The "apparent" force exists in the accelerated frame but does not exist
in the inertial frame.
Does this mean that (in the rotating reference) there really is a
centrifugal force acting on the stone or do we imagine that there is
but, in reality, it isn't there at all?
The "apparent" force exists in the accelerated frame but does not exist
in the inertial frame.
For example, in the case of the slingshot, the (apparent) centrifugal
force exists in the rotating frame.
Does this mean that (in the rotating reference) there really is a
centrifugal force acting on the stone or do we imagine that there is
but, in reality, it isn't there at all?
Obviously, in the second case, no one would ever think of asking to
which fundamental force it belongs but, in the first case, if a force
really acts on the stone, we should be able to establish what kind of
force it is.
Well, is the apparent centrifugal force that really acts on the stone
during the rotation and in the rotating reference part of one of the 4 fundamental forces?
[[Mod. note -- No. The apparent centrifugal force is an artifact of
working in non-inertial (in this case rotating) coordinates. -- jt]]
The "apparent" force exists in the accelerated frame but does not exist...
in the inertial frame.
Does this mean that (in the rotating reference) there really is a...
centrifugal force acting on the stone or do we imagine that there is
but, in reality, it isn't there at all?
It is easy to tell the difference between a real force and fictitious forces due to an accelerating reference frame. Ask yourself if an observer riding on the object would feel the force. If not it is a fictitious force.
Rich L.
The "apparent" force exists in the accelerated frame but does not exist
in the inertial frame.
For example, in the case of the slingshot, the (apparent) centrifugal
force exists in the rotating frame.
Does this mean that (in the rotating reference) there really is a
centrifugal force acting on the stone or do we imagine that there is
but, in reality, it isn't there at all?
Obviously, in the second case, no one would ever think of asking to
which fundamental force it belongs but, in the first case, if a force
really acts on the stone, we should be able to establish what kind of
force it is.
Well, is the apparent centrifugal force that really acts on the stone
during the rotation and in the rotating reference part of one of the 4
fundamental forces?
[[Mod. note -- No. The apparent centrifugal force is an artifact of
working in non-inertial (in this case rotating) coordinates. -- jt]]
If an observer is in a rotating frame, but fails to take account of that, and instead seeks to explain the behaviour of freely moving objects as if the observer were in an inertial frame, the observer then has to invent the centrifugal force.
So the force is not real. It arises from a mistaken world-view.
Sylvia.
An observer riding any particle of the string or sling stone feels
the centripetal force of the innermost adjacent particle
and the centrifugal force of the outermost adjacent particle.
(again in the
rotating reference) there are neither centrifugal nor centripetal accelerations.
An observer riding any particle of the string or sling stone feels
the centripetal force of the innermost adjacent particle
Yes.
and the centrifugal force of the outermost adjacent particle.
Nope.
...
"Centrifugal force" IS FICTITIOUS and appears in the rotating coordinates...
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts il 12/03/2023 12:23:34 ha scritto:
An observer riding any particle of the string or sling stoneYes.
feels the centripetal force of the innermost adjacent particle
and the centrifugal force of the outermost adjacent particle.Nope.
Nope? If you put yourself in the shoes of any particle of the string
or stone, do you feel that the innermost adjacent particle pulls you
towards the center and don't you feel that the outermost adjacent
particle pulls you to the opposite side?
"Centrifugal force" IS FICTITIOUS and appears in the rotating
coordinates...
"Appears" in what sense?
Can it be observed or measured?
Or is it just supposed to be there?
The "apparent" force exists in the accelerated frame but does not exist
in the inertial frame.
For example, in the case of the slingshot, the (apparent) centrifugal
force exists in the rotating frame.
Does this mean that (in the rotating reference) there really is a
centrifugal force acting on the stone or do we imagine that there is
but, in reality, it isn't there at all?
Obviously, in the second case, no one would ever think of asking to
which fundamental force it belongs but, in the first case, if a force
really acts on the stone, we should be able to establish what kind of
force it is.
Well, is the apparent centrifugal force that really acts on the stone
during the rotation and in the rotating reference part of one of the 4 fundamental forces?
[[Mod. note -- No. The apparent centrifugal force is an artifact of
working in non-inertial (in this case rotating) coordinates. -- jt]]
Don't we forget Newton's law here (action=reaction)?
In both positions, the anchor point and the rotating mass, two forces
hold each other in equilibrium.
In the anchor point, the centrifugal force transmitted via the rope is compensated for at each moment by the ground reaction.
In the rotating mass, it is equally compensated by the ground reaction, transmitted along the rope.
Even in the rotating system, the "rotating observer" will be aware of
their "free movement" being hindered by a reaction in the rope;
and conclude that this is accounted for by their not belonging to an
inertial system.
Consider being in a rotor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_(ride)
Do you imply that people are feeling fictitious forces, when they don't
see "proper" movement?
An observer riding any particle of the string or sling stoneNope.
feels the centripetal force of the innermost adjacent particle Yes.
and the centrifugal force of the outermost adjacent particle.
Nope? If you put yourself in the shoes of any particle of the string
or stone, do you feel that the innermost adjacent particle pulls you
towards the center and don't you feel that the outermost adjacent
particle pulls you to the opposite side?
The adjacent particle on the outside exerts the centripetal force that constrains the observer to move in a circle...
Tom Roberts il 13/03/2023 05:34:17 ha scritto:
The adjacent particle on the outside exerts the centripetal force
that constrains the observer to move in a circle...
What you wrote is absurd!
The force that the innermost particle exerts on the outermost one
and that that the outermost particle exerts on the innermost one
cannot both be centripetal!
If one is centripetal, the other must be centrifugal, and vice
versa.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 343 |
Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
Uptime: | 29:13:58 |
Calls: | 7,515 |
Calls today: | 12 |
Files: | 12,713 |
Messages: | 5,642,040 |
Posted today: | 2 |