1660:
scientific definition of force, over the head of the common understanding of the very real phenomenon known as centrifugal force. Look at it this way. A car swerves round a corner at high speed and a passenger gets flung out the back door. We would all agree that this was because of the passenger's tendency to continue in their straight line inertial path. And this tendency caused the passenger to push against the car door, causing the car door to open and the passenger to be thrown out into the road. Now we'll all agree that this tendency was very real. But are we not allowed to call this tendency centrifugal force? What exactly is it that you are claiming is only an illusion in a rotating frame of reference? We can't write off the tendency to be pushed against the door, simply on the grounds that it is only an illusion under a certain kind of mathematical analysis. The effect is very real, and it's now clear to me that this discussion is purely over semantics. It's all about whether or not we are allowed to refer to, what is commonly known as centrifugal force, by its common name. I think we're all agreed that centrifugal force, under the common understanding, arises as a result of inertial motion, and not because of any choice of coordinate frame. But I do see your argument that centrifugal force within the common understanding does not conform with the strictly scientific definition of force as per Newton's laws of motion. I think the common understanding of centrifugal force should come first in the article, followed by the clarification that it is a local term not strictly in line with the definition of force as is used in
Newtonian mechanics. I say this, because as the article stands now, it is counter intuitive, giving the impression that what most people see as a real effect with a familiar name, can be made to become an illusion by mathematicians operating in a rotating frame of reference. Those devices listed in the introduction really do operate by centrifugal force under the common understanding. You cannot write that fact off by insisting that it doesn't conform to a strict scientific definition of force. The issue is semantics, not physics.
1876:
reference, to the neglect of the actual concept of centrifugal force itself. Your example of viewing a stationary object from a rotating frame of reference is a totally unnatural example which turns the whole topic upside down. It was like asking how do children on a roundabout see a stationary child on the ground below the roundabout. The stationary child experiences no centrifugal force, while the ones on the roundabout see the stationary child moving in a circle. Meanwhile you are trying to use maths to account for why the child on the ground experiences no centrifugal force, as in, because it is cancelled by another fictitious force. That is totally inverted logic, well over the top. As regards reliable sources, that would be fine if reliable sources all spoke with a single narrative. But they don't. Reliable sources are a morass of confusion telling many different narratives. Some talk about rotating frames and fictitious forces, some talk about Newton's third law, and some think there has to be circular motion. It won't be possible to taper the article to the correct balance of reliable sources until there is first some evidence of comprehension of the topic on the part of the editors. So, are we first going to try and reason it out using natural reasoning, or are we going to use the canard about reliable sources every time a point is made that undermines the current narrative in the article? What about this source here,
1914:
centrifugal force is only an illusion seen by those in a rotating frame of reference. I have explained to you, that you have got yourself absorbed in the mathematical analysis of centrifugal force in a rotating frame, at the expense of the concept itself. Just because it is not a
Newtonian force doesn't mean that it is not a force. It still pushes and pulls. I have supplied references above that contradict the view that centrifugal force is only an illusion observed from a rotating frame of reference, and so there's not much more that I can do to help. Whatever, the article as it stands, is a total morass of confusion. By the way, I see reference to another article called "reactive centrifugal force". There is no such thing. It's just inertial centrifugal force pushing or pulling against an obstacle. Was that article, by any chance, started up in order to package away out of sight all scenarios that exposed centrifugal force as a frame-independent force?
1818:
that is stationary in the inertial frame - when viewed in a rotating frame, the object appears to be moving in a circle and therefore undergoing centripetal acceleration. In the rotating frame, the centripetal acceleration is attributed to a combination of fictitious/inertial forces - the centrifugal force pointed outward and a
Coriolis force pointed inward. The centrifugal force in this situation is the same as what arises for the passenger and astronauts, and appears because the frame has a rotational acceleration relative to the inertial frame. This is what reliable sources say. Again if you have reliable sources that say otherwise or clarify the concept, then please share. --
375:
1628:
swing a bucket of water over their heads and the water not falling out. It seems to me that you have got too distracted by the mathematical analysis, to the extent that you have made yourself believe that centrifugal force as a practical reality is merely a figment of a particular method of mathematical analysis. Before you wrote what you wrote above, I was going to sarcastically suggest that you remove all those references to centrifugal clutches and centrifugal governors etc., just in case the readers might get ideas that conflict with the fictitious narrative which the article seems to be promoting. Anyway, I've said all I can say and so I'll leave you to think about it.
1676:
that centrifugal force is a force in a different category of forces than
Newtonian forces. It's a bit like that a lion and a tiger are both cats, but a lion isn't a tiger. A Newtonian force and a centrifugal force are both forces, but a centrifugal force is not a Newtonian force. I can't get this idea of writing centrifugal force off completely, as an illusion in a rotating frame, just because it isn't a Newtonian force. In fact, more accurately a centrifugal force is an inertial force, independent of whatever mathematical way we analyse it.
1738:
immediately delves into the issue that I first raised. Just because it is an inertial force doesn't mean that it is an illusion only observed in a rotating frame of reference. It's no illusion that centrifugal force can be used to simulate the weight of gravity in a rotating space station. I thought we had it all sorted when you correctly drew my attention to the fact that centrifugal force is not a
Newtonian force. But it seems that you still think it is an illusion, dependent on choice of coordinate frame. This is clearly not the case.
1521:
centrifugal force to explain the motion - Newton's second law and a centripetal force are sufficient to explain the Newton's rotating bucket thought experiment. In Newton's thought experiment, it is actually the need to invoke an ad hoc centrifugal force that tells you the coordinate system is rotating. The text follows what is found in reliable sources such as journal articles and university textbooks. If you can indicate where the text does not appear to follow reliable sources, that would be helpful in refining the article. --
1505:) 21:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC) On another point, the last sentence in the top paragraph talks about something called reactive centrifugal force, as though it's something different. It's just the same centrifugal force pushing or pulling against a centripetal force. It would be there anyway, even if the centripetal force wasn't there, and so it's not a reaction. The centripetal force curves the path of the object and it doesn't even have to be equal in magnitude to the centrifugal force unless it is causing circular motion.
1880:? It says in the abstract that the centrifugal governor works by centrifugal force. It doesn't say that it only works if you are rotating with the apparatus. And by the way, your analogy about the elevator was wrong. When an elevator accelerates upwards, the people feel an upward force coming from the elevator floor. No inertial forces are involved, and the floor exerts an active force on the people. But in the rotating space station, centrifugal force pushes the people against the floor. It's the other way around.
311:
1814:(after ec) As MrOllie points out, that definition is incorrect and not supported by reliable sources. An object does not need to be forced to rotate in a rotating system for the centrifugal force to act on it. In the inertial frame there is no force that is pushing the passenger into the wall of the car or pushing astronauts against the floor in a spinning space station. Our intuition that there is one is due to our observations being in the non-inertial frame.
1898:
discussions. I'm not seeing anything new in this discussion, and in fact it seems to be largely rehashing those previous discussions. As we've fallen into trying to teach each other "correct" physics/semantics, I really don't see any further value in talk page discussion - this isn't a forum or discussion board. Perhaps an RFC or other dispute resolution avenue would be beneficial if you feel that there is a specific improvement needed in the article. --
1777:″When an object is forced to rotate in a rotating system, a centrifugal force draws it away from the centre of rotation, due to the tendency of the object to continue along its uniform straight line inertial path. Centrifugal force is therefore an inertial force and not a Newtonian force, as the latter kind is not involved in uniform straight line motion. Centrifugal force is often analysed in a frame of reference that rotates with the rotating system″
1644:
hand side of Newton's second law), the centrifugal force does not appear in inertial frames. When motion is described in rotating frames/coordinate systems, then it is included in the sum of forces if we want to "bootstrap" of Newton's laws to non-inertial frames. If you have reliable sources that say otherwise, or provide additional insight or commentary not currently found in the article, please share them and help us make this article better. --
490:
365:
344:
1588:
That's an example of centrifugal force. I don't see this as being an effect that depends on the choice of coordinate frame for analysis. Same principle with a centrifugal clutch or a centrifugal governor. However you might analyse these, there is a force pressing outwards that has a mechanical effect. Are you one hundred percent sure about what you have said above? Think about it. I simply can't agree with you.
1714:
car a centrifugal force is acting on this unfortunate person. Once clear of the vehicle, the centrifugal force acting on the passenger falls to zero again. You are suggesting that the commencement of the centrifugal force, its magnitude, direction and duration are not determined by the trajectory of the passenger, but by the trajectory of the car. That is not consistent with Newton’s second law.
271:
453:
302:
1772:. I interpret that as stating that it is only an illusion. But we know that it is not an illusion. It may not be a Newtonian force, but it is still a force, and it can have the same physical effect as a Newtonian force, as per the example I gave of weight being caused by rotation in a space station. I suggest that the introduction runs through the following key points,
1875:
Fyzixfighter, If an object in a rotating system doesn't rotate with the system, say due to lack of friction for example, then the object will not move outwards. There will be no centrifugal force. You seem to be totally absorbed in the mathematical analysis from the perspective of a rotating frame of
1643:
We don't need to argue maths or intuition - we could, but we've been down that path before and it rarely helps improve the article. We just need to follow reliable sources. Reliable sources indicate that when we are rigorous in our definition of what is a force (eg, something that appears on the left
1603:
Thanks for your prompt reply. If you spend some time carefully reading a physics textbook that covers introductory mechanics, and you focus on displacement, velocity and acceleration; and Newton’s laws of motion, we will end up agreeing with each other. When we try to explain some physical phenomenon
1913:
Well, if you've been down this path multiple times before, then maybe it's time to take note of the fact that the lead paragraph contains a ridiculous contradiction. On the one hand it lists mechanical devices that operate on the principle of centrifugal force, while on the other hand it claims that
1817:
The centrifugal force that you mention is as real as the apparent force one feels pulling down when going up in an elevator. In the inertial frame the effects in the car, space station, and elevator are due to inertia and require no new force. In my opinion this is evident when we consider an object
1713:
The car and its occupants are all travelling in a straight line at constant speed so the net force acting on each one is zero. The car then swerves and the passenger is ejected from the car and continues in a straight line at constant speed, at least for a short time. As the passenger is leaving the
1627:
I don't think that maths needs to come into it at all. And I don't think our intuition is failing us when we observe the phenomenon of centrifugal force having a real physical effect. The non-physics public have usually been aware of centrifugal force since they were children, when they saw somebody
1587:
In a centrifuge, the material that is rotating with the machine, flies out to the edge because of its tendency to continue in its straight line inertial path. It pushes against the edge of the machine and
Archimedes' principle is invoked, segregating the heavier particles from the lighter particles.
1552:
I agree with FyzixFighter. I have amended the lead to remove the suggestion that there are mechanical devices that operate on the basis of centrifugal force. Centrifugal force is a fictitious force, and it is lacking in rigour to use this force to attempt to explain the operation of certain rotating
1833:
Dolphin51, You misrepresented what I said above. I said that when the car swerves, centrifugal force throws the passenger against the door of the car, due to the tendency of the passenger to undergo his uniform straight line inertial path. We were already agreed that this centrifugal force is not a
1496:
I changed the lead sentence because it's inertial motion and not observation that gives rise to centrifugal force. If an object is drawn to the edge of a rotating system by centrifugal force, this can be observed from any vantage point. Newton's rotating bucket is a prime example. You don't have to
1797:
The "Appears to act" version is correct. Your suggestion is incorrect because it leaves out crucial information. If an observer is outside of the rotating system, they will not observe any such force - that is what distinguishes a fictitious force. It only 'appears' when the observer (that is, the
1675:
And one final comment. The issue of contention lies totally with the fact that a centrifugal force is not a
Newtonian force. But its physical effect in a rotating space station for the purpose of simulating weight, is identical to that of the force of gravity. Therefore it's more accurate to state
1897:
We've been down this path multiple times before. The archives are full of lengthy discussions with multiple editors, one in particular (FDT/David Tombe), that led to only marginal improvements in the article and certain editors (eg, FDT/David Tombe) being banned from physics-related articles and
1536:
Well I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you. The first paragraph mentions mechanical devices that operate on the basis of centrifugal force. How would these work if centrifugal force is only something that depends on the choice of coordinate frame? Surely centrifugal force has to be caused by
1737:
Mr. Ollie. The first sentence in this article confuses the issue. We're agreed that centrifugal force is not a
Newtonian force. Therefore we need to remove the bit where it says "in Newtonian mechanics". The next bit where it says that centrifugal force is an inertial force is fine. But then it
1520:
I'm in favor of simplifying, but that oversimplification crosses into being incorrect. It's not observation that gives rise to centrifugal force, but describing the motion using a rotating/non-inertial coordinate system. From an inertial coordinate system, there is never a reason to invoke this
1659:
OK, I see what you are saying now. You are saying that centrifugal force doesn't conform to the definition of force as per Newton's laws of motion. And of course, that should be stated in the article. But I've been thinking more about the matter, and I think you are giving undue weight to a
734:
1147:
in which the motion of objects is being described, and this does not necessarily bear any relation whatsoever to the motion of any of those objects themselves. I presume the helical motion you have in mind is one in which the body's position
793:
153:
854:
For example, consider an objective in helical motion such that it is completing counterclockwise circles in xy plane as viewed from +z direction so that its r has a component n the z direction so that
1991:
671:
1949:
1915:
1881:
1858:
1835:
1739:
1661:
1629:
1589:
1538:
1506:
1498:
1783:
1677:
906:
315:
1710:
You have written “A car swerves round a corner at high speed and a passenger gets flung out the back door. ... ...” This is a useful example and it is worth examining in further detail.
1981:
928:
2011:
1996:
829:
147:
262:
1510:
1502:
872:
849:
739:
1694:, which you will find is linked in the opening sentence of the article by one of its other names, 'Inertial force'. No changes appear to be needed to the article.
1849:
Mr. Ollie, There is a paragraph in this link about how a centrifugal clutch works. We don't have to be rotating with the clutch in order it observe it working.
1234:(necessarily) that of the coordinate system in which the motion of the body is being described. If the coordinate system determined by the three unit vectors
431:
1929:
Was that article, by any chance, started up in order to package away out of sight all scenarios that exposed centrifugal force as a frame-independent force?
79:
945:
I have just realised that the formula for centrifugal force you quote from the article was missing a minus sign. But with that correction, yes indeed,
2006:
1976:
421:
44:
1986:
374:
1948:
Well if I am wrong, then why aren't those examples simply included in this article? Why did they have to be sided off to a separate article?
85:
1553:
machines. Nevertheless there are people who incorporate the words “centrifugal force” into their explanation of operation of these machines.
1451:
502:
190:
1430:
acting on the body which exactly balances the proper force. This centrifugal force is clearly, as it must always be, perpendicular to
1953:
1919:
1885:
1862:
1839:
1743:
1665:
1633:
1593:
1542:
1787:
397:
1681:
2001:
599:
594:
587:
582:
577:
570:
565:
560:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
1471:
729:{\displaystyle \mathbf {\omega } (\mathbf {\omega } \cdot \mathbf {r} )-\mathbf {r} (\mathbf {\omega } \cdot \mathbf {\omega } )}
553:
548:
543:
536:
531:
526:
519:
514:
509:
469:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
168:
1971:
472:. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about centrifugal force at the
460:
99:
30:
135:
465:
104:
20:
1857:
You claimed above that we only observe the centrifugal force if we are in a rotating frame. This is obviously not the case.
388:
349:
74:
1482:
324:
632:
65:
1467:
The following
Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
877:
270:
185:
129:
611:
281:
1931:
You will find that launching conspiracy theories will not help your arguments. It seems that we are done here.
1447:
473:
125:
1478:
109:
1903:
1823:
1649:
1526:
1854:
1252:
is inertial, for instance, then the angular velocity of that coordinate sytem is zero, and there will be
175:
330:
911:
1389:
coordinates of the body will be constant, and it will be moving with uniform velocity parallel to the
1497:
be rotating inside the bucket in order to observe the water being pushed against the bucket's walls.
301:
1724:
1614:
1574:
1557:
1442:
161:
55:
1260:
coordinate system. For the body to be following such a helical path, there must, of course, be a
801:
396:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
617:
286:
70:
788:{\displaystyle \mathbf {\omega } (\mathbf {\omega } \cdot \mathbf {r} )-\mathbf {r} \omega ^{2}}
141:
1936:
1899:
1819:
1803:
1758:
1699:
1645:
1564:- scientists now know they don’t exist even though in by-gone days everyone thought they did.
1522:
51:
24:
1691:
1463:
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
935:
857:
834:
613:
489:
283:
1850:
1877:
1362:
axis coincide with those of the inertial system, but is rotating with angular velocity
1715:
1605:
1565:
1561:
380:
1965:
1064:
1932:
1799:
1754:
1695:
1356:
axis of the inertial coordinate system. In a coordinate system whose origin and
1477:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —
931:
364:
343:
370:
1604:
using our intuition we often fail, showing that intuition is a poor teacher.
615:
285:
1770:"appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame of reference"
1957:
1940:
1923:
1907:
1889:
1866:
1843:
1827:
1807:
1798:
frame of reference) is undergoing acceleration (in this case as rotation).
1791:
1782:
In fact, that's about all there is to it. It's not a very extensive topic.
1762:
1747:
1731:
1703:
1685:
1669:
1653:
1637:
1621:
1597:
1581:
1546:
1530:
1514:
1486:
1456:
939:
1350:
acting on it. This force is directed towards, and perpendicular to, the
1143:
Note also that the centrifugal force is an artefact of the motion of the
798:
Yes, the second term is always radially outward, since it has magnitude
831:
in the r direction, but the first time doesn't have to be 0 so long as
393:
1855:
https://www.northridgepumps.com/article-346_what-is-a-centrifugal-pump
464:
for general discussion about centrifugal force. Any such comments
618:
483:
447:
295:
287:
15:
1690:
Hence the article we have on this other category of forces,
1851:
https://www.lancereal.com/centrifugal-clutch-explained/
1537:
inertial motion and not by choice of coordinate frame.
1063:. It is, in fact, a well-known property of the vector
648:
1878:
https://www.irjet.net/archives/V4/i1/IRJET-V4I1185.pdf
1753:
The only one who has used the word 'illusion' is you.
1399:
coordinate system there will be a centrifugal force
160:
1992:
Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences
914:
880:
860:
837:
804:
742:
674:
392:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
922:
900:
866:
843:
823:
787:
728:
1834:Newtonian force, but it is a force nevertheless.
874:has a component in the xy plane. That would make
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1853:And here's another about the centrifugal pump,
901:{\displaystyle \omega \cdot \mathbf {r} \neq 0}
1220:in this expression is the angular velocity of
1982:Knowledge vital articles in Physical sciences
930:direction and is not only radially outward.--
908:and thus ω x (ω x r) has a component in the
626:This page has archives. Sections older than
174:
8:
1079:perpendicular to both of its multiplicands,
2012:C-Class physics articles of High-importance
1997:C-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
1768:Mr. Ollie. It says in the first sentence,
338:
915:
913:
887:
879:
859:
836:
815:
803:
779:
770:
759:
751:
743:
741:
718:
710:
702:
691:
683:
675:
673:
655:ω x (ω x r) is always perpendicular to ω
1950:2A00:23CC:4D80:1101:DD04:6DDA:A6E1:F358
1916:2A00:23CC:4D80:1101:DD04:6DDA:A6E1:F358
1882:2A00:23CC:4D80:1101:BDDC:2E1F:8186:E19E
1859:2A00:23CC:4D80:1101:BDDC:2E1F:8186:E19E
1836:2A00:23CC:4D80:1101:BDDC:2E1F:8186:E19E
1740:2A00:23CC:4D80:1101:F0EB:BBD8:6848:CEA1
1662:2A00:23CC:4D80:1101:797D:908D:F9D2:B75A
1630:2A00:23CC:4D80:1101:59EA:8F9E:A7A5:D64F
1590:2A00:23CC:4D80:1101:B0C8:EC5D:84BA:4D00
1539:2A00:23CC:4D80:1101:58A2:F0FE:6C9A:FB30
1507:2A00:23CC:4D80:1101:8D3C:FAAF:EB21:11FE
1499:2A00:23CC:4D80:1101:8D3C:FAAF:EB21:11FE
340:
299:
1928:
1784:2A00:23CC:4D80:1101:8D8F:9CE:B079:7FFD
636:when more than 4 sections are present.
1678:2A00:23CC:4D80:1101:10E3:814:D19C:C3B
7:
386:This article is within the scope of
1124:times the projection of the vector
329:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
923:{\displaystyle \mathbf {\omega } }
14:
1256:centrifugal force on the body in
662:If F_centrifugal = mω x (ω x r)
630:may be automatically archived by
2007:High-importance physics articles
1977:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
1132:onto the plane perpendicular to
888:
771:
760:
703:
692:
488:
451:
373:
363:
342:
309:
300:
269:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
851:and r are not perpendicular.
426:This article has been rated as
1987:C-Class level-5 vital articles
1556:Centrifugal force is like the
764:
748:
723:
707:
696:
680:
643:direction of centrifugal force
1:
1958:17:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
1941:16:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
1924:16:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
1908:16:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
1890:09:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
1867:09:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
1844:09:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
1828:00:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
1808:00:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
1792:00:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
1763:00:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
1748:23:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1732:01:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
1704:23:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1686:23:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1670:20:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1654:18:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1638:16:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1622:13:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1598:13:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1582:12:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1547:10:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
1531:23:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
1515:21:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
824:{\displaystyle m*\omega ^{2}}
406:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics
400:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1487:15:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
659:I don't think this is true.
409:Template:WikiProject Physics
1167:is given by something like
1110:is always perpendicular to
665:then by the rules of the :
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2028:
1472:Centrifugal force xkcd.png
432:project's importance scale
425:
358:
337:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
2002:C-Class physics articles
1457:14:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
1118:. It is, in fact, just
940:11:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
1095:, and, in particular, –
867:{\displaystyle \omega }
844:{\displaystyle \omega }
1972:C-Class vital articles
924:
902:
868:
845:
825:
789:
730:
633:Lowercase sigmabot III
75:avoid personal attacks
925:
903:
869:
846:
826:
790:
731:
316:level-5 vital article
263:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
1222:the body in question
1055:is perpendicular to
912:
878:
858:
835:
802:
740:
672:
105:No original research
1558:luminiferous aether
389:WikiProject Physics
1479:Community Tech bot
920:
898:
864:
841:
821:
785:
726:
651:, asserting that:
463:
325:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1455:
1145:coordinate system
668:=F_centrifugal=m(
640:
639:
605:
604:
480:
479:
459:
446:
445:
442:
441:
438:
437:
294:
293:
66:Assume good faith
43:
25:Centrifugal force
2019:
1727:
1692:Fictitious force
1617:
1577:
1445:
1437:
1429:
1394:
1388:
1382:
1376:
1361:
1355:
1332:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1289:
1251:
1245:
1239:
1229:
1219:
1213:
1166:
1160:
1139:
1131:
1123:
1117:
1109:
1094:
1086:
1074:
1062:
1054:
1032:
985:, and therefore
984:
929:
927:
926:
921:
919:
907:
905:
904:
899:
891:
873:
871:
870:
865:
850:
848:
847:
842:
830:
828:
827:
822:
820:
819:
794:
792:
791:
786:
784:
783:
774:
763:
755:
747:
735:
733:
732:
727:
722:
714:
706:
695:
687:
679:
635:
619:
506:
505:
492:
484:
455:
454:
448:
414:
413:
412:physics articles
410:
407:
404:
383:
378:
377:
367:
360:
359:
354:
346:
339:
322:
313:
312:
305:
304:
296:
288:
274:
273:
264:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2027:
2026:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2018:
2017:
2016:
1962:
1961:
1780:
1725:
1615:
1575:
1494:
1492:Inertial Motion
1465:
1431:
1400:
1390:
1384:
1378:
1363:
1357:
1351:
1290:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1279:
1247:
1241:
1235:
1225:
1215:
1207:
1168:
1162:
1149:
1133:
1125:
1119:
1111:
1096:
1088:
1080:
1068:
1056:
1053:
1045:
1002:
994:
954:
946:
910:
909:
876:
875:
856:
855:
833:
832:
811:
800:
799:
775:
738:
737:
670:
669:
645:
631:
620:
614:
497:
452:
428:High-importance
411:
408:
405:
402:
401:
379:
372:
353:High‑importance
352:
323:on Knowledge's
320:
310:
290:
289:
284:
261:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2025:
2023:
2015:
2014:
2009:
2004:
1999:
1994:
1989:
1984:
1979:
1974:
1964:
1963:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1870:
1869:
1831:
1830:
1815:
1811:
1810:
1774:
1766:
1765:
1735:
1734:
1711:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1657:
1656:
1625:
1624:
1585:
1584:
1554:
1534:
1533:
1493:
1490:
1475:
1474:
1464:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1440:
1439:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1205:
1141:
1051:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1000:
952:
918:
897:
894:
890:
886:
883:
863:
840:
818:
814:
810:
807:
782:
778:
773:
769:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
678:
644:
641:
638:
637:
625:
622:
621:
616:
612:
610:
607:
606:
603:
602:
597:
591:
590:
585:
580:
574:
573:
568:
563:
557:
556:
551:
546:
540:
539:
534:
529:
523:
522:
517:
512:
499:
498:
493:
487:
478:
477:
474:Reference desk
466:may be removed
456:
444:
443:
440:
439:
436:
435:
424:
418:
417:
415:
398:the discussion
385:
384:
381:Physics portal
368:
356:
355:
347:
335:
334:
328:
306:
292:
291:
282:
280:
279:
276:
275:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2024:
2013:
2010:
2008:
2005:
2003:
2000:
1998:
1995:
1993:
1990:
1988:
1985:
1983:
1980:
1978:
1975:
1973:
1970:
1969:
1967:
1960:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1816:
1813:
1812:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1789:
1785:
1779:
1778:
1773:
1771:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1733:
1730:
1728:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1712:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1623:
1620:
1618:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1583:
1580:
1578:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1491:
1489:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1473:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1462:
1458:
1453:
1449:
1444:
1441:
1436:
1435:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1398:
1393:
1387:
1381:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1367:
1360:
1354:
1349:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1295:
1294:
1288:
1282:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1250:
1244:
1238:
1233:
1228:
1223:
1218:
1212:
1209:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1165:
1158:
1154:
1153:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1130:
1129:
1122:
1116:
1115:
1107:
1106:
1101:
1100:
1093:
1092:
1085:
1084:
1078:
1075:, that it is
1073:
1072:
1066:
1065:cross product
1061:
1060:
1050:
1049:
1043:
1030:
1029:
1024:
1023:
1018:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1006:
999:
998:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
982:
981:
976:
975:
970:
969:
964:
963:
958:
951:
950:
944:
943:
942:
941:
937:
933:
916:
895:
892:
884:
881:
861:
852:
838:
816:
812:
808:
805:
796:
780:
776:
767:
756:
752:
744:
719:
715:
711:
699:
688:
684:
676:
666:
663:
660:
657:
656:
652:
650:
642:
634:
629:
624:
623:
609:
608:
601:
598:
596:
593:
592:
589:
586:
584:
581:
579:
576:
575:
572:
569:
567:
564:
562:
559:
558:
555:
552:
550:
547:
545:
542:
541:
538:
535:
533:
530:
528:
525:
524:
521:
518:
516:
513:
511:
508:
507:
504:
501:
500:
496:
491:
486:
485:
482:
475:
471:
467:
462:
458:This page is
457:
450:
449:
433:
429:
423:
420:
419:
416:
399:
395:
391:
390:
382:
376:
371:
369:
366:
362:
361:
357:
351:
348:
345:
341:
336:
332:
326:
318:
317:
307:
303:
298:
297:
278:
277:
272:
268:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1947:
1900:FyzixFighter
1896:
1832:
1820:FyzixFighter
1781:
1776:
1775:
1769:
1767:
1736:
1722:
1717:
1716:
1658:
1646:FyzixFighter
1626:
1612:
1607:
1606:
1586:
1572:
1567:
1566:
1535:
1523:FyzixFighter
1495:
1476:
1466:
1443:David Wilson
1433:
1432:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1396:
1391:
1385:
1379:
1373:
1370:
1365:
1364:
1358:
1352:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1292:
1291:
1286:
1280:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1248:
1242:
1236:
1231:
1226:
1221:
1216:
1214:. But the
1210:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1170:
1169:
1163:
1156:
1151:
1150:
1144:
1135:
1134:
1127:
1126:
1120:
1113:
1112:
1104:
1103:
1098:
1097:
1090:
1089:
1082:
1081:
1076:
1070:
1069:
1058:
1057:
1047:
1046:
1027:
1026:
1021:
1020:
1015:
1014:
1009:
1008:
1004:
996:
995:
979:
978:
973:
972:
967:
966:
961:
960:
956:
948:
947:
853:
797:
667:
664:
661:
658:
654:
653:
646:
627:
494:
481:
427:
387:
331:WikiProjects
314:
266:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1052:centrifugal
1001:centrifugal
953:centrifugal
461:not a forum
148:free images
31:not a forum
1966:Categories
1395:axis. In
1230:axis, and
1224:about the
647:Regarding
600:Archive 17
595:Archive 16
588:Archive 15
583:Archive 14
578:Archive 13
571:Archive 12
566:Archive 11
561:Archive 10
470:refactored
1044:That is,
649:this edit
554:Archive 9
549:Archive 8
544:Archive 7
537:Archive 6
532:Archive 5
527:Archive 4
520:Archive 3
515:Archive 2
510:Archive 1
319:is rated
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1161:at time
932:Louiedog
495:Archives
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1933:MrOllie
1800:MrOllie
1755:MrOllie
1718:Dolphin
1696:MrOllie
1608:Dolphin
1568:Dolphin
1562:caloric
1264:force,
1031:)} = 0
628:60 days
430:on the
403:Physics
394:Physics
350:Physics
321:C-class
267:60 days
154:WP refs
142:scholar
1377:, the
1303:) = −
1262:proper
1077:always
327:scale.
126:Google
1105:ω × r
1071:a × b
1028:ω · r
1022:ω · ω
1019:) – (
1016:ω · ω
1010:ω · r
997:ω · F
974:ω · ω
962:ω · r
503:Index
308:This
191:Index
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1954:talk
1937:talk
1920:talk
1904:talk
1886:talk
1863:talk
1840:talk
1824:talk
1804:talk
1788:talk
1759:talk
1744:talk
1700:talk
1682:talk
1666:talk
1650:talk
1634:talk
1594:talk
1560:and
1543:talk
1527:talk
1511:talk
1503:talk
1483:talk
1452:cont
1448:talk
1420:sin(
1408:cos(
1397:this
1383:and
1323:sin(
1311:cos(
1258:that
1246:and
1194:sin(
1182:cos(
1178:) =
1087:and
1003:= –
955:= –
936:talk
422:High
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1422:ω t
1410:ω t
1402:m ω
1325:ω t
1313:ω t
1305:m ω
1232:not
1196:ω t
1184:ω t
1099:ω ×
1025:) (
1013:) (
971:– (
795:).
736:=m(
468:or
176:TWL
1968::
1956:)
1939:)
1922:)
1906:)
1888:)
1865:)
1842:)
1826:)
1806:)
1790:)
1761:)
1746:)
1702:)
1684:)
1668:)
1652:)
1636:)
1596:)
1545:)
1529:)
1513:)
1485:)
1450:·
1424:)
1416:+
1412:)
1404:(
1369:=
1327:)
1319:+
1315:)
1307:(
1287:..
1254:no
1240:,
1202:+
1198:)
1190:+
1186:)
1067:,
1007:{(
983:}
977:)
965:)
959:{(
938:)
917:ω
893:≠
885:⋅
882:ω
862:ω
839:ω
813:ω
809:∗
777:ω
768:−
757:⋅
753:ω
745:ω
720:ω
716:⋅
712:ω
700:−
689:⋅
685:ω
677:ω
265::
259:17
257:,
255:16
253:,
251:15
249:,
247:14
245:,
243:13
241:,
239:12
237:,
235:11
233:,
231:10
229:,
225:,
221:,
217:,
213:,
209:,
205:,
201:,
197:,
193:,
156:)
54:;
1952:(
1935:(
1918:(
1902:(
1884:(
1861:(
1838:(
1822:(
1802:(
1786:(
1757:(
1742:(
1729:)
1726:t
1723:(
1698:(
1680:(
1664:(
1648:(
1632:(
1619:)
1616:t
1613:(
1592:(
1579:)
1576:t
1573:(
1541:(
1525:(
1509:(
1501:(
1481:(
1454:)
1446:(
1438:.
1434:ω
1428:)
1426:j
1418:ρ
1414:i
1406:ρ
1392:z
1386:y
1380:x
1374:k
1371:ω
1366:ω
1359:z
1353:z
1333:,
1331:)
1329:j
1321:ρ
1317:i
1309:ρ
1301:t
1299:(
1293:r
1281:m
1249:k
1243:j
1237:i
1227:z
1217:ω
1211:k
1208:t
1206:z
1204:v
1200:j
1192:ρ
1188:i
1180:ρ
1176:t
1174:(
1171:r
1164:t
1159:)
1157:t
1155:(
1152:r
1140:.
1136:ω
1128:r
1121:ω
1114:ω
1108:)
1102:(
1091:b
1083:a
1059:ω
1048:F
1033:.
1005:m
980:r
968:ω
957:m
949:F
934:(
896:0
889:r
817:2
806:m
781:2
772:r
765:)
761:r
749:(
724:)
708:(
704:r
697:)
693:r
681:(
476:.
434:.
333::
227:9
223:8
219:7
215:6
211:5
207:4
203:3
199:2
195:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.