An immortal fumble by Mike (aka Bill Smith aka Eleatis aka Undeniable) (16-Apr-2006)
Physics 101 re-invented again once more
Tom Roberts wrote: > joe_avery_2005@yahoo.com wrote: > > Centrifugal forces can be considered reactions to Centripetal forces. > > No, they cannot. > > When swinging a stone by a string, the force on my hand is radially > outward at radius zero, so the "centrifugal force" is zero. The force on > my hand is quite clearly the tension in the string, not "centrifugal > force". The force on the rock is also the tension on the string. You are wrong. > > "Centrifugal force" is a _fiction_ specifically invented so one could > analyze that situation in a frame co-rotating with the rock and make > believe Newton's laws hold in the rotating frame, hence "centrifugal > force" is needed to cancel the tension of the string on the rock so the > rock remains motionless in this rotating frame. Similarly it must go to > zero at the center because there is no force that needs canceling there. > Again wrong. A simple force analysis reveals the opposite you claim. Mike |
|
| Fumble Index | Original post & context: 1145192944.690838.308150@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com |
|
See also |
|