The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is motion around a circle keeping a constant speed an accelerating motion?  (Read 7366 times)

SteveFish

  • Guest
Geezer, you are maintaining decorum by calling me a supercilious twit? One difference between you and me is that I don't take offense at all. I simply don't care what you think of me unless you catch me making an error of scientific information, then I would be very upset with myself and apologize (which I have done here). I am actually a little concerned with this site regarding expertise and accuracy. I have participated in some sites that are run by very high level scientists, and I think you would be much more than a little surprised at how rough communication can get when there is a poster suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect. Steve
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
See, there you go again. You inferred that I was calling you a supercilious twit. I didn't.

Meanwhile, returning to the topic, if I understand what you are saying, centrifugal force is merely a name we (and Newton) attribute to the reaction caused by (the real) centripetal force. I think I may have tried to point that out about ten posts ago.
 

SteveFish

  • Guest
I don't think that calling centrifugal force just a name, while the real force in this situation is centripetal, is a very good understanding. This is because you would also have to agree that centripetal force is actually just a name because distortion of space time in some instances, according to general relativity, is the real force. They both are just terms in formulas that depend upon ones frame of reference. Further, if one wants to talk about these things it is important to state the frame, hopefully the most appropriate one, and be consistent with it.

As for misunderstanding what you said, it is really quite clear and I don't think anybody would disagree with me. Next you are going to say "if the shoe fits, wear it." I know how to play the "you didn't read what I said" game. You should be ashamed.
« Last Edit: 28/12/2010 02:09:00 by SteveFish »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
If we want to help people learn and get a better understanding of mechanics and dynamics, I think it's best to avoid the use of terms that can lead to misunderstanding.

I think there is a common misconception that "centrifugal force" is a force that will cause a rotating body to "fly off" at right angles to its direction of travel. Of course, we know that is not true. As soon as the centripetal force is removed, there is no centrifugal force, so why not simply call it what it is i.e., a reaction to centripetal force?

Of course you are right in saying that this is only one model that we use to describe circular motion, I just happen to think it's best to be as clear and consistent as possible within that particular model.

I will refrain from commenting on your obvious reference to Dunning Kruger.
 

SteveFish

  • Guest
Geezer, what you say is very sensible because centripetal force is the best and most accurate explanation in our common everyday frame of reference. I tend to correct people who use centrifugal force in everyday usage, especially when it is leading them astray on what they are talking about. But in fact, there are technical uses of centrifugal force that are useful, just like the term Coriolis force is useful in many circumstances. Steve
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums