Re: Gyroscopes - Usenet Physics FAQ - Reference frames

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_aurigae.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 07/27/04 

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:27:27 GMT

In sci.math, JM Albuquerque
<jm.aREMOV.E@sapo.pt>
 wrote
on Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:04:56 +0100
<2mkva3FogcrpU1@uni-berlin.de>:
> Around these newsgroups there are current discussions about
> inertia, mass, centrifugal force, equivalence principle, gravity, etc.
>
> I've looked at the Physics FAQ:
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/index.html
>
> And I've notice the following:
> 1 - Gyroscopes don't belong to Physics.
> 2 - Centrifugal force doesn't even exist.
> 3 - Gravity also is a fictitious force like the centrifugal force.
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Centrifugal/centri.html
> (See at bottom: Could gravity be a fictitious force too? YES.)
>
> Why gyroscopes don't belong to the actual Physics is the point.

[rest snipped]

Eh?

This just sounds silly. A gyroscope is a spinning wheel. The
bearings of the gyroscope are what bear the brunt of any attempts
to turn it (assuming no gymbaling).

However, centrifugal force is non-existent (the issue there is
*centripetal* force), and gravity is a bit hard to handle but
is generally considered as a space warpage (AFAIK). Of course
it appears very much like a force to most of us, especially when
one drops a rock on one's foot. 

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Relevant Pages