Re: Confusion redux: "Centrifugal Force"


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 18 Nov 2006 00:14:31 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 17 Nov 2006 17:07:24 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 16 Nov 2006 20:13:01 -0800, "JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

If you knew anything about basic physics

Oh stop that nonsense. I can run rings around you as far as physics is
concerned. This should have been obvious to you years ago.

Well why can't you understand the simpe explanation I have just given you.

Centrifugal force well and truly EXISTS in the inertial frame.

No, it doesn't. Rotating frames are not inertial frames.

Listen you ignorant little heap of ***, you stand on a rotating carousel
hanging onto a post. The post exerts an inward (or centripetal) force on you,
causing you to move in a circle.

True but irrelevant - rotating frames are not inertial frames.

Do you know what an inertial frame is, Henri?

here you go again geesey, making an absolute fool of yourself.

DOES THE POLE BEND IN THE INERTIAL FRAME GEESEY?

Henri, I think one of the major problems with usenet discussions is
that people will ignore the good points against them and concentrate
only in discussing the good points in favor of them. How many times
have you seen that?

As far as the particular discussion it is clear to me that the
arbitrary consideration of a frame at rest with the ball is where the
fallacy is based. There can be no such frame unless one actually
counterbalances the force this frame experiences with a real
centrifugal force. Thus, in this frame all objects experience a outward
force and this must be balanced by a real force for then to stay at
rest with the ball.

The fact that one must use an impressed force that keep the reference
frame at rest with the ball means that the counterbalanced force is
also a real force.

But if one makes the falalcy to think that motion can be studies friom
"a frame on the ball and which the ball is at rest" then all sorts of
spooky things like ficticious forces come up.

It is amazing to me that this has been ignored from the physics
community and the falalcy has been passed along for so many years. I
suspect why. Once some prof. told me that essentially all mechanics
books are the same, cover the same topics only slight differences. Once
someone wrtote the first book and then everybody else down the road
followed the same ideas with minor details.

It is really sad. I will write a paper about but I am sure it will not
be published because the reviewers will be like Tom Roberts who is a
nice guy but stuck with some fallacies he simply will resist any
alternative ideas.

Mike







[snip froth]


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Thank christ there is one genuine physicist on the NG.

.

Loading