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

In article <1137731736.516455.100010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "jmorriss@xxxxxxxxxxx" <jmorriss@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>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"?

They're, but it is a poorly chosen name as it conveys the impression
that "they are not real". When describing motion relative to
accelerated frames, they're perfectly real.
>
>The trouble is, they are sometimes tricky to use. See:
>
> http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/2001/10/23.html
>
>A real "Oops" moment...
>
There is nothing here about "tricky", only that, if you ignore them,
you get things wrong. No big surprise.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | chances are he is doing just the same"
.

Relevant Pages