Re: Newtons Mechanics only valid from nonaccelerating frame of reference?


jmorriss@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> mmeron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > In article <1137730555.527614.135300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "jmorriss@xxxxxxxxxxx" <jmorriss@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >Well, if you use an accelerating frame of reference, things happen that
> > >Newtonian mechanics cannot explain.
> > >
> > Of course it can.
> >
> > >For example, a videotape taken by a camera on a merry-go-round will
> > >show an object thrown in the air following a curved (side to side)
> > >path. In fact, you can toss something, and it can curve around so you
> > >can catch it. No real force is present to account for this motion.
> > >
> > That's why you use inertial forces (centrifugal and coriolis).
> >
>
> Are these not often called "ficticious forces"?
>
> The trouble is, they are sometimes tricky to use. See:
>
> http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/2001/10/23.html

What is it with the British and the damned Falkland islands?

>
> A real "Oops" moment...

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast