An immortal fumble by Mike (aka Bill Smith aka Eleatis aka Undeniable) (15-Apr-2006)
Physics 101 re-invented again
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Mike"
> aka Bill Smit
> aka Eleatis
> aka Undeniable
> <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1145124024.139097.116700@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > PD wrote:
> > > joe_avery_2005@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > Centrifugal forces can be considered reactions to Centripetal forces.
> > >
> > > I disagree. This is a common physics misconception. In an action-pair,
> > > if the action is the force that A exerts on B, the reaction is the
> > > equal and opposite force that B exerts on A. The reaction force is NOT
> > > an equal and opposite force that acts on B.
> >
> > You are confusing reference frames. I repeat to you once more a fact
> > you seem you do not want to accept: Newton's law apply without
> > modification only in inertial reference frames. This holds for the
> > second law and it must also hold for the third law. In the inertial
> > frame, the reaction to the centripetal force is the centrifugal force.
>
> In the inertial frame, there is only the centripetal
> force that makes the object go round in a circle.
> If there was a reaction centrifugal force, the object
> would not move in a circle to begin with.
Idiot you do not even understand Newton's laws and you want to post in
sci.physics groups. To every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction.
When a stone is attached to a rope and revolving above your empty head,
the reaction to the centripetal force is at your head moron. It tries
to take your hand out of the center of the revolution, that is the
reason it is called centri-fugal.
Idiot
Mike
|
|
| Fumble Index | Original post & context: 1145125085.341713.153950@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com |
|
See also |
|