Talk:Centrifugal force/Archive 2

1267:

followed by any given point of the spinning object.this means that the friction force is now acting in a different direction, so the item is accelerated in that direction. This causes it to move along another chord, this one slightly further from the centre of spin and at a slight angle to the first one (because of how the item has moved). This process is repeated so that the item follows a spiral path outwards from the centre of the spinning object, until it reaches the edge. When it reaches the edge, it is able to do what it physics have been trying to make it do all along - fly off in a directon that is tangential to the circular direction of spin. If you are the item in the spinning object (say, one of those fairground rides where you get pressed against the wall and then the floor drops out and you stay stuck against the wall) then you feel as if there is a force flinging you outwards because you are being accelerated at a tangent to the circular path of the spinning fairground ride. Because the force is a straight line and the wall is not, an arrow used to show this force would intersect the wall. This means that there is a force pressing you against the wall, but that force is not some mystical power pushing outwards from the centre of the circle, but instead it is your own momentum pressing you sideways into the wall. You feel pushed back, not pushed sideways, because your inertia cancels out the feel of sideways motion. The simplest way to show that centrifugal force cannot exist is to note that there is no way for a force to push outwards from the centre without there being a solid object for it to push with (except magnetism, and humans aren't magnetic). The centrifugal force that everyone believes in is a fictitious kind of un-gravity, some force that is somehow created by spinning objects. If it did work like that, the people standing next to the fairground ride would be pushed back as well.

752:. A current circuit with a coil with self-induction in it will not particularly resist current strength; it will conduct a wide range of current strengths. If the current circuit is super-conducting it will conduct current without the necessity to keep applying a voltage. Suppose some voltage is applied, a voltage that tends to increase the current strength. The very first change in current strength leads to a change of the magnetic field of the coil. The change of the magnetic field induces an electric field, and this induced electric field opposes the applied voltage. Inductance opposes change of current strength, but does not prevent change of current strenght, for the mechanism can only come into action when there is some change of current strength. In operation it is a self-tuning mechanism. 2416:

number of sides. And if a body, moved with a given velocity along the sides of the polygon, is reflected from the circle at the several angular points, the force, with which at every reflection it strikes the circle, will be as its velocity: and therefore the sum of the forces, in a given time, will be as that velocity and the number of reflections conjunctly; that is (if the species of the polygon be given), as the length described in that given time, and increased and diminished in the ratio of the same length to the radius of the circle; that is, as the square of that length applied to the radius; and therefore the polygon, by having its sides diminished in infinitum, coincides with the circle, as the square of the arc described in a given time applied to the radius.

543:

and opposite to the applied force. What will differ is that the gram will accelerate much faster away from you than the megagram will. Thus it seems that the megagram is pushing back "harder". It is not. They both push back according to the 3rd law, just as hard as you push on them. The difference is that the gram, when pushed on, rapidly leaves. Once it does so, it is no longer possible for you to exert a force on it, unless you follow it, and continue to push on it with the same force, which means you have to accelerate to keep up with it. But if you succeed, the forces remain equal and opposite.

296:) decided it was misleading to describe that pail on a rope as pulling on the rope, when in fact it was the rope that was pulling on the pail. And that's fine as far as it goes. It is a change in point of view. It describes circular motion as caused by the acceleration of an object, changing its direction of motion from linear to circular, due to the application of a centripetal force. It's true, it's a good way to describe it, and it probably does help in gaining an understanding of circular motion; or would have, except for what happened next. 1678:

of the stack will read 2 kilograms of weight, for it is supporting two weighing scales, the middle weighing scale will read 1 kilogram of weight. The pattern of weight readings for the stack shows that the stack is transmitting accelerating force upwards. At every level of the stack the force and the reaction force are equal in strength. Of course, because the the pilot training centrifuge is attached to the Earth it is so much heavier that any motion due to the reaction force is negligable. (Then again, a badly loaded household centrifuge

547:

pull on it. You exert a constant centripetal force on it, which results in a constant centripetal acceleration. The force, by the 2nd law, is equal to the product of the mass of the object and the centripetal acceleration. Since there is no other force on the object, the vector sum is nonzero, and the object must be under constant acceleration, which it is. Its speed does not change because there is no component of this acceleration parallel to its velocity.

31: 496:

N force. As a thought experiment, I might use a tiny, relatively massless, calibrated, 1 N rocket engine, carefully adjusted to act on the center of mass. The rocket applies a 1 N force to the mass; the mass applies a 1 N force to the rocket. Newton is vindicated again. At the end of the day, if the rocket hasn't run out of thought-fuel, the forces are both unchanged, but of course the mass is now quite far away and moving at a high speed.

304:

occurs as a result of the interaction, or not. The 3rd law holds perfectly whether you are pushing on a brick wall or whether you are pushing on a shopping cart (accelerating it). The force back on your hand by the object is the same as the force of your hand on the object. The cart accelerates not because there is something wrong with the 3rd law, but because the sum of all the forces acting on it (your hand is but one) is non-zero.

1786:(but there is also sideways velocity, so the distance to the center does not decrease.) Next in the causal chain is that inertia opposes the change of velocity, so the ball exerts a reaction force on the floor. I avoid equating inertia with the reaction force that the ball exerts on the floor. I prefer to define inertia as the property that a force is required to cause acceleration. Following that definition, inertia is not a force. -- 2548:. Scientists do not use the phrase "centrifugal force" to mean "any force oriented away from the center"; they use it to refer to one specific force, operating on one specific object, in a rotating reference frame. Just because such precision is not found in simplified explanations for non-scientists, or other encyclopedias, or even Principia Mathematica, does not mean that the other meanings have equal status. – 2032:

interaction, strong nuclear interaction, weak nuclear interaction. If motion with respect to a non-inertial coordinate system is considered, the motion is accounted for in terms of one or more forces, plus the coordinate acceleration that is involved. The coordinate acceleration is an artifact of having chosen a non-inertial coordinate system.

1653:

but this is not apparent in the intro to the article, which even erroneously suggests that a centrifugal force isn't a contact force. My suggestion: rework the intro to include the clear and correct description from the body of the article, which explains that the centrifugal force is a reaction force to a ("real", in the sense of

946:

and so can't be the cause of their increased radius. It is exerted by the weights upon the central mechanism. The centrifugal force is what closes the steam valve. The weights swing out for the usual reason: their inertial tendency to move in straight lines, unless constrained by an increased centripetal force. --

3114:

That depends on what apparent force one labels "centrifugal". Used loosely to describe inertia within an rotating reference frame, the "force" is artificial (a product of an accelerating coordinate system). On the other hand (literally), if one spins around with a brick held at arm's length, while no

3106:

No, This misconception is a very common over-reaction against the misunderstanding of inertia. The key here is not to eliminate "centrifugal" from our vocabulary but to detach it from what it is not and use it for what it fits. Since centrifugal force describes any force whose vector rotates with an

3058:

I moved this Discussion item to here: no point should be discussed between editors in the article space. IMO such points should be discussed here until the discussion is over and consensus is reached about the opinions according to the two different meanings. Below is the current state of discussion,

2325:

each other; this is a mathematical concept and is used irrespective of the physical interpretation (or lack of same) of the two vectors. We know the fictitious force, and so we deduce that a real force that is opposite to it somewhere in the system, and we call that force, whatever its origin is, the

1677:

Take a pilot training centrifuge, and put a stack of three weighing scales in the pod of the pilot training centrifuge. Let the weighing scales be 1 kilogram of weight each. Start the pilot training centrifuge, and spin up until the pod is pulling 1 G of acceleration. The weighing scale at the bottom

1652:

Somewhere in the text it is written: "the reaction force on the pivot is the centrifugal force. This identification often leads to confusion about the "fictitious" nature of the centrifugal force, because the pull on the pivot is a perfectly real force". IMO that is the best description/explanation;

1492:

a flow of momentum, by Newton's 2nd law. In a typical statics problem, gravity makes vertical momentum seep into the parts that make up a building, and we try to calculate how this momentum flows through beams and columns and ends up in the foundation; then we can check whether more momentum needs to

1440:

This can't mean what it says. We have the centripetal reaction force, and the centrifugal force. They have identical directions and magnitudes, and because their objects are connected by a structural element, we consider them both as being applied to the pivot. But if we combine the two, the combined

687:

It seems to me that Newton's third law is the key element here. Newtons third law is intimately connected to the principle of relativity of inertial motion. In the Principia the third law's formulation is very reminiscent of statics, but in its application in mechanics it is about interactons between

562:

The perfectly real and non-fictitious centrifugal (center fleeing) force is outwardly directed, and equal in magnitude to the centripetal force. It does not affect the motion of the object, but might well affect the motion of the rope, unless something pulls on the other end of it with equal force.

542:

push back, precisely equal, precicely opposite, to the applied force. This does not mean that inertia is a force, or even proportional to the force. It is neither. The force with which the object pushes back does not depend on its mass. Be it a gram or a megagram, the reaction force will be equal

495:

Now consider a 1 kg mass in space. If I apply a 1 N force on it, it will still push back with a 1 N force. It will also begin to accelerate away from me at a predictable 1 m/s^2 rate (and I from it, at a somewhat slower rate), so I will have to use some ingenuity to continue to apply that constant 1

315:

And that's the way centrifugal force should be taught. It is the Newton's 3rd law reaction force to the centripetal force. That doesn't make it false, fake, fictitious, or phantasmic. It's real. All reaction forces are real. If they weren't, rockets would not take off, and you wouldn't hurt your

307:

If centrifugal force did not exist, it would be the only known example of 3rd law failure. Thankfully, that's not the case. Centrifugal force and Centripetal force are a 3rd-law force pair, just like any other. It's certainly true that centripetal force is the force that maintains circular motion.

2636:

But I think there is a distinction to be made between the «meaning» and the «using» of a word or expression. In problems to be solved using a rotating frame, the meaning of the centrifugal force is not usually express explicity by scientists, because for them, the meaning is evident. It is like the

2560:

Alright, perhaps not completely reverted, because the statement "sloppy labeling can obscure which forces are acting upon which objects in a system" is an important one which escaped me for some time. But the statements about which forces are correctly referred to as "centrifugal" should be restored

2423:

Assuming that the translation is not erroneous, I think this settles the issue about improving the article: just as centripetal, it has nothing to do with "frames". I suggest to stick to this straightforward and traditional definition in the introduction as well as in most of the article, and to put

2213:

Using a rotating coordinate system instead of an inertial coordinate system introduces a coordinate acceleration, which must duly be taken into account. I regret that the expression 'centrifugal force' is used for the concept of coordinate acceleration. I think that using the expression 'centrifugal

2031:

Formulated as generally as possible: if the motion/acceleration with respect to the local inertial frame is considered, then all the motion/acceleration can be accounted for as a consequence of action of one or more of the four fundamental forces of Nature: gravitational interaction, electromagnetic

1836:

Another example of pseudo force is what is often called "centrifugal force". An observer in a rotating coordinate system, e.g., in a rotating box, will find mysterious forces, not accounted for by any known origin of force, throwing things outward toward the walls. These forces are due merely to the

1497:

flow of momentum whether we look at it as it arises in the ball or as it arrives at the pivot. This is similar to the Thames carrying 65 cubic metres of water per second past London Bridge and 65 cubic metres of water per second past Greenwich. We do not add up the two numbers to find the water that

1131:

Well the verification was superfluous, the matter is clear to me, to my full satisfaction. Newton was sharp-eyed indeed in formulating his third law. It is, contrary to what I thought, possible to formulate one law (the third law) that covers both statics and dynamics, the key is to always recognize

945:

Quite so, and the remedy, in my view, is not to repeat the false statement (that it does not exist), but rather to emphasize the true statement (that people tend to get confused about where it is exerted). In the case of the centrifugal governor, the centrifugal force is not exerted on the weights,

809:

It is my habit to never add any arrow for a "centrifugal force" in any diagram, because its not a force, and the diagram is supposed to represent forces. This habit of mine "protected" me from the fallacy, but I had never spotted the nature of the mistake in sticking an arrow for a centrifugal force

778:

Centripetal (center seeking) acceleration is inwardly directed, and caused strictly by the inwardly directed centripetal force. There is no disagreement on that. Since it is the only force on the object, it accounts for the only acceleration of the object. The centrifugal force does not affect it,

554:

503:

because the 1 N forces matched. All reaction pairs match, all the time. The reason the mass did not move was because the 1 N force I was applying to it was not the only force applied to it. There was an additional force applied by the glue and table. The mass did not move because the total forces

474:

Although he originally framed it as a change in momentum, we can, through a simple mathematical theorem show the two to be equivalent. The SI unit of force, the newton, is defined as the force necessary to accelerate a kilogram at a rate of 1 m/s^2. So a newton is 1 m·kg·s^-2. Force is therefore

2714:

Again, I agree with you that the centrifugal force is mostly used in rotating reference frames, the major raison being that from the standpoint of an inertial reference frame, it does not exist at all, meaning that we don't need it to explain the situation, while we absolutely need it in a rotating

2415:

And by such propositions, Mr. Huygens, in his excellent book De Horologio Oscillatorio, has compared the force of gravity with the centrifugal forces of revolving bodies. The preceding Proposition may be likewise demonstrated after this manner. In any circle suppose a polygon to be inscribed of any

2379:

Excellent time-saving calculational tools without physical meaning are not unusual in physics. For example, calculating the current in electronic oscillator components. To obtain a solution, second order differential equations must be solved, and a powerful mathematical tool to do that is to extend

1725:

The transformed equation for motion with respect to a rotating coordinate system has a socalled 'centrifugal term' and a 'coriolis term'. It is my understanding that some people follow this line of thought: there is a centrifugal term present only in the equation of motion for a rotating coordinate

1266:

10:23, 7 October 2005 (GMT) Centrifugal force is an illusion of angular momentum. The friction of an item against the spinning object that it is in or on causes it to accererate in a straight line, because forces act in straight lines. this causes the item to move along a chord of the circular path

864:

get football players in Honors Physics) push on the wall as hard as hard as he can with his flat palm. If I like, I can measure the peak force with a gauge, but the apparent effort is enough to quantify it. I ask him to remember what it felt like. After he's demonstrated his strength, I tell him

837:

Rather than an object in circular motion, consider exerting a force on a massive object at rest in space. We use our calibrated 1 N thought rocket hooked to a strong massless string to tow the object. The force on the object will cause it to accelerate in inverse proportion to its mass. The only

645:

on some college .edu web sites, boils down to a confusion between Newton's second and third laws. In his second law, all the forces on a single object are considered, and determine the change in momentum of the object. In his third law, pairs of forces between pairs of objects are considered, and

550:

And just as in every other case, there is a reaction force, applied not to the object, but by the object. It is exerted on the rope (or in the case of a circular orbit, by gravity, on the planet). It does not affect the motion of the object because it is not exerted on the object; it is exerted on

546:

The same is true of an object in circular motion, with one important difference. Since you are applying the force perpendicular to the object's motion, it does not move toward or away from you, but curves around you at a constant radius. The object does not leave the area, so you can continue to

371:

Inertia seems a bit like friction, but it is also very different. When there is friction and you can exert only so much force, then the velocity reaches a "ceiling". A car's engine can exert a lot of forward force, but at several hundred kilometers per hour there is so much drag that the car cannot

303:

Newton's Third Law tells us that unmatched forces do not exist in the universe. In any force interaction between two objects, the forces exist in pairs. Each force of each pair is the same magnitude as, and opposite in direction to, its partner. Furthermore, it does not matter whether any motion

2801:

In his coming approach, the object will go nearer and nearer of the sun, till a certain point where it will begin to go further and further away of the sun. At the approaching stage, the force acting on it is directed toward the sun; at the go away stage, the force acting on it is no more directed

2574:

Thanks for putting our attention on the inaccurcy of that latest addition, I will correct that (but according to me, that whole part is superflous). But note that the version that you refer to was full of errors and started with a derived (and rather obscure) meaning of the term. In physics, we do

2027:

Example: the retrograde motion of Mars. The keplerian orbit of Mars around the Sun is its true trajectory. The motion of Mars as seen from the Earth is a linear combination of its true trajectory and the curvilinear motion of the Earth. In other words: a linear combination of Mars' true trajectory

1927:

Hi Henning, I gather that you assert that the meaning of the expression 'centrifugal force' that you have in mind entails that it is most definitely not a force. I rather like to compare it to the expression 'retrograde motion of a planet'. The planet Mars does not actually change from prograde to

1741:

A somewhat baffling aspect of the pilot training centrifuge scenario is that there is a reaction force, but inertia itself is not a force. If you would categorize inertia as a force you would end up with self-contradiction. If you make a technical drawing of the pilot training centrifuge scenario,

1418:

There is tension in the rope, pulling inwards on the ball (the centripetal force) and simultaneously pulling outwards on the pivot (the reaction force). The tension is real, so these two forces still exist if we move to a corotating frame. However, in the rotating frame there is also a centrifugal

954:

We have that rotational dynamics is counterintuitive. So I feel that it is important to try an be helpful to people with little physics background. Sometimes the formally correct is at odds with the "common sense". I think then an effort must be made to reconcile the two; to explain to people what

887:

In the case of for example a hammer thrower in olympic hammer throwing. The only way for the hammer thrower to swing around the hammer is to make the hammer and his own body both circle around their common center of mass. Then there are two centripetal forces, pointing in opposite directions. (The

755:

When there is a coil with self-induction in a current circuit, then the current strength is by good approximation proportional to the applied voltage. By contrast, without the coil with self-induction, applying a voltage on a superconducting conductor causes an immediate jump in current strenght.

534:

forces on the object, such that vector sum of all of these is zero. The push back is irrelevant, since it is not a force applied to the object. The push back on me will, of course, determine how I move, when summed with all the other forces acting on me, but that's relevant to my motion, not the

507:

Similarly, the reason that the mass in space did accelerate was not because the reaction force did not match the applied force. Of course they must be equal and opposite, or the 3rd law fails. The reason it moved was because the 1 N force I applied to it was the only force applied to it. Absent

194:

If you have two objects exerting a force on each other, for example a repulsive force, then as soon as you let them go they will fly away from each other, but their common center of mass will remain in the same spot (or will continue in the same straight line, if it was moving in a straight line.)

2228:

I might even join you in that regret, but it is not our job here to change the terminology that people already use. We can explain the confusion as best we can, but we should not claim that words mean something else than the thing they are actually being used for, whether or not the actual use is

1785:

As you state, in the pilot training centrifuge, the first in the causal chain is the centripetal force. The floor of the centrifuge pod exerts a centripetal force on any object resting on that floor, let's say a ball rests on the floor. The centripetal force causes acceleration towards the center

1687:

If you are inside a rotating space-station, co-rotating with the station, and you trow an object, then the trajectory of the object with respect to the rotating space-station will be curvilinear. (Of course, the actual motion of the object will be along a straigh line as inertially moving objects

1660:

BTW, I'm a bit surprised by the apparently erroneous claim that this would be true only in the rotational frame. In my vocabulary, in a washing machine the centripetal force of the wall on the clothes is met by a centrifugal reaction force of the contents on the wall; this is true in the inertial

1368:

the reaction force to the centripetal force, and that the fictitious force meaning is wrong. Nonwithstanding its factual merits (I think it reflects a grave misunderstanding of the physics), the style was decidely non-encyclopedic, containing internal commentary and gems such as "For this reason,

1193:

There are two completely different definitions of centrifugal force, that were mixed and matched in the entry. The author sounded confused. I kept some of their examples, and emphasised the distinction between the two definitions, and which one is more commonly used. I also removed some confusing

1050:

Yes. Each star is pulled upon by a centripetal force arising from its companion, and reacts, according to the third law, with a centrifugal force pulling back upon the companion star. There are only two forces, but their names change depending upon which star you observe from. When considering

744:

That is somewhere between the extremes: if an object would have infinite inertia, then every finite amount of force would not move it. If an object has zero inertia, then it instantly jumps to lightspeed. But inertia is somewhere in between that: acceleration is proportional to the applied force.

525:

You said inertia seems sowhat like friction, but we've already dispensed with that idea. Inertia is mass, friction is a force. The two are not comparable. You said, "if a force is being exerted, and that does not result in acceleration, then the thing being pushed against is pushing back." In

299:

Somehow, while the new concept was making its way into the hands of middle-school educators, somebody overreacted. Rather than switching the emphasis from the centrifugal to the centripetal force, the thought pendulum swung too far, and people began teaching that there was no centrifugal force.

900:

real-world case of two-body circular motion will have an element of this sort of motion, which will be less pronounced when the masses of the objects are very different. Only a perfectly fixed center point could produce a perfectly circular path and such points do not exist. Each of the forces

675:

It is easy to tell whether someone is a victim of this confusion. Propose the following to them: "Since by the 3rd law, all forces occur in strictly balanced pairs, all acceleration is impossible." If they are tripped up by that, or begin to deny that the 3rd law applies universally, they are

653:

397:

In the general theory of relativity, the description of inertia and the description of gravitation are unified at a most profound level. In that sense, general ralativity has acknowledged how fundamentally important inertia is. In general relativity inertia is described as an interation between

2808:

What is the reason to call a force, any force, by the adjective centrifugal, it is not because that it is viewed from a rotational reference frame, or an inertial frame, or else, but because it is directed outward the center. Nothing else count! Note too, that in a rotating reference frame, the

2797:

A piece of rock coming from outer the solar system is now entering in it and is attracted by the sun. Depending on its initial direction, it will crash on the sun (or in!), or will turn around it and go away in the outer space. In the second case, his path will be a curved one called hyperbola.

1568:

Usually, when the pivot-ball example is utilized, the rope is not perpendicular to the pivot but oblique. Therefore the tension in the rope can be splitted into two component forces, one that is vertical and opposed to mg, and one that is horizontal, this last one being the centripetal force.

699:

When an observer and an object are both free-floating in space and the observer pushes an object, then according to newtonian mechanics you will both accelerate,(away from each other) but the common center of mass of the two of you will remain in inertial motion. Strictly speaking none of these

384:

It is important to recognize the tremendous importance of inertia. But remarkably it is not listed among the fundamental forces of nature: gravitation, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strond nuclear force. But then, it would lead to an inconsistency to declare by decree that inertia is 'a

142:

20:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Saying centrifugal force doesn't exist is like saying there's no such thing as a Sparrow Hawk because it's official name is American Kestrel. Centrifugal force is what people call the sensation of an outward force exerted by a spining object. It's just what people call

2371:

Let a tethered ball be circling a stationary pivot. The measurable quantities are the centripetal force, exerted by the pivot on the ball, and the reaction force, exerted by the ball on the pivot. The centripetal force and the reaction force are present both 'in the inertial frame' and 'in the

870:

When he pushes, of course, I don't resist, but move my hand back, gently yielding to all but a small amount of force. It is naturally impossible for him to push harder than I am willing to push back. "Come on," I say, "that was weak. Can't you push harder than that?" But, of course, there's

2750:

substance produced by the adrenal glands can properly be referred to as "adrenaline", even if scientists in the past may have done so. The defining characteristic of adrenaline is its molecular structure, not its place of origin, just as the defining characteristic of centrifugal force is its

1810:

by serious physicists to refer to the fictitious force that appears in the rotating system. The reaction to the centripetal force is in itself perfectly respectable, but it is a different beast and not the thing physicists do actually call centrifugal force. If you disagree, feel free to cite

580:

P.S. There are also two problems with your final paragraph above. You say that centrifugal force is actually inertia, which we had agreed was impossible, as mass and force are dimensionally distinct quantities. You also say that the centripetal acceleration is "opposed but not prevented" by

2637:

word «inertia», they don't give a definition of it each time they use it! The context is sufficient for them to know in what sense the word must be used. But here, we are in an encyclopedia open to every one. Therefore, we have to explain a little more, at least, what means the terms we use.

1160:

In the context of a rotating coordinate system the equation of motion contains a term for a centrifugal force (and a term for a coriolis force). In the context of the rotating coordinate system these fictitious forces perform the job that in the context of a non-rotating coordinate system is

2682:

You show which opinion is apparently most talkative on internet. But the version of a few days ago made many categorical general claims that are factually erroneous in classical physics, and rotating frames are little used. In any case, there is a long paragraph about the derived meaning of

1607:

Remark: As the two component forces replace the tension in the rope in the new scheme of forces acting on the ball, so we can say that these two forces are not real, at least as real as the rope, or the pivot and the ball, and thus are fictitious! The centripetal force, being the horizontal

1493:

flow through each element than it can carry (i.e. if the force on the element is larger than its strength). In the rotation problem, the centrifugal force magically makes momentum appear in the ball, and this momentum flows through the rope and into the pivot. We can then say that it is the

2023:

In physics, it is customary to refer to acceleration with respect to the local inertial frame of reference as true acceleration. On the other hand, when motion/acceleration with respect to an accelerating coordinate system is considered, it is recognized that there is some apparent motion.

1763:

I will look out for Newton's comments. In the training centrifuge scenario, the centriptal force is the causal force; according to you this is not due to inertia? According to me that force is due to the change of velocity of the chair in an inertial frame. Where is the self-contradiction?

319:

It does not help anyone's understanding of physics to imply that there are phantom or magic forces around us. And the damage done by teaching that centrifugal force does not "really" exist when it can obviously be directly experienced by anyone, fosters a distrust of empirical evidence.

1373:

university-level textbook in mechanics will describe the fictitious force meaning. I'm considering to be bold and edit to present the reaction-force meaning as a common mistake rather than a legitimate meaning, unless somebody can point to respectiable source of the reaction-force usage.

1372:

In general I have become less and less convinced that the "the real reaction force that complements the centripetal force" meaning is actually legitimate. I have been able to locate no authoritative sources that show this meaning actually being used in physics, whereas I think that every

740:

Is there anything we can say about the origin of inertia? Not all particles have mass. Photons have no mass, and they are instantly accelerated to lightspeed. Particles with inertia on the other hand, have an interesting property: the acceleration is proportional to the applied force.

2531:

Do you mean that the section 'Rotating frame of reference' of the article should be enlarged, or that the article suggest that it is use occasionally, or say it is so, or is it another meaning? If you could clarified a little bit more what you mean exactly, it would help. Thank you.

2756:

So let us reorganize the article again, distinguishing the two outward-directed forces as the "fictitious" and the "reactive" centrifugal forces. We will make no statement about which meaning is more "popular" or "important"; we will simply state the facts of usage. Do you agree? –

287:

Centrifugal force is just as "real" a force as the one a wall exerts on you if you bang your head against it. And that's what should be done to the so-called educational "experts" who, at some point, decided that there were such things as fictitious, fake, or phantom forces.

2802:

toward the sun but outward. Taking the sun as the center of the curve, we can then called the force toward the sun the centripetal force, because it is directed toward a center, and the force outward the sun the centrifugal force, because it is directed outward the center.

1628:

As these two forces are not materialised by any body, on the contrary of the tension which is materialised by the rope, so we could attribute to these two forces the name 'fictitious'. The same thing can be said of a resultant force replacing two forces seen as components.

156:

In response to a snide letter objecting to them using the term to describe a force; they reply "... yes, professors shy away from teaching first year physics students this term ... yes it is a valid concept when used within a rotating frame of reference..." (paraphrased).

2830:

Citation: 'And if the parabolic section of the cone (by changing the inclination of the cutting plane to the cone) degenerates into an hyperbola, the body will move in the perimeter of this hyperbola, having its centripetal force changed into a centrifugal force.' Newton.

143:

something that feels real to them. I think the article explains it well. If we are going to say centrifugal force doesn't exist then let's stop calling a Sunrise a Sunrise and call it what it really is ("My, what a beautiful Earth rotation we're having this morning.").

695:

The law of equilibrium of forces in the context of statics is of course quite unrelated to newtons third law of motion. If an object is glued to a table then the glue transmits (if stressed) the counterforce of the table. The table can be bolted to the floor, etc etc

2375:

Of course, the equation of motion for a rotating coordinate system is a good tool in the physicist's mathematical toolbox. But it should be recognized that their is no ground for ascribing physical meaning to the concept of 'being in a rotating frame of reference'.

104:"Physics teachers are keen to teach that the real force is centripetal force and that centifugal force is the reactionary force which balances it. Conversion of angular momentum into linear momentum is used in a number of ways, the most obvious is perhaps a sling." 2771:

I agree, except for the logical sequence: it is evident which is the original meaning that is still in use, and which the secondary meaning, from improvising Newtonian physics for rotational frames. Putting that on its head is illogical and therefore confusing.

267:

Without inertia, objects would be instantly accelerated to lightspeed. Because of inertia acceleration is proportional to the exerted force. The bottom line: inertia is not a force. Inertia involves opposition to change, but inertia never prevents the change.

398:

matter and space itself. You cannot call it friction, but space does oppose change of velocity. (Acceleration is opposed by inertia, but not prevented. Even the slightest force will get the largest object moving, it just takes more time with a weaker force.)

1982:

is not our objective; an encyclopedic compilation of ideas that are already current independently of Knowledge itself is. (Not because there is anything wrong with truth, but because Knowledge is not an appropriate medium for conducting a discussion about

940:

to swing out? Answer: an increase in angular velocity causes the weights to swing out. The weights of the centrifugal governor do exert a centrifugal force on the vertical axis. However, this centrifugal force is not involved in the weights swinging out.

1944:

Addendum. I should define here what I mean by force. I define force as a physcial interaction between two objects; if the objects can move freely, momentum is exchanged. Examples: electrostatic attraction (or repulsion) between two charged particles, and

172:

quite useful physics shorthand. In teaching physics I would never use the phrasing that 'the comet Levy-Shoemaker was ripped apart by tidal forces', but in conversation between experienced physicists I would readily use 'tidal forces' as an abbreviation.

2260:

I can be of help: against all odds I found Newton's definition of "centrifugal force". And guess what? His definiton is the same as that of Huygens, Jeepeen here above and myself. That should help to avoid changing established terminology! See below.

347:

We have that a force is required to change the velocity of an object. Newtons literal formulation of his third law looks very much like statics, but in presenting his dynamics newton used his third law in a form that today is known as conservation of

2718:

Thus what is clearly more important is not the meaning, for the simple reason that there is only one, but its utilisation, which is with the rotating frame, (agreed again!), at least, as much as we can see from the outside of the physicists world.

1211:

Those terms seem very uncommon, if there is a better way to refer to a definition, try to find it. I'd suggest breaking the article into sections, one being titled "Fictitious force" and one being titled "Reaction force", or something like that.

865:

that, through my advanced mastery of the forces of the universe, I can prevent him him from pushing on my hand with even a small fraction of that force, and challenge him to do so. I make a show of holding up my palm and bracing myself to resist.

401:

So it is best to recognize centrifugal force for what it is: inertia. When an object is being moved in a circle, it is constantly being accelerated towards the center. The acceleration towards the center is opposed, but not prevented, by inertia.

2380:

the problem to the number space of complex numbers. The complex number solutions show the way to real number solutions. That is an example of a powerful mathematical tool, without a physical counterpart to the actual mathematical operations. --

2715:

frame. But, this said, its utilisation in a rotating frame, and not in a inertial frame, does not change at all its meaning! Moreover, there is other utilisations of the concept of centrifugal force, one of them being in the Newton's Book 1.

1866:

The centrifugal force that Feynman describes there corresponds quite well to my vocabulary: it appears as a mysterious force (a pseudo-causal force) in the rotating frame; and it's a perfectly physical reaction force in the inertial frame.

1624:

To replace, means that the tension in the rope is no more there, and that in its place we have two forces. If the tension in the rope would still be there, we would have then three forces, which would not be a replacement but an addition.

1511:

Of course, viewing force as momentum flux, while true, is not a suitable mode of explanation for an elementary encyclopedia article. I'm still trying to think of a way to explain this that does not create confusion more than it enlightens.

854:

Newtonian force pairs behave like the tension in a string. They either exist in both directions equally, or they don't exist. A somewhat Zen-like rephrasing of the third law might be, "A force can be exerted only to the extent that it is

1167:

The confusion here is that a habit has grown to use the same label 'centrifugal force' for two quite different situations. Some people blindly assume that since in both situations the same name is used, it must actually be the same.

843:

All the while, the object will exert a third-law reaction force of 1 N back on the string. This is what we would call the centrifugal force, if the motion were circular. It is this force that keeps the string under tension in both

2596:

Consider this an answer to your request above for sources about "serious physicists". This is the only meaning those physicists use, and the article should identify all other meanings as being simplifications or informal usage. –

1632:

In using a system of forces, with its net force, and resultant, component, and equilibrant forces, to analyse and explain the behavior of an object, it is not necessary that each of these forces must represent a material thing.

566:

In the case of orbital motion, it is the very real centrifugal force that causes the planet to wobble as the moon revolves around it, such that the pair, viewed as an isolated syatem,revolve around their common center of mass.

206:

19:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I dislike the distinct in the article between "action forces" and... something else. I doubt it means anything. I think CT is right that the reference to Newtons 3rd law is wrong. This needs thinking

2448:

Clearly there are multiple meanings of the expression 'centrifugal force' in circulation. Knowledge neutral point of view policy calls for paying due attention to each of the meanings that is 'out there' in wide circulation.

3122:

In one application, but not all. Aside from the misunderstanding of inertia, there is also opposition to centripetal force -- but acting upon another object. Centrifugal is merely a descriptor indicating direction (like the

1498:

arrives at the North Sea; the two measurements are of the same flow of water, and in a similar sense one can view the centrifugal force and the centripetal-force reaction as the same flow of momentum, i.e., the same force.

871:

nothing he can do to exert a larger force, and the class gets the point: Forces must exist in matched pairs. You cannot touch without being touched, you cannot push (or pull) without being pushed (or pulled) in return. --

581:

inertia. This is similarly confusing because it encourages the reader to assume that there is some outward-directed something "opposing" the acceleration toward the center. In fact, there is but a single force acting

1254:. After reading through these comments, now I'm not so sure that was a good idea. Can one of you "physics" eggheads look at that article, figure out what's right, and either let me know or fix it yourself? Thanks. 2610:

Well, I have to disappoint you: I am a physical engineer, and I always used it in the Newtonian way. Jeepien above is a high school physics teacher and he obviously teaches the same. Thus your claims are outrageous.

1671:

The problem I think is that different people use the expression 'centrifugal force' in fundamentally different ways. I will present two examples of two totally different usages of the expression 'centrifugal force'.

2782:

I agree to say that the words "fictitious" and "reactive" are the ones in usage. But if someone proves us the contrary, or give us serious informations to the contrary, we will have to reconsidered the situation.

1429:

When solving statics problems in the rotating frame, one often considers a force "the same" before and after it has been conveyed by a structural element, so according to this view the reaction force on the pivot

291:

How all this started, as best I can determine, is this: an effort was made in middle school curriculum development to "correct" the understanding of the forces that give rise to circular motion. "They" (you know,

2498:

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the meaning of the term among scientists has become clarified or even modified in the last 300 years. I agree that both of the meanings described in the article are

707:

Any violation of Newtons third law is at the same time a violation of the principle of relativity of inertial motion. The principle of relativity of inertial motion makes asserting Newtons third law inevitable.

3098:

No -- Inertia may be mistaken for a centrifugal force in a rotating frame, but that is not the only application of the term "centrifugal". In an inertial reference frame, an object forced inward will push back.

2140: 2357:. For example, we can measure the physical effects of electromagnetism, therefore physicist deem it justified to postulate the existence of an electromagnetic field. Conversely, if some postulated field has 263:

Because of inertia a force is required to make an object deviate from moving in a straight line. Manifestation of inertia opposes the centripetal force, but it does not prevent the centripetal acceleration.

2974:

Smyth writes here above: "the defining characteristic of centrifugal force is its relationship to accelerating reference frames". What is the source, and who started this alternative definition? &ndash

1111:

And, of course, if you consider the center of mass itself, the vector sum of all forces toward and away from it is equal to zero, so the binary system as a whole would move with uniform (inertial) motion.

2589:. Even the 2 sites aimed at children correctly identify the centrifugal force as being suffered by the rotating object, not the fixed point. The one exception is from a meterology course, where of course 2854:

2- In the two examples that are present in this text, the first one at the beginning, and the second, the Newton-Huygens one, in the SCHOLIUM of PROPOSITION IV. THEOREM IV., the body never goes along a

2819:

You are obviously confused. In Newtonian physics, the force acting on the object is the gravitational force of the sun, and it's all the time directed towards the sun. And yes, it's a centripetal force.

1693:

It is my understanding that when people insist that centrifugal force is present exclusively 'in a rotating frame' they are referring to the context of example 2, not to the reaction force of example 1.

935:

The assertion: 'the centrifugal force does not exist' refers to the fallacy of conceptually putting the point of action of centrifugal force in the wrong place. For example: what causes the weights of a

849:

We know that a string that sustains a force on only one of its ends will not show any tension. It can't. It will simply move limply in the direction of the force. What is sometimes less clear is that

1333:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I am not the first wise person to say that. Who said it before me ? Ah, Newton did. Um, centrifigual force, reaction force to centripedal force.

1018:

As seen from the point of view of star (1) the force that is exerted upon it is a centripetal force, and the force it exerts on star (2) is in a direction that is the centrifugal direction for star (1).

636:

As long as we keep this straight, we can allow the centrifugal force to be real (after all, the pail does pull outward on the rope, and we can feel this force and measure it with a scale). But it does

628:

pull outward on the object (and therefore cannnot oppose the centripetal force), for the simple reason that the centrifugal force does not act on the object in the first place. It is the force exerted

217:

22:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) As I mention in my proposal for revision: the Newtonian description of the dynamics of circular motion is highly counter-intuitive. To many people, the newtonian description

135:. If Centrifugal force is just inertia, is gravity the same? Unless you can define a force in such a way as to make the question meaningful, I think the answer is going to be "depends on your POV". 2368:

whether you are 'in an inertial frame of reference' or 'in a rotating frame of reference'. There are no observable differences, any difference between the two is merely psychological, not physics

700:

assertions of Newtonian mechanics is provable, but it all works so well it would be absurd to demand more corroborating evidence. Does the object push back? Srictly speaking we don't know, what we

1098:

This mass difference biases our thinking as to which force should "truly" be called centripetal. This is essentially the situation of our hammer-throw competitor, or me, with my rope and bucket.

2640:

Regarding equal status or not, the official politics of wikipedia (NPOV) is to give a fair share to each one i.e. more space for the more important, and lesser space to the lesser important. --

1834:

From what I have access to right at the moment: ScienceWorld, as cited in the article, and the Feynman Lectures on Physics, volume 1, section 12-5. The relevant paragraph from the latter reads,

1343:

The problem here is that there are too many sophomores who are repeating the answers that their 2nd year tutors expect based on the musings (not publifications) of a professor in astrophysics.

3017:

Note that apparently also in some modern texts the meaning of the word "force" differs from the standard meaning of "force"; apparentely some texts mean with "force" active force. &ndash

232:

I have rewritten the article. The first section is written for people with no phyisics background at all. The first section aims to stay as close to everyday experience of motion as possible.

2863:, and at a constant speed along this line i.e. in an uniform rectilinear motion, except at the points of deviation, of course. More than that, in the first one, there is not even a circle! 2507:

shows that current scientific usage of the term is overwhelmingly limited to rotational reference frames. For the article to describe this usage as "occasional" is completely misleading. –

1598:

One component is horizontal and directed toward the pivot where the center of the plane of rotation is situated, and which component constitute the centripetal force acting on the ball.

1194:

extraneous material from the latter half of the entry. The entry could use some maths, perhaps deriving the centrifugal force from the chain rule and a time dependent coordinate change.

832:

Yes, the tension in the rope is just regular tension. And we know that tension in a rope or string is considered to "act" in either direction, depending on where we focus our attention.

711:

Newtons's third law does not trip me up. In fact, I use Newton's third law to provide a distinction between force and non-force. Force is what happens in physical interactions between

2960:

body (we can see the circle as a wall i.e. a body) a force, whatever its nature could be, is applied. In both examples, each force is as real as the other one. ( to be continued) --

2418:

This is the centrifugal force, with which the body impels the circle; and to which the contrary force, wherewith the circle continually repels the body towards the centre, is equal.

1595:

In the inertial reference frame, as well as in the rotational reference frame, we must split the tension in the rope into two component forces to explain the behavior of the ball.

344:

The thing to recognize, I think, is that inertia is real. Inertia is always there, it is omnipresent. And paradoxically, because it is never absent, inertia tends to be overlooked.

2277:

That is a very misleading statement. Coordinate acceleration is an artifact of employing a non-inertial coordinate system. The suggestion that coordinate acceleration can either

1064:

An outside observer might look at the force diagram and consider each of the arrows to be centripetal (=) until it reached the center of mass (X), and centrifugal (-) thereafter:

736:

clearly, the expressions 'ínertia' and 'mass' are interchangable. The amount of mass is measured by measuring the ratio of amount of force and the resulting acceleration (m=F/a).

352:. If we have object floating in space, and object A is exerting a force on object B, then both will accelerate, in opposite directions. The center of mass will not start moving. 3083:. If there is any force acting inward upon an object, then it exerts an equal and opposite force that may be acting outward at the point of contact -- upon a separate object. 551:

whatever is pulling on the object. By the 3rd law, this force is equal in magnitude, and opposite in direction to the centripetal force. It is called the centrifugal force.

838:

force on the object will be that applied by the string, so the acceleration vector will be toward the rocket. The acceleration will continue as long as the force is applied.

378:

Because of the existence of inertia, we have the property that the amount of acceleration is proportional to the force. Twice as much force means accelerating twice as hard.

2321:

When the body is stationary in the rotating frame, the left-hand-side of this equation is zero; thus so must the right-hand side be. Two vectors that add to zero are said to

1246:

Can somebody help a Knowledge-editor-wannabe (me) who barely got through high school physics? while checking up on some WikiLinks in other articles, I linked the article on

388:

The four fundamental forces have in common that they are interactions between pairs of object. It is a force when momentum is exchanged between two objects, for example in a

2275:"Whenever a body is stationary in a rotating frame, there must be some force that cancels out the centrifugal force, or it would be seen to accelerate away from the center." 358:

We do have a law of statics that looks the same: if a force is being exerted, and that does not result in acceleration, then the thing being pushed against is pushing back.

3127:

exerted by an inclined plane). "Centrifugal force" becomes a useful term when used to describe the force with which an object pushes back when forced into circular motion.

2201: 2174: 2066: 2334:

want to be moving between frames) and show how the existence of the real centripetal force can be shown there, and how it happens to be minus the "fictitious force" term.

2805:

In this example, there is no need of a rotating frame to have a centrifugal force. The only thing that it is needed, it's to know the direction of the force. That's all!

475:

dimensionally different from mass, and cannot be compared to it (i.e, added subtracted or added). We will avoid using them interchangeably, or otherwise confusing them.

2711:

In my point of view, of the four texts that you have submited, #6 is the best one, and even the best one that I have seen up to now among all those vulgarisation texts.

2654: 168:

I think the professors that avoid using the term to an audiance of first year physics students are right. A rotating reference frame isn't a valid concept. However, it

1051:

third-law force pairs, the question of which force is "really" the action force and which is the reaction force is rarely clear-cut, and often varies with the observer.

472: 147:

Prof. Enrico Lorenzini (of Harvard) and Prof. Juan Sanmartin (of the Polytechnic University of Madrid) have an interesting discussion on this in the Dec 2004 issue of

2206:

So of course it is possible to transform the equation of motion to a rotating coordinates system, but it should be recognized that the transformed equation of motion

619: 2665:

There is no confusion here: it's clear which meaning scientists consider to be the "more important" one, and it's not the one currently asserted by the article. It

1928:

retrograde motion, it only seems so as seen from the Earth. The true motion of Mars is its eccentric orbit around the Sun, the retrograde motion is apparent motion.

803:

The frequent fallacy is that when an arrow for a centrifugal force is added to a diagram representing forces it is all too often added to the center of mass of the

421:

I'm sorry, but there's still a good deal of misconception here. Let's address this in Newtonian terms, with non-quantum, macroscopic objects like pails and ropes.

2964: 1425:

So we have three forces, the odd number arising because the centrifugal force is fictitious and has no third-law counterpart. So far so good. But then you write:

1198:

Can I define the terms "fictitious centrifugal force" and "reactive centrifugal force" and use them in this article, or would that count as original research? --

252:

The centrifugal force may be understood as arising from the tendency of the stone to move in a straight line, or a path tangential to its position on the circle.

796:

When I am swinging around a weight on the end of a rope, then the tension in the rope is just regular tension. So the weight is exerting a centrifugal force on

492:

Consider a 1 kg mass glued to the table. If I apply a 1 N force to it, it will push back with a 1 N force. Newton is vindicated, at least in the static case.

478:

Mass (inertia) does not "push". Force pushes; mass resists pushing. It resists in the sense that a larger mass under a given force does not accelerate as much.

432:. To determine the inertia of an object, it is sufficient to know its mass. It depends upon nothing else. So let us drop the word inertia and speak of mass. 1978:

not be called a force, but in an encyclopedia it is our taske to describe things with the terminology that people out there actually use. Remember that truth

485:

exert an equal and opposite force on me. Note well the use of the word "always". There are no exceptions. In particular, there is no exception for static

2478:

In the Newton's example above, the two forces doesn't act on the same object: the centrifugal acts on the circle, and the centripetal acts on the object.

2243:

You can edit all you want, as long as you do not try to use Knowledge as a tool to change established terminology. That is not what an encyclopedia is

641:

pull outward on the pail. The only force upon the pail is inward, as confirmed by its strictly inward acceleration in accordance with the second law.

375:

But with inertia it is a different story. There is inertia, but there is no "ceiling" to velocity (at least not until you go at a relativistic speed)

919:

is both a centripetal and a centrifugal force, depending on your point of view. What matters is whether you consider the force to be exerted inward

260:

would be prevented from maintaining the circular motion. The circular motion is maintained, so there is only one force at play: centripetal force.

1708:

Cleon, thanks for the clarification; but the second interpretation is a contradiction in terms with "centrifugal", for the curvilinear motion does

1622:

To split the tension in the rope into two component forces, is like to replace this force, the tension in the rope, by two other different forces.

715:

of objects. Inertia involves an interaction, but there is only a single object, so important as it is, inertia is not to be categorized as a force

2738:

of "centrifugal force" is "any force directed away from the center of rotation"? In that case, I think you are confusing meaning with derivation.

973:(The two stars of a double star system both rotate around their common center of mass. That looks like a no-centrifugal-force scenario to me.) -- 2326:

centripetal force. We could also have deduced the centripetal force by working in an inertial frame, but my point in this paragraph was to work

131:

11:24, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Is it a force...? Firstly, your dictionary isn't going to help. Its harder than that. See-also the talk (and text) at

94:

A centripetal force acts to keep the object in circular motion, and a reaction force is imposed on whatever is providing the centripetal force.

508:

some other force, such as friction, this motive force was unbalanced, and the mass accelerated in the direction of the force applied to it.

1729:

The centrifugal term in the transformed equation for motion with respect to a rotating coordinate system does point in centrifugal direction.

1738:

Unfortunately, Newton did not express himself clearly when making statements about centrifugal force. Citing Newton is probably not helpful.

1361: 1326: 3107:

object of interest to act continuously outwardly, it accurately describes forces like the passenger acting upon a car door during a turn.

2372:

rotating frame'. Any postulated centrifugal force that is supposed to be present only "in the rotating frame" is inherently unmeasurable.

888:

two stars of a double star system both rotate around their common center of mass. That looks like a no-centrifugal-force scenario to me.)

588:

By saying that it is opposed in some way, you are dancing on the edge of the pit of the very fallacy you are seeking to debunk. There is

2985:

I have given a very large number of sources that show this to be a current definition, though I can't answer your historical question. –

1164:

Sometimes it is formulated as follows: "Centrifugal force is present only in a rotating coordinate system." That sounds very odd to me.

1357: 621:. It isn't, because there is no force pulling outward on the object, not even a "phantom" one. And certainly not a "centrifugal" one. 364:

Can we say that inertia is pushing back? Well no, for if inertia would be pushing back then there would be no acceleration, and inertia

2586: 2504: 882:

A stone is being swung around on the end of a rope: the stone is exerting a force in centrifugal direction on the central pivot point.

1601:

The second component is vertical and directed upward, which component constitute the opposite force to the gravitational force (mg).

1353: 585:, and it alone (and unopposed) is fully responsible for the acceleration of the object. This is, of course, the centripetal force. 308:

And it's a wise way to approach teaching the matter. But it's a simple physical fact that when the rope pulls on the pail, the pail

2361:, then a physicist should not bother to postulate it, much like physicists do not bother anymore to postulate a luminiferous ether. 2074: 684:

Hi Jeepien, I think you and I do not really disagree. I may use rather different metaphores but I doubt there is a real difference.

530:

be pushing back equally, whether it accelerates or not. What the lack of acceleration truly means is that there must be one or more

2285:

by a physical force does not apply. Coordinate acceleration is frame-dependent, an exerted physical force is frame-independent. --

538:

Your statement,"if inertia would be pushing back then there would be no acceleration," is incorrect for the same reason. Inertia

2696:

I show which opinion is overwhelmingly expressed on .edu sites on the Internet. What "categorical general claims" do you mean? –

2035:

The only way to formulate laws of motion at all is to consider the motion with respect to the local inertial frame of reference.

81: 76: 71: 59: 1691:

Some people insist that the expression 'centrifugal force' should be used exclusively to express what is portrayed in example 2.

1636:

To use a system of forces in the way exposed above, is simply to adopt a certain view of the mind on the situation under study.

800:, and if I am to remain stationary I must brace myself. The weight, unattached to anything but the rope, is being accelerated. 644:

This entire muddle, which is all too common in textbooks, well-meaning popularized science explanations, and even <gulp: -->

511:

Just as in the static case, the reaction force is irrelevant in determining the motion of the object, since it was not exerted

2870:

and same areas of triangle. Each triangle have their summit at the same point S, the focal point. Each impulse comes from the

1712:

generally correspond to a centrifugal force... Hmm, I think that Newton wrote about it; then it may help to cite him on this!

2658: 2424:

alternative "modern" interpretations in a separate paragraph (it would still be interesting to find out who kooked them up).

1821:

Henning, your claim about "serious physicists"is tendentious (and I know it to be wrong). What are your respectable sources?

535:

object's. This is why free-body diagrams only show the forces on a single object at a time, and not the forces they exert.

1171:

I try to spot that kind of confusion, and avoid it. When thinking about rotational dynamics, for example the dynamics of a

394:

Inertia, important as it is, is not an interaction between two objects; you cannot use inertia by itself for a slingshot.

2751:

relationship to accelerating reference frames, not merely its orientation. At least, that is what the above search shows.

1688:

move along a straight line.) The curvilinear trajectory can be described by inferring a centrifugal acceleration factor.

2466:

Sure. I also left both meanings in the intro, just as it was before. Any idea where the alternative meaning originated?

1228: 759:

It is not clear how far the analogy between inertia and inductance extends, but I find it an interesting analogy. --

2585:"Derived and rather obscure"? That is the definition used by 9 out of the first 10 results of the above-referenced 2388: 1020:

Likewise, as seen from the point of view of star (2) the force that is exerted upon it is a centripetal force, etc.

592:

opposing the centripetal force on the object. If there were, its acceleration would be less than that predicted by

38: 927:

a star (centrifugal). Of course each force is truly both, since each is exerted by one star upon its companion.--

284:

I'm dismayed to see the amount of damage that has been done to physics literacy by the "Fictitious Force" falacy.

2809:

centripetal force is also in the same frame and it is not called centrifugal just because it is in that frame! --

1384: 1180: 1137: 1034: 978: 960: 815: 764: 723: 409: 326:

The wiki article needs to be fixed, but I hesitate to take a crack at it myself, because it's not a simple edit.

273: 203: 128: 256:

I have removed this remark because it leads to an inconsistency. If there would be a centrifugal force then the

3075:

No, that's overstating the case. Although an object's inertia should not be mistaken for a force acting upon

1604:

These two vertical forces explain why the ball doesn't move upward or downward i.e. stay at the same height.

1946: 1397:

So done. On further thought it does make sense to identify the reaction force with the centrifugal force in

1172: 389: 2593:

calculation is done from within a rotating reference frame, and a little oversimplification is forgivable.

1475:

forces, because the outer half of the rope pulls the inner half of the rope with the same force, and so on.

650:

exerted on the same object, so they can not be said to cancel, or balance or otherwise oppose each other.

1931:

I think the name 'centrifugal force' is unfortunate, since what you have in mind is not a force at all. --

1529:

I think you've done an excellent job – the article is definitely better now than it's ever been before. –

47: 17: 2961: 2485: 2006: 1577: 330: 3115:

real force pulls the brick outward, the brick does exert a very real centrifugal force upon one's hand.

3001:

Currently the article has no reference list. Perhaps you'd like to contribute by putting your selection

2660: 2239:

That makes me unsuitable for editing wikipedia, for I have a severe dislike of misleading terminology.

1837:

fact that the observer does not have Newton's coordinate system, which is the simplest coordinat system.

1263: 718:

I will have another good look at what you wrote, to see if I should stop using particular metaphores. --

108: 98: 1574:

In an inertial reference frame, it is not, simply because there is no centrifugal force in that frame.

1572:

In a rotational reference frame, the horizontal component is in opposition with the centrifugal force.

381:

In all, friction relates to velocity, but inertia is a level higher, inertia relates to acceleration.

2335: 2248: 2230: 1988: 1905: 1848: 1812: 1550: 1513: 1402: 1374: 1176: 1133: 1030: 974: 956: 937: 811: 760: 719: 405: 269: 237: 214: 188: 174: 2842: 2405:

centripetal force and centrifugal force, action-reaction force pair associated with circular motion.

726: 3132:

An outward reaction force against an object exerting centripetal force is a real centrifugal force.

191:

16:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) Newton's third law of motion deals with conservation of linear momentum.

2210:. Any law of motion that actually works is in one way or another referring to the inertial frame. 107:

What does that mean? Maybe the second part is right, but the first part is (hopefully) incorrect.

1273:

That's a great answer. But I'm not sure if it answered my question. Simply put, is the link to

2866:

3- In the first one, the body receive impulses at equal amount of times, thus at same lenght of

2179: 2152: 2044: 1029:

The diagram representing forces being exerted in the double star system contains two arrows. --

2920:, by its direction and its point of application: in the first example, the force is directed 2848: 2454: 2398:

I found back some definitions by others. For example, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia

2385: 2290: 2219: 1954: 1936: 1791: 1747: 1699: 1274: 1251: 257: 2843:

Newton's BOOK I. OF THE MOTION OF BODIES. SECTION II. Of the invention of Centripetal Forces.

2913:, and it is not at all fictitious or fallacious or imaginary or other seemingly expression. 1221: 442: 3032: 2990: 2762: 2701: 2674: 2602: 2566: 2553: 2512: 1742:

and you put in arrows to represent forces, then you do not put in an arrow for inertia. --

1534: 1450: 1081:

The same would be true if the stars were of different masses, shifting the center of mass:

860:

I illustrate this to my Physics students by having the strongest guy in the class (yes, I

2484:

This make a big difference and ... a lot of confusion if we don't see that difference! --

676:

victims. If they can easily point out the fallacy, they have their concepts straight. --

595: 3141: 3045: 3034: 3021: 3009: 2992: 2979: 2837: 2824: 2813: 2787: 2776: 2764: 2723: 2703: 2687: 2676: 2644: 2615: 2604: 2579: 2568: 2555: 2538: 2524: 2514: 2488: 2470: 2457: 2437: 2428: 2338: 2293: 2265: 2251: 2233: 2222: 2013: 1991: 1957: 1939: 1908: 1871: 1851: 1825: 1815: 1794: 1768: 1750: 1716: 1702: 1665: 1642: 1612: 1585: 1553: 1536: 1516: 1452: 1405: 1387: 1377: 1310: 1285: 1258: 1233: 1202: 1183: 1175:

I do all the thinking from/in the perspective of the non-rotating frame of reference. --

1140: 1037: 981: 963: 818: 793:

I see now how my words can seem to teeter on the brink of the fallacy I seek to debunk.

767: 499:

Note well, that the reason the first mass did not accelerate, in fact did not move, was

412: 333: 3002: 2743: 2656: 2299:

In the rotating frame, the movement of the body is described by a modified second law:

1306:. This makes balancing easier." I think that is more relevant than centrifugal force.-- 1282: 1278: 1255: 1247: 654:

victims. If they can easily point out the fallacy, they have their concepts straight.

139: 132: 1896:. That is the force that people in general call centrifugal force. The reaction force 3138: 3042: 3018: 3006: 2976: 2821: 2773: 2684: 2612: 2576: 2521: 2467: 2434: 2425: 2262: 1868: 1822: 1765: 1713: 1662: 1199: 3096:

frame of reference, irrespective of whether the object follows the frame's rotation.

368:. So it would lead to an inconsistency if we would decree: inertia is pushing back. 3124: 2450: 2381: 2286: 2215: 1950: 1932: 1787: 1743: 1695: 1401:, so I have added an explanation of this in lieu of the "two definitions" concept. 1307: 1113: 1006: 1005:

is both a centripetal and a centrifugal force, depending on your point of view. --

947: 928: 872: 784: 677: 668: 658: 574: 2834: 2810: 2784: 2720: 2641: 2535: 2399: 2010: 1639: 1609: 1582: 896:

centrifugal forces. And this is not unique to hammer throwers and binary stars.

481:

Newton's third law says that whatever force I exert on an object, the object will

2851:

for having bring to our attention this remarquable demonstration made by Newton.

2410: 1281:? Yes? No? If not, can somebody fix it or tell me what is more appropriate? 1216: 1213: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2905:

i.e. any side of the polygone. The force generated by this impulse is directed

2649:

In most of the pages I found, it is explicitly stated that "centrifugal force"

2629:

I agree that the centrifugal force is mostly used in rotating reference frames.

3028: 2986: 2758: 2739: 2697: 2670: 2662:. In the others, the phrase is used in such a way as to imply the same thing. 2598: 2562: 2549: 2508: 1530: 1446: 749: 2520:

I agree, and there is no reason for such a word at all. Correct immediately.

2068:

be the rotation rate with respect to the local inertial frame of reference.

1299: 428:

is not a force. Inertia is, for all intents and purposes the same thing as

2039:. For example, the correction term for centrifugal coordinate acceleration: 1847:(which, however, is in Danish, and so may not be individually convincing). 115:

My dictionary (Webster New World, 1968) says that "Centrifugal force" is a

3064:

Some commonly encountered misconceptions about centrifugal force include:

236:

The final sections assume that the reader has a lot of physics knowledge.

2481:

In a rotational reference frame, the two forces act on the same object.

349: 198:

Newtons third law of motion does not refer to objects that remain solid.

158: 120: 2575:

not commonly regard rotating frames as valid physical reference frames.

1726:

system, hence there is only a centrifugal force 'in the rotating frame'.

3069:

No matter how objects move, there is never any centrifugal force in an

2952:: if outward, it is centrifugal; if inward, it is centripetal. It does 1892:

No it does not: Feynman clearly describes a force that appears to act

1369:

teachers of science have gone bizzare and started to *emphasize* ..."

1900:

appears in the rotating frame, but there is nothing mysterious about

355:

So it is a bit awkward to use Newtons third law as a law of statics.

2878:

in the direction of the focal point S. This impulse is called here:

2330:(because I'm building up to doing statics there, and in statics you 1348:

In the context of motion on earth, centrifigual force is quite real.

892:

Not at all, unless you're repealing the third law. It is a case of

1806:

Harald, my contention is that the term "centrifugal force" is only

1383:

Be bold, give it a go, people will complain if they don't like it!

1352:

I have previously edited this article anonymously from IP addreses

570:

And there is nothing in the least bit fictitious about any of it.

2683:

centrifugal force in a rotating frame, so where is your problem?

2037:

All laws of motion refer to the local inertial frame of reference

633:

the object upon whatever is constraining it to a circular path.

2135:{\displaystyle F_{c}=-m\omega _{i}\times (\omega _{i}\times r)} 1338:

Inertia is a force. F=MA. M is inertial , so therefor F is to !

1303: 25: 779:

not because it's fictitious, but because it's exerted on a

555:

not because it's fictitious, but because it's exerted on a

2901:

an impulse when the body hurts this circle, coming from a

1974:

You are quite welcome to think that the centrifugal force

2214:

force' in that way is an open invitation to confusion. --

1608:

component, can therefore be called a fictitious force. --

97:"Centrifugal force" is not a force - it is just inertia. 2394:

Long time established terminology -- according to Newton

1488:

How can I explain? The way I think myself is that force

312:

pull back. It has no choice. Forces exist in pairs.

2669:

the one asserted by the version of several days ago. –

2545: 748:

There is an interesting analogy with the phenomenon of

3041:

A force that deviates an object from inertial motion.

2208:

is still referring to the inertial frame of reference

2182: 2155: 2077: 2047: 598: 445: 3137:

Upto here was the discussion (without my comments).

3104:

It is always wrong to speak about centrifugal force.

1364:

which attempted to assert that centrifugal force is

3120:

Centrifugal force is just another word for inertia.

2544:I mean that the article should be reverted to the 2203:refers to the local inertial frame of reference. 2195: 2168: 2134: 2060: 613: 466: 2909:the circle and polygone, and it is called here: 1414:Good work. I have just one question. You write: 2273:Currently, the article contains the statement: 526:fact, it means no such thing. The object must 1360:). I have mostly reverted the article edit by 1298:I changed it to "Plate spinning relies on the 3112:Centrifugal force is not fictitious but real. 1156:The origin of the expression fictitious force 773:The force that is exerted on the other object 522:So, some of your statements are incorrect: 8: 1302:effect, like it also applies for a spinning 234:As the article goes on, the level increases. 2742:is so called because it is produced by the 2928:; in the Newton-Huygens one, the force is 2918:the centripetal force of the first example 2793:Centrifugal force without a rotating frame 2345:The concept of 'being in a rotating frame' 1445:the centrifugal force, not equal to it. – 3027:What do you mean by an "active force"? – 2187: 2181: 2160: 2154: 2117: 2101: 2082: 2076: 2052: 2046: 1016:Let me verify I understand you correctly: 597: 444: 3079:, that doesn't stop it from acting upon 2889:4- In the Newton-Huygens one, it is the 2344: 923:a star (centripetal) or exerted outward 664:The siginificance of Newton's Third Law 244:How circular motion is to be understood 2019:The concept of coordinate acceleration 1471:them. We could also measure the force 1419:force that pulls outwards on the ball. 987:Each of the forces between two stars, 704:is that Newtons third law holds good. 435:Force is the product of a mass and an 221:wrong. I think that is the main issue. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2970:New terminology -- according to whom? 2847:1- First, thanks to our collaborator 1321:More on reaction to centrifugal force 1277:appropriately used in the article on 624:Remember, the centrifugal force does 316:head if you banged it on the wall. 7: 2349:In physics, only things that can be 1580:05:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC) ---: --> 1325:The following unsigned text is from 3092:occur when objects are viewed in a 2364:Clearly, there is no such thing as 183: 424:For background, let us agree that 90:"Centrifugal force" is not a force 24: 2874:of the triangles and is directed 2503:, but it is a fact that even the 2353:are considered to be things with 2653:exists in an accelerating frame 2546:version of 14:21, 3 January 2006 2433:PS I already adapted the intro. 439:. This is Newton's second law. 29: 2028:and a coordinate acceleration. 2009:06:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC) -- 2003:Centrifugal force: 2 citations 1242:What does "plate spinning" use? 969:Depending on your point of view 2746:. But this does not mean that 2734:Aiki, are you saying that the 2129: 2110: 1234:23:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 1203:17:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC) 791:This is a quite astute remark. 504:on the mass summed to zero. 461: 446: 323:Beyond that, it's just wrong. 280:Centrifugal Force *is* a force 228:Rewrite of the article, 30 jan 1: 3059:I number the points for ease. 2622:The «meaning» and the «using» 2561:to what that version said. – 1554:00:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 1537:21:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 1517:00:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 1453:14:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 1441:force on the pivot should be 1406:11:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 1388:15:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 1378:23:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 366:does not prevent acceleration 3142:08:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 3046:19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 3035:17:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 3010:19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2993:17:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2788:04:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2014:05:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 1845:Den Store Danske Encyklopædi 1643:00:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC) 1613:05:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1311:16:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 1286:13:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 184:Newton's third law of motion 3022:11:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 2980:11:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 2965:20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 2838:04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 2825:20:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 2814:19:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 2777:11:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 2765:11:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 2724:03:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 2704:11:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 2688:03:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 2677:19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 2645:18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 2616:03:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 2605:18:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 2580:17:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 2569:17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 2556:16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 2539:15:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 2525:15:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 2515:13:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 2489:04:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 2471:21:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 2458:20:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 2438:19:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 2429:19:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 2409:But also Newton, Principia 2389:15:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 2339:14:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 2294:14:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 2266:19:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 2252:14:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 2234:13:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 2223:11:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 2196:{\displaystyle \omega _{i}} 2169:{\displaystyle \omega _{i}} 2061:{\displaystyle \omega _{i}} 1992:13:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1958:03:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1940:02:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1909:13:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1872:13:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1852:00:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1826:00:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1816:00:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1795:01:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 1769:23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1751:20:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1717:19:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1703:19:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1666:18:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1586:04:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 1259:02:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1184:17:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC) 1141:17:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC) 1038:05:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC) 955:the tempting fallacy is. -- 577:02:31:43, 2005-08-01 (UTC) 341:I will try to answer this. 329:Anyone have suggestions? -- 3157: 3052:Some common misconceptions 2859:path. It always goes in a 1116:15:58:41, 2005-08-10 (UTC) 1009:17:55:48, 2005-08-09 (UTC) 982:17:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 964:17:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 950:17:55:48, 2005-08-09 (UTC) 931:17:55:48, 2005-08-09 (UTC) 875:15:05:30, 2005-08-08 (UTC) 819:12:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 787:02:31:43, 2005-08-01 (UTC) 768:10:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 727:10:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 680:02:31:43, 2005-08-01 (UTC) 2328:within the rotating frame 663: 413:18:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC) 334:17:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC) 276:14:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) 240:07:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) 111:09:11, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) 101:09:00, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) 2729:Proposition of agreement 1648:improve first paragraph? 1132:the reciprocal pairs. -- 1090:X <---============= 1073:X <--------======== 177:09:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) 161:03:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) 123:16:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) 3005:of good sources there. 1947:gravitational slingshot 1173:gravitational slingshot 515:the object, but rather 390:gravitational slingshot 2494:Usage as "occasional"? 2197: 2170: 2136: 2062: 1434:the centrifugal force. 810:on the wrong object -- 615: 489:kinetic situations. 468: 467:{\displaystyle (F=ma)} 18:Talk:Centrifugal force 2911:the centrifugal force 2880:the centripetal force 2359:no observable effects 2281:a physical force, or 2198: 2171: 2137: 2063: 1811:respectable sources. 1089:===-------------: --> 1072:========--------: --> 616: 469: 42:of past discussions. 2180: 2153: 2145:The correction term 2075: 2045: 1682:wobble violently.) 1385:William M. Connolley 938:centrifugal governor 614:{\displaystyle F=ma} 596: 443: 248:202.156.2.82 wrote: 204:William M. Connolley 129:William M. Connolley 3088:Centrifugal forces 3073:frame of reference. 2932:and applied on the 2924:and applied on the 2505:most obvious search 1894:on the object iself 1161:performed by F=ma. 901:between two stars, 885:Additional remarks: 880:So, recapitulating: 2420:(emphasis mine). 2229:desirable or not. 2193: 2166: 2132: 2058: 1657:) contact force. 1564:Pivot-ball example 611: 464: 149:Scientific America 2956:depend at all on 2916:It's differ from 2443:multiple meanings 2311:fictitious forces 1839:Also the article 1275:Centrifugal force 1252:Centrifugal force 258:centripetal force 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3148: 2355:physical meaning 2202: 2200: 2199: 2194: 2192: 2191: 2175: 2173: 2172: 2167: 2165: 2164: 2141: 2139: 2138: 2133: 2122: 2121: 2106: 2105: 2087: 2086: 2067: 2065: 2064: 2059: 2057: 2056: 1841:centrifugalkraft 1618:View of the mind 1591:Component forces 1231: 1226: 1219: 781:different object 732:Inertia and Mass 620: 618: 617: 612: 557:different object 473: 471: 470: 465: 300:That's rubbish. 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3156: 3155: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3054: 2972: 2882:, and is apply 2845: 2795: 2731: 2624: 2496: 2445: 2396: 2347: 2336:Henning Makholm 2249:Henning Makholm 2231:Henning Makholm 2183: 2178: 2177: 2156: 2151: 2150: 2113: 2097: 2078: 2073: 2072: 2048: 2043: 2042: 2021: 1989:Henning Makholm 1987:the truth is). 1906:Henning Makholm 1849:Henning Makholm 1813:Henning Makholm 1650: 1620: 1593: 1566: 1551:Henning Makholm 1514:Henning Makholm 1403:Henning Makholm 1375:Henning Makholm 1323: 1244: 1229: 1222: 1217: 1191: 1189:Two Definitions 1177:Cleon Teunissen 1158: 1134:Cleon Teunissen 1091: 1074: 1031:Cleon Teunissen 1003: 994: 975:Cleon Teunissen 971: 957:Cleon Teunissen 917: 908: 812:Cleon Teunissen 805:swinging weight 775: 761:Cleon Teunissen 734: 720:Cleon Teunissen 666: 646:two forces are 594: 593: 441: 440: 406:Cleon Teunissen 282: 270:Cleon Teunissen 246: 238:Cleon Teunissen 230: 215:Cleon Teunissen 189:Cleon Teunissen 186: 175:Cleon Teunissen 92: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3154: 3152: 3125:"normal" force 3053: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3038: 3037: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 2996: 2995: 2971: 2968: 2962:24.202.163.194 2844: 2841: 2832: 2828: 2827: 2794: 2791: 2780: 2779: 2768: 2767: 2753: 2752: 2744:adrenal glands 2730: 2727: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2691: 2690: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2623: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2583: 2582: 2542: 2541: 2533: 2528: 2527: 2495: 2492: 2486:24.202.163.194 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2461: 2460: 2444: 2441: 2395: 2392: 2346: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2255: 2254: 2237: 2236: 2190: 2186: 2163: 2159: 2143: 2142: 2131: 2128: 2125: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2109: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2093: 2090: 2085: 2081: 2055: 2051: 2040: 2020: 2017: 2007:24.202.163.194 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1942: 1929: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1904:in any frame. 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1829: 1828: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1739: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1727: 1720: 1719: 1692: 1686: 1676: 1669: 1649: 1646: 1637: 1623: 1619: 1616: 1592: 1589: 1578:24.202.163.194 1575: 1573: 1565: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1456: 1455: 1443:exactly double 1438: 1437: 1436: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1392: 1391: 1362:220.233.107.29 1350: 1349: 1345: 1344: 1340: 1339: 1335: 1334: 1327:220.233.107.29 1322: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1279:Plate spinning 1248:Plate spinning 1243: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1206: 1205: 1190: 1187: 1157: 1154: 1152: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1019: 1017: 1011: 1010: 1001: 992: 970: 967: 952: 951: 933: 932: 915: 906: 886: 881: 879: 877: 876: 867: 866: 857: 856: 846: 845: 840: 839: 834: 833: 829: 828: 823: 808: 792: 789: 788: 774: 771: 737: 733: 730: 682: 681: 665: 662: 610: 607: 604: 601: 463: 460: 457: 454: 451: 448: 419: 417: 403: 361:Now, inertia. 338: 331:68.239.184.113 281: 278: 254: 253: 245: 242: 235: 233: 229: 226: 225: 224: 223: 222: 209: 208: 185: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 163: 162: 153: 152: 133:Coriolis force 125: 124: 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3153: 3144: 3143: 3140: 3135: 3133: 3128: 3126: 3121: 3116: 3113: 3108: 3105: 3100: 3097: 3095: 3091: 3084: 3082: 3081:other objects 3078: 3074: 3072: 3065: 3062: 3060: 3051: 3047: 3044: 3040: 3039: 3036: 3033: 3030: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3020: 3011: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2994: 2991: 2988: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2978: 2969: 2967: 2966: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2914: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2903:straight line 2900: 2896: 2892: 2887: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2868:straight line 2864: 2862: 2861:straight line 2858: 2852: 2850: 2840: 2839: 2836: 2826: 2823: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2812: 2806: 2803: 2799: 2792: 2790: 2789: 2786: 2778: 2775: 2770: 2769: 2766: 2763: 2760: 2755: 2754: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2732: 2728: 2726: 2725: 2722: 2716: 2712: 2705: 2702: 2699: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2689: 2686: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2675: 2672: 2668: 2663: 2661: 2659: 2657: 2655: 2652: 2647: 2646: 2643: 2638: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2614: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2603: 2600: 2594: 2592: 2588: 2581: 2578: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2567: 2564: 2558: 2557: 2554: 2551: 2547: 2540: 2537: 2530: 2529: 2526: 2523: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2513: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2493: 2491: 2490: 2487: 2482: 2479: 2472: 2469: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2459: 2456: 2452: 2447: 2446: 2442: 2440: 2439: 2436: 2431: 2430: 2427: 2421: 2419: 2413: 2411: 2407: 2406: 2402: 2400: 2393: 2391: 2390: 2387: 2383: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2367: 2362: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2340: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2301: 2300: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2267: 2264: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2253: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2235: 2232: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2221: 2217: 2211: 2209: 2204: 2188: 2184: 2161: 2157: 2148: 2126: 2123: 2118: 2114: 2107: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2091: 2088: 2083: 2079: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2053: 2049: 2038: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2018: 2016: 2015: 2012: 2008: 2004: 1993: 1990: 1986: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1959: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1943: 1941: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1910: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1873: 1870: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1853: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1827: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1814: 1809: 1796: 1793: 1789: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1770: 1767: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1752: 1749: 1745: 1740: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1728: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1718: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1701: 1697: 1689: 1683: 1681: 1673: 1668: 1667: 1664: 1658: 1656: 1647: 1645: 1644: 1641: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1617: 1615: 1614: 1611: 1605: 1602: 1599: 1596: 1590: 1588: 1587: 1584: 1579: 1570: 1563: 1555: 1552: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1538: 1535: 1532: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1518: 1515: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1496: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1454: 1451: 1448: 1444: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1426: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1415: 1413: 1412: 1407: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1389: 1386: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1376: 1370: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1358:192.38.79.130 1355: 1347: 1346: 1342: 1341: 1337: 1336: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1328: 1320: 1312: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1287: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1265: 1264:random_factor 1261: 1260: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1241: 1235: 1232: 1227: 1225: 1220: 1214: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1204: 1201: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1188: 1186: 1185: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1169: 1165: 1162: 1155: 1153: 1142: 1139: 1135: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1115: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1039: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 995: 991: 986: 985: 984: 983: 980: 976: 968: 966: 965: 962: 958: 949: 944: 943: 942: 939: 930: 926: 922: 918: 914: 909: 905: 899: 895: 891: 890: 889: 883: 874: 869: 868: 863: 859: 858: 853: 848: 847: 842: 841: 836: 835: 831: 830: 826: 825: 824: 821: 820: 817: 813: 806: 801: 799: 794: 786: 782: 777: 776: 772: 770: 769: 766: 762: 757: 753: 751: 746: 742: 738: 731: 729: 728: 725: 721: 716: 714: 709: 705: 703: 697: 693: 691: 685: 679: 674: 673: 672: 670: 661: 660: 655: 651: 649: 642: 640: 634: 632: 627: 622: 608: 605: 602: 599: 591: 586: 584: 583:on the object 578: 576: 571: 568: 564: 560: 558: 552: 548: 544: 541: 536: 533: 529: 523: 520: 518: 514: 509: 505: 502: 497: 493: 490: 488: 484: 479: 476: 458: 455: 452: 449: 438: 433: 431: 427: 422: 418: 415: 414: 411: 407: 399: 395: 392: 391: 386: 382: 379: 376: 373: 369: 367: 362: 359: 356: 353: 351: 345: 342: 339: 336: 335: 332: 327: 324: 321: 317: 313: 311: 305: 301: 297: 295: 289: 285: 279: 277: 275: 271: 265: 261: 259: 251: 250: 249: 243: 241: 239: 227: 220: 216: 213: 212: 211: 210: 205: 201: 200: 199: 196: 192: 190: 176: 171: 167: 166: 165: 164: 160: 155: 154: 150: 146: 145: 144: 141: 136: 134: 130: 122: 118: 114: 113: 112: 110: 109:210.50.105.53 105: 102: 100: 99:210.50.105.53 95: 89: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3136: 3131: 3129: 3119: 3117: 3111: 3109: 3103: 3101: 3093: 3089: 3087: 3085: 3080: 3076: 3070: 3068: 3066: 3063: 3057: 3055: 3016: 2973: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2915: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2888: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2865: 2860: 2856: 2853: 2846: 2829: 2807: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2781: 2747: 2735: 2717: 2713: 2710: 2666: 2664: 2650: 2648: 2639: 2635: 2595: 2590: 2584: 2559: 2543: 2500: 2497: 2483: 2480: 2477: 2432: 2422: 2417: 2414: 2408: 2404: 2403: 2397: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2365: 2363: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2348: 2331: 2327: 2322: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2272: 2244: 2238: 2212: 2207: 2205: 2146: 2144: 2036: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2002: 1984: 1979: 1975: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1844: 1840: 1835: 1807: 1805: 1709: 1690: 1684: 1679: 1674: 1670: 1659: 1654: 1651: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1621: 1606: 1603: 1600: 1597: 1594: 1581:new name: -- 1571: 1567: 1494: 1489: 1472: 1468: 1467:the two, we 1464: 1442: 1433: 1428: 1417: 1398: 1371: 1365: 1354:85.81.19.235 1351: 1324: 1262: 1245: 1223: 1192: 1170: 1166: 1163: 1159: 1151: 998: 997: 989: 988: 972: 953: 934: 924: 920: 912: 911: 903: 902: 897: 893: 884: 878: 861: 851: 822: 804: 802: 797: 795: 790: 780: 758: 754: 747: 743: 739: 735: 717: 712: 710: 706: 701: 698: 694: 692:of objects. 689: 686: 683: 667: 656: 652: 647: 643: 638: 635: 630: 625: 623: 589: 587: 582: 579: 572: 569: 565: 561: 556: 553: 549: 545: 539: 537: 531: 527: 524: 521: 519:the object. 516: 512: 510: 506: 500: 498: 494: 491: 486: 482: 480: 477: 437:acceleration 436: 434: 429: 425: 423: 420: 416: 400: 396: 393: 387: 383: 380: 377: 374: 370: 365: 363: 360: 357: 354: 346: 343: 340: 337: 328: 325: 322: 318: 314: 309: 306: 302: 298: 293: 290: 286: 283: 266: 262: 255: 247: 231: 218: 197: 193: 187: 169: 148: 137: 126: 116: 106: 103: 96: 93: 65: 43: 37: 2942:centrifugal 2938:centripetal 2936:. The name 2884:on the body 2315:real forces 2283:be canceled 1549:Thanks :-) 372:go faster. 36:This is an 2944:, depends 2740:Adrenaline 2501:reasonable 1685:Example 2: 1675:Example 1: 1300:gyroscopic 855:resisted." 844:scenarios. 827:Thank you. 750:inductance 3134:Correct. 3071:intertial 2950:direction 2366:measuring 1463:We don't 140:Rsduhamel 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3139:Harald88 3094:rotating 3043:Harald88 3019:Harald88 3007:Harald88 2977:Harald88 2895:at first 2857:circular 2849:Harald88 2822:Harald88 2774:Harald88 2685:Harald88 2613:Harald88 2577:Harald88 2522:Harald88 2468:Harald88 2435:Harald88 2426:Harald88 2351:measured 2263:Harald88 1869:Harald88 1823:Harald88 1766:Harald88 1714:Harald88 1663:Harald88 1469:identify 1200:Ihope127 385:force'. 350:momentum 207:about... 3003:WP:CITE 2948:on the 2930:outward 2907:outward 2899:receive 2872:outside 2736:meaning 2451:Cleonis 2382:Cleonis 2287:Cleonis 2216:Cleonis 1951:Cleonis 1933:Cleonis 1788:Cleonis 1744:Cleonis 1696:Cleonis 1661:frame. 1465:combine 1399:statics 1308:Patrick 1114:Jeepien 1007:Jeepien 948:Jeepien 929:Jeepien 873:Jeepien 785:Jeepien 678:Jeepien 671:Wrote: 669:Jeepien 659:Jeepien 590:nothing 575:Jeepien 426:inertia 39:archive 3090:always 3077:itself 2934:circle 2922:inward 2893:which, 2891:circle 2876:inward 2587:search 2323:cancel 2279:cancel 2176:, and 2005:] -- 1980:per se 1976:should 1655:causal 1473:thrice 528:always 483:always 3029:Smyth 2987:Smyth 2958:which 2759:Smyth 2748:every 2698:Smyth 2671:Smyth 2599:Smyth 2563:Smyth 2550:Smyth 2509:Smyth 2332:don't 1531:Smyth 1490:means 1447:Smyth 898:Every 713:pairs 690:pairs 648:never 532:other 219:feels 117:force 16:< 3061:--- 3056:--- 2946:only 2926:body 2835:Aïki 2811:Aïki 2785:Aïki 2721:Aïki 2651:only 2642:Aïki 2536:Aïki 2455:Talk 2386:Talk 2291:Talk 2220:Talk 2149:use 2147:must 2041:Let 2011:Aïki 1985:what 1955:Talk 1949:. -- 1937:Talk 1902:that 1898:also 1808:used 1792:Talk 1748:Talk 1700:Talk 1680:will 1640:Aïki 1610:Aïki 1583:Aïki 1495:same 1366:only 1356:and 1218:siro 1181:Talk 1138:Talk 1035:Talk 996:and 979:Talk 961:Talk 910:and 816:Talk 765:Talk 724:Talk 540:does 430:mass 410:Talk 310:does 294:Them 274:Talk 2954:not 2667:was 2591:all 2245:for 1843:in 1710:not 1304:top 1283:Joe 1256:Joe 1250:to 1002:2,1 993:1,2 916:2,1 907:1,2 894:two 852:all 702:see 639:not 626:not 501:not 487:vs. 159:Duk 121:Duk 3130:6 3118:5 3110:4 3102:3 3086:2 3067:1 2940:or 2897:, 2886:. 2833:-- 2783:-- 2719:-- 2534:-- 2453:| 2449:-- 2412:: 2401:: 2384:| 2313:+ 2309:= 2289:| 2247:. 2218:| 2185:ω 2158:ω 2124:× 2115:ω 2108:× 2099:ω 2092:− 2050:ω 1953:| 1935:| 1790:| 1746:| 1698:| 1694:-- 1638:-- 1576:-- 1432:is 1329:: 1179:| 1136:| 1112:-- 1033:| 977:| 959:| 925:by 921:on 862:do 814:| 798:ME 783:-- 763:| 722:| 657:-- 631:by 573:-- 559:! 517:by 513:on 408:| 404:-- 272:| 268:-- 170:is 119:. 3031:\ 2989:\ 2761:\ 2700:\ 2673:\ 2601:\ 2565:\ 2552:\ 2511:\ 2307:a 2305:· 2303:m 2189:i 2162:i 2130:) 2127:r 2119:i 2111:( 2103:i 2095:m 2089:= 2084:c 2080:F 2054:i 1533:\ 1449:\ 1390:. 1230:o 1224:χ 1215:— 999:F 990:F 913:F 904:F 807:. 609:a 606:m 603:= 600:F 462:) 459:a 456:m 453:= 450:F 447:( 202:( 151:; 138:( 127:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index