An immortal fumble by Mike (aka Bill Smith aka Eleatis aka Undeniable) (17-Apr-2006)
Physics 101 re-invented again once more
Martin Hogbin wrote:
> "Herman Trivilino" <physhead@kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> wrote in
> message news:1145214635_27343@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote ...
> >
> >
> > Take a look at the connection between the string and the rock. The string
> > exerts a centripetal force on the rock, and the rock exerts a centrifugal
> > force on the string. They form a Third Law pair.
>
> The use of 'centrifugal force' for the force the rock
> exerts on the string is bad terminology. No one can
> argue with the fact that there is a reaction force on
> the string and that this force is centrifugally directed
> but to call this 'centrifugal force' is bad practice and
> can cause endless confusion, particularly to the OP
> of this thread.
You are one of the two or three confused here. You say it acts like
centrifugal, it smells like centrifugal but do not call it centrifugal
because someone like you might get confused. So be it. Get confused. We
are not going to mess physics so that you avoid confusion.
At least PD can come up with innovative arguments. Appealing on
confusion is a ridiculus thing to do.
Mike
|
|
| Fumble Index | Original post & context: 1145259139.108655.13220@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com |
|
See also |
|