Re: Relativists Conclusively Prove They Are a Bunch of Morons


"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:jghco258m0bsbja9e5qle73j71mbi19nms@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 02:33:15 GMT, "Pax" <SherriFWhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1166403971.639204.22460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If by "centrifugal force" you mean "reaction to the centripetal force",
then you are right.

If by "centrifugal force" you mean what physicists mean by this term,
then you are wrong.

Okay! So what *do* physicists mean by the term? I wasn't aware there was
more than one meaning!

The argument has been solely about the definition of CENTRIFUGAL FORCE.

Roberts et al. say the name is reserved for a fictitious force that
appears to act in the ROTATING FRAME ONLY.

Inertia applies then too.

I and others have pointed out that for hundreds of years, 'centrifugal
force' has been the standard name given to the outward force exerted by a
spinning mass on whatever causes it to move in a circle...such as a
string.. Its INERTIAL meaning is somewhat different from that in the
ROTATIONAL FRAME. <shrug>

How? Inertia is inertia... well, one would assume. A mouse on a spinning
turntable is thrown off due to its inertia. The turntable only applies a
steady rotation, the body-weight of the mouse with its corresponding inertia
determines the rest.

I was asked to cite references to this effect....which I easily did by
looking a few old texts. They all define a centrifugal force in inertial
frames just as I have been doing.

I think it is now time the relativists who argued wrongly admitted their
error and thanked me for giving them their first real lesson in basic
physics.

I would also appreciate recognition for being the first physicist in
history to point out that there are two distinctly different 'centrifugal
forces' that can exist in the rotating frame and that, contrary to the
claims of relativists, each has an equal and opposite force... just as
Newton said it should.... .

Henry, you really need to work on that attitude. lol When you toot your
own horn, you usually play solo... and no one likes the tune.

HW.

Be well - Pax


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relativists Conclusively Prove They Are a Bunch of Morons
    ... If by "centrifugal force" you mean what physicists mean by this term, ... appears to act in the ROTATING FRAME ONLY. ... Inertia applies then too. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real twin paradox.
    ... you relativity deniers have your own theories. ... The twins paradox illustrates ... We use a 300 year old theory of inertia ... physicists are mostly smart, honest, and hard-working ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativists Conclusively Prove They Are a Bunch of Morons
    ... frames of reference and is due to the change of reference frame. ... centrifugal force is that force which is observed by an observer who is at ... Even inertial FoRs have inertia, ... If a car swerves around a corner, a passenger's body seems to move ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Confusion redux: "Centrifugal Force"
    ... The first definition is the one used by physicists: ... The frame acceleration is substituted by a ... centrifugal force that is exerted on all objects, ... status to power. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativists Conclusively Prove They Are a Bunch of Morons
    ... Inertia is very real. ... the same thing as real centrifugal force, a name commonly understood to mean ... [Open Quote] ... would be living on the interior surface of the cylinder's wall, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)