertial acceleration, $-2\mathbf{\omega }\times {\mathbf{v}}_{S^{\prime }}$ is the Coriolis acceleration, and $-\mathbf{\omega }\times (\mathbf{\omega }\times \mathbf{r})$ is the outward centrifugal acceleration.

For a particle of mass $m$, replace ${\mathbf{a}}_S$ by the actual force divided by $m$ using Newton's second law. The remaining terms then appear as apparent forces in $S^{\prime }$. There is no Euler acceleration because $\mathbf{\omega }$ is constant and no translational acceleration term because the common origin is fixed in the inertial frame.

Use momentum conservation and conservation of energy in the laboratory inertial frame. The photon has momentum magnitude $E/c$, while the outgoing electron satisfies the relativistic energy-momentum relation. Its total energy and momentum obeySubstitute these into $E_e^2=m^2{c}^4+c^2|{\mathbf{p}}_e{|}^2$. Cancelling $m^2{c}^4$ and $(E_1-E_2{)}^2$ gives $m{c}^2(E_1-E_2)=E_1{E}_2(1-\cos \theta )$. Both photon energies are positive, so division yieldsThis is Compton scattering. The energies include the electron's rest energy; using only its kinetic energy in the mass-shell equation would give the wrong result. The outgoing photon has unchanged energy at $\theta =0$ and smaller energy for a nonzero scattering angle.

An inertial frame is a reference frame in which a force-free particle moves with constant velocity, so Newton's first law holds.

Take $x^{\mu }=(ct,x,y,z)$ and metric signature $(+,-,-,-)$. The four-current, four-potential and four-gradient areThe first two transform as contravariant four-vectors under an inertial-frame Lorentz transformation, within a consistently transformed electromagnetic gauge. The lowered-index gradient is a covector. Their contraction is a Lorentz scalar:Indeed, $J^{\prime \mu }={\Lambda }^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{J}^{\nu }$ and ${\partial }_{\mu }^{\prime }=({\Lambda }^{-1}{)}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu }{\partial }_{\alpha }$, so the two matrices cancel in the contraction. Local charge conservation in one inertial frame implies local charge conservation in every inertial frame. Integrating over a region gives the charge change equal to minus its outward current flux; global conserved charge requires no flux through the system boundary.

Take $u>0$ to mean that the mirror recedes along the incident plane electromagnetic wave. Put $\beta =u/c$, with $|\beta |<1$. The moving-mirror Doppler shift can be obtained directly by matching wave phase on the moving surface. Write the incident wave phase as $k_{i}z-{\omega }_{i}t$ and the reflected wave phase as $-k_{r}z-{\omega }_{r}t$, where $k_i={\omega }_i/c$ and $k_r={\omega }_r/c$ are positive wavenumbers. At the mirror, $z=z_0+ut$, the two phases must have the same time dependence; their constant offset incorporates the reflection phase shift. ThusConsequently the observed reflected angular frequency and ordinary frequency areThis is a redshift for a receding mirror and a blueshift for an approaching mirror. At small velocity, ${\omega }_r\simeq {\omega }_i(1-2u/c)$.

Equivalently, the relativistic Doppler effect gives ${\omega }_i^{\prime }=\gamma (1-\beta ){\omega }_i$ in the mirror rest inertial frame. Reflection there reverses propagation and preserves frequency. Transforming the backward-going reflected wave to the laboratory gives another factor $\gamma (1-\beta )$, so ${\omega }_r={\gamma }^2(1-\beta {)}^2{\omega }_i={\omega }_i(1-\beta )/(1+\beta )$. A single Doppler factor would miss the effect of the return path.

Write a nonzero vacuum plane electromagnetic wave with wavevector $\mathbf{k}=(\omega /c)\mathbf{s}$, where $\mathbf{s}$ is a unit propagation direction. Its propagation Lorentz four-vector is $K^{\mu }=(\omega /c,\mathbf{k})$, or, up to a scalar normalization in any one frame, $n^{\mu }=(1,\mathbf{s})$. It is null because $K_{\mu }{K}^{\mu }=0$.

Choose coordinates $x^{\mu }=(ct,\mathbf{x})$ and Minkowski metric ${\eta }_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$. With the supplied three-dimensional boost formulas, a consistent convention assigns the printed array to upper-index components,The index conventions for the electromagnetic field tensor then require $F_{0i}=+E_i/c$ and $F_{ij}=F^{ij}$ when both indices are lowered. The printed lower-index label therefore cannot be kept together with its electric signs and a forward propagation vector in this convention.

This is not merely an arbitrary overall sign. For a valid forward wave with $\mathbf{s}=\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, $\mathbf{E}=E_0\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ and $\mathbf{B}=(E_0/c)\hat{\mathbf{y}}$, multiplying the printed array, unchanged, by $n^{\mu }=(1,0,0,1)$ gives an $x$ component $-2E_0/c$, rather than zero. One consistent repair is to retain the printed array as $F^{\mu \nu }$ and contract with $n_{\mu }=(1,-\mathbf{s})$. Equivalently, lower both tensor indices before forming the contraction asked for in the question.

Using that corrected lower-index tensor givesTo establish both electric and magnetic transversality, include the dual electromagnetic field tensor. Choose ${\tilde{F}}^{0i}=-B_i$ and ${\tilde{F}}^{ij}={ϵ}_{ijk}{E}_k/c$; lowering both indices then givesThe source-free plane-wave Maxwell equations are precisely the pair of covariant conditionsTheir temporal components give $\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{E}=0$ and $\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{B}=0$. Their spatial components give the associated amplitude and orientation relations, $\mathbf{E}/c=-\mathbf{s}\times \mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{s}\times \mathbf{E}/c$.

To see the Lorentz covariance explicitly, let $V_{\nu }=K^{\mu }{F}_{\mu \nu }$. It is a covector, so if $V_{\nu }=0$ in one inertial frame, its Lorentz transformation is also zero in every other inertial frame. The same is true of $K^{\mu }{\tilde{F}}_{\mu \nu }$. Since the transformed wave still has $K^{\prime 0}>0$ and $|{\mathbf{k}}^{\prime }|={\omega }^{\prime }/c$, their temporal components implyHere $K^{\mu }$, rather than a vector renormalized to have temporal component one in every frame, is the actual Lorentz four-vector; multiplying a zero contraction by a nonzero normalization does not affect the argument.

Finally, the two scalar perpendicularity statements alone are not equivalent to one tensor contraction. They do not enforce the amplitude relation between $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{B}$. Conversely $n^{\mu }{F}_{\mu \nu }=0$ alone cannot exclude a longitudinal magnetic field: adding $B_{\parallel }\mathbf{s}$ leaves its cross product unchanged. For a genuine source-free plane electromagnetic wave, the remaining Maxwell equations supply that missing constraint, and both tensor contractions vanish. This qualification and the corrected index placement are necessary for the intended invariance argument.

A galilean transformation relates inertial frames in uniform relative translation. For $\mathbf{V}$ the velocity of the primed origin,Absolute time and invariant acceleration make Newton's second law retain its form for the usual nonrelativistic interactions. For a particle of mass $m$, ${\mathbf{p}}^{\prime }=\mathbf{p}-m\mathbf{V}$ and $K^{\prime }=K-\mathbf{V}\cdot \mathbf{p}+m{V}^2/2$. Momentum and kinetic energy are frame dependent, although an isolated system's conservation laws hold in either inertial frame. Relative velocities and collision predictions are consistent between frames. A rotating or accelerating frame instead requires inertial-force terms. Maxwell equations with a fixed light speed are not Galilean invariant; Lorentz transformations replace these relations when relativistic effects matter.

A rapidly spinning gyroscope approximately has angular momentum $\mathbf{L}=I_3{\omega }_3\hat{\mathbf{e}}$ along its axle. With no torque in an inertial frame, this vector retains its direction. A transverse torque changes its direction according to $d\mathbf{L}/dt=\mathbf{\tau }$; it does not initially push the axle in the direction of the applied force.

For a fixed pivot, centre of mass $l\hat{\mathbf{e}}$ from it and gravity $-Mg\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, the torque is $Mgl\hat{\mathbf{z}}\times \hat{\mathbf{e}}$. In slow steady precession about the vertical, $d\mathbf{L}/dt=\Omega \hat{\mathbf{z}}\times \mathbf{L}$, givingThe factor $\sin \theta$ appears both in torque and in the radius traced by the angular-momentum tip, so it cancels for a nonvertical axle. Reversing spin reverses this precession. The full symmetric-top steady condition is $I_1\cos \theta {\Omega }^2-I_3{\omega }_3\Omega +Mgl=0$; the approximation neglects its quadratic term. Sudden release can also produce nutation, so large spin alone does not guarantee a steady sweep.

A wheel-on-pivot experiment can compare precession periods at different measured spin speeds and reverse the spin. Keep the pivot and centre of mass fixed; bearing friction, spin decay, an initial push and support motion can mimic departures from the predicted inverse-spin relation. A freely gimballed direction reference and a gravity-loaded precessing wheel test different torque conditions.^[ref]

Take the initial thrower and receiver positions to be $(-a,0)$ and $(a,0)$, with counterclockwise angular velocity $\omega$. Interpret $v$ as the launch speed relative to the thrower. The ball inherits the thrower's tangential velocity, so in an inertial frame its initial horizontal velocity is $(v,-a\omega )$. The flight time across the diameter is $t_f\simeq 2a/v$. During that time the receiver moves approximately $+a\omega t_f$ sideways while the ball moves $-a\omega t_f$. Thus the transverse miss on a rotating platform isThe ball passes behind the receiver in the sense of rotation. Equivalently, in the rotating frame its transverse Coriolis acceleration has magnitude $2\omega v$ to leading order; integrating over $t_f$ gives $d=\frac{1}{2}(2\omega v)t_f^2$. Terms neglected here are higher order in $a\omega /v$. Specifying an initially radial launch velocity in the inertial frame instead would define a different throw and would lose the inherited tangential velocity.

For a body-fixed mass element at position $\mathbf{r}$ relative to the fixed tip, $\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{\omega }\times \mathbf{r}$. ThereforeThe inertia tensor is real symmetric. Its orthogonal eigenvectors define principal axes and its eigenvalues are principal moments of inertia. angular momentum is parallel to angular velocity when rotation is along a principal axis, but generally not for arbitrary rotation.

Write $\mathbf{n}={\hat{\mathbf{e}}}_3$ and $s=I_3{\omega }_3$. Axial symmetry gives $\mathbf{L}=I_1\mathbf{\omega }+(I_3-I_1){\omega }_3\mathbf{n}$. Since $\dot{\mathbf{n}}=\mathbf{\omega }\times \mathbf{n}$, the vector triple-product identity gives $\mathbf{n}\times \dot{\mathbf{n}}=\mathbf{\omega }-{\omega }_3\mathbf{n}$. HenceDifferentiate in the inertial frame, using constant $s$ and $\dot{\mathbf{n}}\times \dot{\mathbf{n}}=0$. The gravitational torque about the fixed tip is $(\ell \mathbf{n})\times (-mg\hat{\mathbf{z}})$, yielding the symmetry-axis equation of a heavy symmetric top:The tip reaction exerts no moment about that tip.

For steady precession, $\mathbf{n}=(\sin \theta \cos {\Omega }_{P}t,\sin \theta \sin {\Omega }_{P}t,\cos \theta )$. At azimuth zero, put $s_{\theta }=\sin \theta$ and $c_{\theta }=\cos \theta$. Then $\dot{\mathbf{n}}=(0,{\Omega }_P{s}_{\theta },0)$, $\ddot{\mathbf{n}}=(-{\Omega }_P^2{s}_{\theta },0,0)$, and the $y$ component gives $s{\Omega }_P{s}_{\theta }-I_1{\Omega }_P^2{s}_{\theta }{c}_{\theta }=mg\ell s_{\theta }$. For a nonvertical axis this becomesReal steady branches require a nonnegative discriminant. In particular, for a top pointing above the horizontal there is a spin threshold for these fixed-angle solutions. At $\cos \theta =0$ use the quadratic's linear limit ${\Omega }_P=mg\ell /s$, rather than dividing by zero. For a vertical axis, azimuth does not describe a physical conical motion and the division by $\sin \theta$ is inappropriate.

For rapid positive spin $s$ with $s^2\gg 4mg\ell I_1\cos \theta$, the slow and fast steady precession roots areThe approximation assumes a nonsingular fixed inclination. For $g=0$, the quadratic instead gives ${\Omega }_P=0$ or ${\Omega }_P=s/(I_1\cos \theta )$. The zero branch has a stationary symmetry axis and pure axial spin. On the other branch angular momentum is constant and parallel or antiparallel to the chosen $z$ axis; $L_z=I_1{\Omega }_P$ and $s=L_z\cos \theta$. This is torque-free precession in space, not the different rate at which transverse components rotate in body coordinates.

Changing basis and acceleration. Attach orthonormal unit vectors ${\mathbf{e}}_i(t)$ to the rotating frame, with a common origin fixed in the inertial frame. An infinitesimal rotation $d\mathbf{\theta }=\mathbf{\omega }dt$ changes a vector fixed in those axes by $d\mathbf{A}=d\mathbf{\theta }\times \mathbf{A}$: its tip moves tangentially to the circle about the rotation axis. More generally, write $\mathbf{A}={\sum }_i{A}_i{\mathbf{e}}_i$. Differentiating the components and the rotating basis separately proves the rotating-frame derivative formula,

Apply the formula first to position: ${\dot{\mathbf{r}}}_0=\mathbf{v}+\mathbf{\omega }\times \mathbf{r}$, where $\mathbf{v}=(d\mathbf{r}/dt{)}_S$. Apply it again to both terms. For constant $\mathbf{\omega }$,One cross term comes from differentiating $\mathbf{v}$ in the inertial frame and another from differentiating $\mathbf{r}$ in $\mathbf{\omega }\times \mathbf{r}$. The displayed source formula implicitly requires constant angular velocity and an unaccelerated common origin. For changing rotation rate there is also $\dot{\mathbf{\omega }}\times \mathbf{r}$; an accelerating origin supplies its own translational acceleration. Moving the rotation terms to the force side gives the apparent Coriolis force and centrifugal force with negative signs.

Southward motion on Earth. Use local east, north and up axes, with latitude $\lambda$ positive northward. Then $\mathbf{\Omega }=\Omega (0,\cos \lambda ,\sin \lambda )$ and $\mathbf{v}=(0,-v,0)$. The Coriolis acceleration in local Earth coordinates givesIt is westward in the northern hemisphere, eastward in the southern hemisphere and zero for exactly southward motion at the equator. There is no vertical Coriolis component for this particular velocity.

Correct steering. On the desired meridional track, drag has no eastward component because it is antiparallel to the velocity. If the thrust makes signed angle $\varphi$ east of south, its eastward component is $T\sin \varphi$. The cross-track force balance is thereforesoThe argument must have magnitude at most one for this simple thrust-only correction to be feasible. The signed angle changes sign at the equator: correction is east of south in the north and west of south in the south. Thus the phrase “east of south” cannot describe a positive correction throughout the entire flight.

Wrong-sign correction and the miss distance. A literally constant velocity vector cannot develop a cross-track displacement. The physically useful interpretation of the last task is constant speed, with an erroneous lateral steering correction. In the usual leading-track model, thrust and drag balance along the actual motion, and the applied transverse correction has the correct magnitude but the wrong sign. It therefore reinforces rather than cancels the Coriolis force. Starting at the equator, use the unperturbed southward track $\lambda \simeq -vt/R$, and let $x_E$ be the eastward departure from that track. To first order in the departure,There is a factor two relative to uncompensated Coriolis deflection because the wrong correction adds an equal lateral force. Integration gives the wrong-sign Coriolis steering error,For southern angular distance $\Lambda =16\pi /180=0.27925$, $R=6.4\times 10^6\mathrm{m}$ and $v=800/3.6=222.2\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, the nominal flight time after the equator isTaking $\Omega \simeq 2\pi /(86400\mathrm{s})$ givesThe small-latitude approximation $\sin (vt/R)\simeq vt/R$ gives ${\ddot{x}}_E\simeq 4\Omega v^{2}t/R$ and $x_E\simeq 2\Omega v^2{t}^3/(3R)$, or $1.95\times 10^5\mathrm{m}$, confirming the scale and direction.

This is an estimate under an explicit steering model, not an exact trajectory forced by the wording. For example, retaining spherical transport of the local axes while still linearizing in the cross-track motion gives, with $s=-\lambda$, $\dot{u}-(v/R)u\tan s=4\Omega v\sin s$. Consequently $u\cos s=2\Omega R{\sin }^{2}s$ and the longitude departure is $\Delta \ell =2\Omega R(\tan \Lambda -\Lambda )/v$. The distance along the destination parallel is then $R\cos \Lambda \Delta \ell \simeq 1.93\times 10^5\mathrm{m}$. Corrections from the changed track and a more detailed control law are not fixed by the problem. If “keeps the velocity constant” instead means the full vector, the pilot would need an additional compensating force and there would be no miss; if thrust is kept at a specified geographical bearing despite drift, its along-track component and lateral drag must also be modelled.

Let a coordinate frame rotate with angular velocity $\mathbf{\Omega }$ relative to an inertial frame. For any vector $\mathbf{u}$,Applying this twice to position, with coincident nonaccelerating origins, givesNewton's second law written using rotating coordinates therefore contains the Coriolis forceThe other inertial corrections are the centrifugal force and, for changing rotation rate, the Euler force. An accelerating origin introduces an additional translational fictitious force.

The Coriolis force depends on velocity and is perpendicular to it, so ${\mathbf{F}}_C\cdot {\mathbf{v}}_{\mathrm{rotating}}=0$: the Coriolis force does no work in the rotating frame. It bends trajectories without directly changing their rotating-frame speed. It is absent for motion parallel to the rotation axis.

For locally horizontal motion on Earth at latitude $\lambda$, take $x$ east, $y$ north and $z$ up. Keeping the vertical component $\Omega \sin \lambda$ givesHorizontal motion is deflected right in the northern hemisphere and left in the southern hemisphere. In the ideal absence of other horizontal forces these equations give inertial circles with angular frequency $|f|$. The same velocity-dependent correction explains the precession of a Foucault pendulum, whose precession-rate magnitude is $\Omega |\sin \lambda |$. Terrestrial vertical motions also involve Earth's horizontal rotation component, so the reduced horizontal equations are not the full force law.

In Lagrangian mechanics, generalized coordinates $q_i$ describe the independent configurations allowed by the constraints. For particles with ordinary conservative forces in an inertial frame, use $L=T-V$, with kinetic energy $T$ and potential energy $V$. Holonomic constraints can often be built into the coordinates, avoiding explicit constraint forces.

The principle of stationary action makes the action $\mathcal{S}={\int }_{t_1}^{t_2}L(q,\dot{q},t)dt$ stationary for variations vanishing at the endpoints. Integrating the velocity variation by parts givesSince each independent variation is arbitrary, the Euler-Lagrange equations areIf nonconservative generalized forces are present, their components appear on the right. The formalism is invariant under suitable coordinate changes and adding a total time derivative to $L$ leaves the fixed-endpoint equations unchanged.

The generalized momentum is $p_i=\partial L/\partial {\dot{q}}_i$. If $q_i$ is cyclic, $\partial L/\partial q_i=0$ and $p_i$ is conserved. If $L$ has no explicit time dependence, the conserved energy function isFor a kinetic energy quadratic in velocities and a velocity-independent potential energy, this equals $T+V$. This connects symmetry to conservation laws.

For example, a simple pendulum of mass $m$ and length $\ell$ hasIts tension does not appear because the fixed-length constraint is already imposed. Expanding for small $\theta$ gives simple harmonic motion with $\omega =\sqrt{g/\ell }$. More generally, expansion of $T$ and $V$ to quadratic order about a stable equilibrium leads directly to the normal-mode eigenvalue problem.

Let the rotating frame have origin acceleration ${\mathbf{A}}_0$ and angular velocity $\mathbf{\Omega }(t)$ relative to an inertial frame. For a vector referred to the moving axes, the transport rule isApply it twice to position. With rotating-frame velocity $\mathbf{v}$ and acceleration ${\mathbf{a}}_R$,Thus Newton's equation expressed in the rotating frame isThe added terms are translational, Coriolis, Euler and centrifugal fictitious forces. They reflect the frame's acceleration, rather than additional interactions with nearby objects.

The centrifugal force points outward from the rotation axis and, for constant $\mathbf{\Omega }$, has potential $-m|\mathbf{\Omega }\times \mathbf{r}{|}^2/2$. The Coriolis force is perpendicular to velocity, so does no work on the particle measured in that rotating frame; it changes direction rather than speed directly. The Euler force is present when the frame's rotation rate or direction changes.

On Earth, gravity and centrifugal acceleration combine into effective gravity. For slow horizontal motion at latitude $\lambda$, the vertical component of Earth's rotation gives Coriolis parameter $f=2\Omega \sin \lambda$: an initially northward motion deflects eastward in the northern hemisphere. This supplies a useful local explanation of rotating flows and Foucault precession. A bucket of rotating liquid illustrates the centrifugal potential: its steady free surface is an equipotential of $gz-{\Omega }^2{r}^2/2$, giving $z={\Omega }^2{r}^2/(2g)+\mathrm{constant}$. These equations require a declared frame; adding a centrifugal force while retaining inertial-frame acceleration would count the same kinematic effect twice.

For torque-free precession of a symmetric top, take principal moments of inertia $I_1=I_2=I_{\perp }$ and $I_3=I_{\parallel }$, with no external torque. In an inertial frame moving with its centre of mass, its angular momentum $\mathbf{L}$ is constant in an inertial frame, and its rotational kinetic energy is conserved.

In the principal body axes, Euler equations for a torque-free rigid body reduce toTherefore ${\omega }_3$ is constant andThus the transverse angular velocity rotates uniformly in the body frame; its signed rate reverses between oblate and prolate inertia tensors. This body-frame wobble rate should be distinguished from the space-frame precession of the symmetry axis.

Let ${\mathbf{e}}_3$ be the body's symmetry axis. Sinceits angle $\theta$ to $\mathbf{L}$ is constant, with $\cos \theta =I_{\parallel }{\omega }_3/L$, andHence the symmetry axis describes a cone about fixed $\mathbf{L}$ at the space-frame precession rateThere is no nutation of this angle for torque-free motion of an exactly symmetric top. In the usual Euler angles, ${\omega }_3=\dot{\psi }+\dot{\varphi }\cos \theta$, so $\dot{\psi }=-{\Omega }_b$. Both rates describe the same motion in different axes. A freely tossed axisymmetric disc illustrates the effect; a top supported at a point under gravity is a different, externally torqued problem.

Use orthonormal basis vectors ${\mathbf{e}}_i(t)$ fixed in the rotating reference frame, and expand the angular momentum as $\mathbf{J}={\sum }_i{J}_i{\mathbf{e}}_i$. Over time $dt$, the basis undergoes infinitesimal rotation $\mathbf{\Omega }dt$, soThe product rule gives the rotating-frame derivative formula:Since the applied couple is the rate of change of angular momentum in the inertial frame,The second term accounts for the changing basis, even when the components of angular momentum are constant in the rotating reference frame.

Newton's second law takes its familiar form $m\mathbf{a}=\mathbf{F}$ in an inertial frame. Axes fixed to a turning apparatus or to the Earth form a rotating reference frame. Extra inertial forces account for the acceleration of these coordinates. Their values depend on the chosen reference frame; physical interactions such as gravity, tension and contact forces must still be included separately.

Let the rotating origin have inertial acceleration $\mathbf{A}$, and let its axes have angular velocity $\mathbf{\Omega }(t)$. For any vector $\mathbf{q}$, the rotating-frame derivative formula isEach rotating basis vector changes by $\mathbf{\Omega }\times {\mathbf{e}}_i$, which proves this rule by expanding $\mathbf{q}$ in that basis. Apply it twice to the position relative to the moving origin. With ${\mathbf{v}}^{\prime }$ and ${\mathbf{a}}^{\prime }$ measured in the rotating axes,Consequently the equation in the rotating reference frame isThe additional terms are the translational inertial force, Coriolis force, Euler force and centrifugal force, respectively. The last two simplify when the angular velocity is constant: the Euler force vanishes, while the other rotation terms remain.

The centrifugal force points away from the rotation axis. If ${\mathbf{r}}_{\perp }$ is the perpendicular displacement from that axis, thenFor uniform rotation it has potential energyA mass at rest relative to a turntable can therefore be described as having an inward tension or friction balancing its outward centrifugal force. In an inertial frame, the inward physical force instead produces the required centripetal acceleration. These are two descriptions of the same motion; one must not insert the rotating-frame outward term into the inertial equation as an additional physical interaction.

A rotating liquid gives a useful quantitative example. For a liquid in hydrostatic equilibrium relative to a vessel rotating uniformly about the vertical axis,Along the free surface the pressure is constant, so ${\Omega }^{2}sds-gdz=0$ andThe surface is a elliptic paraboloid. This is the balance of gravity and the centrifugal force in the rotating description. On the Earth, the same outward acceleration reduces effective gravity, most strongly at the equator, and contributes to the planet's equatorial bulge.

The Coriolis force depends on relative motion:It is perpendicular to both $\mathbf{\Omega }$ and ${\mathbf{v}}^{\prime }$, vanishes for motion along the rotation axis, and reverses when the relative velocity reverses. The dot product givesThus the Coriolis force does no work in the rotating reference frame: it changes the direction of motion rather than directly changing the rotating-frame kinetic energy. For example, on a horizontal turntable rotating anticlockwise as viewed from above, an outward-moving slider has a clockwise Coriolis acceleration, whereas an inward-moving slider has an anticlockwise one. The deflection can be observed by comparing a laboratory camera with a camera rotating with the table.

For slow horizontal motion on the Earth at latitude $\lambda$, keep the vertical component ${\Omega }_E\sin \lambda$ of its angular velocity. In east-north coordinates $(u,v)$ the horizontal Coriolis acceleration isIt deflects motion to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere. In large-scale atmospheric and oceanic motion it can balance a horizontal pressure gradient, giving geostrophic balance. With $\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ upward, the steady horizontal equation without friction isThe resulting velocity runs along lines of equal pressure. This approximation requires rotation to dominate local inertial changes; it is inappropriate close to the equator where $f$ tends to zero.

The Foucault pendulum gives another terrestrial example. In the small-angle approximation, its horizontal coordinates satisfyTo first order in the small ratio ${\Omega }_E/{\omega }_0$, the oscillation plane precesses relative to the ground at angular rate $-{\Omega }_E\sin \lambda$: clockwise in the northern hemisphere, zero at the equator, and one revolution per sidereal day at a pole. The Coriolis force explains this changing orientation without requiring energy input. Together these examples show why inertial forces are useful whenever the apparatus or environment supplies naturally rotating coordinates.

For a fixed set of bodies in an inertial frame, total linear momentum is constant if the resultant external force vanishes. Summing Newton's second law cancels internal force pairs by Newton's third law. For an open subsystem, momentum carried across its boundary must also be included.

For an equal-intake-fuel mass-loading rocket, enclose the original craft and the stationary material collected during $dt$. Its initial momentum is $mu$. At the end, the craft has mass $m-\mu dt$ and the exhaust has mass $2\mu dt$. To first order,The first term is rocket thrust; the second is the momentum cost of collecting stationary matter. It vanishes in the conventional rocket equation, which therefore has no analogous fixed exhaust-speed ceiling in Newtonian mechanics. Here the acceleration vanishes at $u_{\max }=2u_0$; from rest it stays positive below that value while fuel remains. Relativistic limits are outside this model.

For constant $\mu$, mass conservation gives $m=m_i-\mu t$. Separating variables,ThereforeThe formal limiting speed would require $t=m_i/\mu$ and zero remaining craft mass. A positive rocket dry mass and finite carried fuel terminate the burn earlier. Maintaining nonzero collection rate even at rest is an idealization explicitly prescribed by the problem.