[EvaWilliams]

Its a force which attracts the body towards its centre of the circle its opposite force is centrifugal force

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Centrifugal force 10-29-16
Rmolnav said:
So, let me suggest you to try and grasp before the subject within Newton´s boundaries. After that, if you want to go deeper into actual (at least so considered by modern “theories”) nature of gravity, give it a go, and be lucky ...Jerrygg replied.
   Modern physics attempts to explain why gravity works. Newton came up with rules and differential equations which produced excellent laws which explained most things. We got to the moon on his equations.
  From a classical point of view everything has equal and opposite reactions as per Newton. So the sun pulls on the earth (actually the earth is pushed toward the sun) and the opposite force is the centrifugal force. Case closed.
GMeMs = Me[V^2]/ R   end of story.
  In a similar light an electric voltage turns a motor on and as the motor speeds up an opposite voltage is produced. So whether electricity or gravity Newton’s laws are true.
  Einstein sought to explain small variations of planetary motion which were not solved by Newtonian physics. So he came up curved space time and his equations proved to be true. The question I ask is whether space curves or the gravitational field curves.
  We also want to know what produces the centrifugal force. From the electrical motor analogy, there is an opposite force built up to the applied force. So the Earth spins around the sun and as it does, an applied force is built up.
  For the electrical motion, the counter force was due to the speed of the motor and the applied magnetic field. So from a classical point of view it can be argued that the centrifugal force is due to the motion of the Earth as it cuts the suns gravitational field. Electrically his would be an eddy current. From a gravitational classical viewpoint, it would be a classical gravitational eddy current. Thus the gravitational field acts like an electric field. That is certainly possible.
  Then we are left with the problem of why from a classical point of view that an object resists a force. As a force is applied gravitational eddy currents are produced which oppose the force. This is caused by the interaction of the object and the gravitational field of the object. After the object reaches a speed V and the force is removed, the object continues to move in a straight line at velocity V. Again no fancy concepts are necessary just classical type theory.
   For this case we get a combination of two forces that makeup the centrifugal force. A reaction of the earth cutting the suns field and a reaction of the Earth with its own field. Pure classical theory. Nothing fancy required. And perhaps the two component answer is better than my original answer.
  The problem with Einstein’s theory is that it is purely mathematical. It does not tell you the details of what is happening. Classical theory does.

[rmolnav]

#101 jerrygg38 says:
"From a classical point of view everything has equal and opposite reactions as per Newton. So the sun pulls on the earth (actually the earth is pushed toward the sun) and the opposite force is the centrifugal force. Case closed”.Let me “open” it.
Not being sufficiently careful with our expressions, is a frequent cause of misunderstandings.
“Everything” has NOT equal and opposite reactions … Forces exerted on objects by other objects do.
Is the earth actually “pushed” … ?
“The sun pulls on the earth … and the opposite force is …” Just “the opposite force”? Exerted also on the earth but opposite?
On the other hand, I´m afraid your electricity realm analogy may be useful to some people, but not for the majority. And it is not necessary to understand the subject.   

[nilak]

There is something that makes the light go straight. The same thing makes everything travel straight when nothing serious to interact with. To change the course you need to do something. That translates to a force.

[rmolnav]

#103 Nilak
Certainly ... Though somebody will tell you light can also be bent by sufficiently massive objects.
But what you say is sufficiently accurate for our "needs"
Newton´s Principles break down that "inertial" fact. But, watch out!, that adjective means just that it is related to "inertia" ... Somebody could relate it to "an inertial system of reference", and try to convince us those reaction forces (f.e.) are only fictitious ...

[rmolnav]

#104 (continuation)
Inside the parenthesis I should have added "centrifugal force", the subject of our discussion.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

#101 jerrygg38 says:
"From a classical point of view everything has equal and opposite reactions as per Newton. So the sun pulls on the earth (actually the earth is pushed toward the sun) and the opposite force is the centrifugal force. Case closed”.Let me “open” it.
Not being sufficiently careful with our expressions, is a frequent cause of misunderstandings.
“Everything” has NOT equal and opposite reactions … Forces exerted on objects by other objects do.
Is the earth actually “pushed” … ?
“The sun pulls on the earth … and the opposite force is …” Just “the opposite force”? Exerted also on the earth but opposite?

  In newtonian physics the application of a force produces an acceleration where F=MA. The MA is the opposite force. What causes this force? As I see it, the mass has a gravitational field which is moving along with the mass at a velocity V and now the mass has a force applied which increases its velocity and this causes the gravitational field of the mass to resist the motion and thus the opposite force. So you say there are cases where this is not true. However if Newton is right, there are always explanations possible for them to be true for big body motion. Things are different in the world of quantum mechanics where reactions must also include the time dimensions.
   As far as the Earth being pushed toward the sun rather than pulled, this is because the gravitational fields of the Earth and Sun form a center of gravity such that the combined field pushes the sun and earth together.

[rmolnav]

#106 jerrygg38
I regret to be rude, but you had better go back to basics. It is not only a question of being more careful with our expressions, as I commented on  #102. There are errors on almost each of your paragraphs.
Only your first paragraph, at least for the moment:
"In newtonian physics the application of a force produces an acceleration where F=MA. The MA is the opposite force"
Utterly misunderstood, and wrong.
The acceleration A is the result of F, what F causes, if and only if the object the force is applied on is free to move.
"A", a vector, has a numeric value (quantity of used units), and a direction and sense (in our three dimension space, in each instant of time).
So, MA is also a vector, logically the "same" of the original force F.
"The opposite force", you can tell thanks to the very adjective, cannot be MA, though its numerical value is the same.
I had previously thought you had basic things not completely clear. That is why I sent #102, and asked:
"“The sun pulls on the earth … and the opposite force is …” Just “the opposite force”? Exerted also on the earth but opposite?"

[nilak]

#103 Nilak
Certainly ... Though somebody will tell you light can also be bent by sufficiently massive objects.
But what you say is sufficiently accurate for our "needs"
Newton´s Principles break down that "inertial" fact. But, watch out!, that adjective means just that it is related to "inertia" ... Somebody could relate it to "an inertial system of reference", and try to convince us those reaction forces (f.e.) are only fictitious ...

Obviously what I wanted to point out is, light travels straight when there are no external factors. To bend light you need to do something and that translates to energy.
I've mentioned light, because it is not newtonian principles that makes it go straight. Moment of inertia is not mass preserving its velocity. The motion must have a different explanation. I believe it lies in the way electric and magnetic fields propagate. QM doesn't include these fields which are real, and combines newtonian physics with other properties that can't be expalained claasically resulted from experiments.
I aslo think that all particles in the Standard Model are similar to classical waves and not travelling as separate entities. For example if you make photons go orbiting arround each other you will create the illusion of a particle, but in fact there is an orbital wave that will travel in a spiral and making it slowing down proportionaly to the orbial radius.
If we can't measure to the deepest level what is going on the only option is to create different modes and put them to the test. Until now none has passed  all the tests. This discussion about centrifugal force could, in fact, give us some new clues.

[rmolnav]

#107 (continuation)
To put it easier to understand, what you said F=MA="the opposite force" ...
... it´s equivalent to saying: 1=1=-1 !! After that, with all my respects for you, a further discussion about any other of your statements or arguments could be a waste of time. Perhaps that was why Alancalverd and PmbPhy are "missing" ...
But I´ll try and carry on ... It could be useful, if not to you, to somebody else.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

There is something that makes the light go straight. The same thing makes everything travel straight when nothing serious to interact with. To change the course you need to do something. That translates to a force.

Light around a star
  The question of what makes light go straight is the geometric nature of dot-waves. The photonic dot-waves consist of positive and negative charges which are separated by half a wavelength. The same is true of the photon which consists of huge numbers of dot-waves. When the negative dot-wave is at a zero point, the positive dot-waves is at maximum radius. The positive dot-wave attracts the negative and flows toward it. As it does it contracts but the negative expands. Thus the photon is a motor mechanism which goes from a point to a spherical surface and back to a point as it travels at the speed of light C.
  For an object moving at velocity V, it contains billions of billions of photonic oscillations which produce a straight line motion.
  When a photon travels close to a star, it encounters dot-waves traveling around the star. It absorbs some of these mini-photons which produce a new vector image and the photon bends around the star. As it leaves the vicinity of the star into lower gravitational fields, it loses some dot-waves and continues on its way.

[nilak]

There is something that makes the light go straight. The same thing makes everything travel straight when nothing serious to interact with. To change the course you need to do something. That translates to a force.

Light around a star
  The question of what makes light go straight is the geometric nature of dot-waves. The photonic dot-waves consist of positive and negative charges which are separated by half a wavelength. The same is true of the photon which consists of huge numbers of dot-waves. When the negative dot-wave is at a zero point, the positive dot-waves is at maximum radius. The positive dot-wave attracts the negative and flows toward it. As it does it contracts but the negative expands. Thus the photon is a motor mechanism which goes from a point to a spherical surface and back to a point as it travels at the speed of light C.
  For an object moving at velocity V, it contains billions of billions of photonic oscillations which produce a straight line motion.
  When a photon travels close to a star, it encounters dot-waves traveling around the star. It absorbs some of these mini-photons which produce a new vector image and the photon bends around the star. As it leaves the vicinity of the star into lower gravitational fields, it loses some dot-waves and continues on its way.

This is a resonable explanation, at least for me.

The interaction between dot waves must be extremely low when in the cases when we notice slight deviations from a straight line. This way the photon integrity (like wavelength, particle behavior) is preserved.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

#107 (continuation)
To put it easier to understand, what you said F=MA="the opposite force" ...
... it´s equivalent to saying: 1=1=-1 !! After that, with all my respects for you, a further discussion about any other of your statements or arguments could be a waste of time. Perhaps that was why Alancalverd and PmbPhy are "missing" ...
But I´ll try and carry on ... It could be useful, if not to you, to somebody else.

   Perhaps with my simple engineering language I did not make it clear what I meant. I see that you are very precise and legalistic in your language.  Returning to:
  F = MA
  On the left side of the equation is the applied force F.  On the right side of the equation is the equal and opposite force MA. What does this mean? It states that a mass that is accelerating produces a force equal and opposite to the applied force. How is that possible?
  A mass has a gravitational field. When the mass is stationary with respect to a particular frame of reference, the field is also stationary. Now let us apply a force to move the mass. The moving mass accelerates and the mass cuts its own field. This induces gravitational current flows in the mass with the result that an equal and opposite force is generated. As the gravitational field of the mass moves to the same steady state velocity as the mas itself, no more resisting force is generated and the mass continues to move at velocity V until another force is applied. thus the equal and opposite force only occurs when a new force is applied to the mass.

[rmolnav]

#112 jerrygg38
I Insist: you had better going back to basic Mechanics. You say absurd things relative to “gravitational fields”, perhaps because you don´t actually grasp its meaning.
You seem to consider that "A mass has a gravitational field”, sort of rucksack carried by the mass. That is utterly erroneous, but even if it were right, you say contradictory things:
"the gravitational field of the mass moves to the same steady state velocity as the mas itself”
 "The moving mass accelerates and the mass cuts its own field"
Why that “rucksack” moves with the mass when constant velocity, but can´t accelerate with the mass, and the field is cut by the mass “carrying" the field?
NONSENSES … By the way, no wonder you say such things, because you also said (#0):
“… In this case the centrifugal force does not have to exist but is merely a vector caused by the momentum of the ball and the length of the string”
MERELY A VECTOR? What do you think is a “mere vector”? Are not all forces represented by vectors?
I can´t really understand why you talk about gravitational fields, apparently so convinced, having such Physics/Maths education gaps.

[rmolnav]

I was planning to draft and send a post referring to something I´ve lately begun to think, after discussing so much here:
Perhaps modern physicists who say it would be better not to use the expression “centrifugal force” are right. But not because it is not a real force, but because it is frequently used even by laymen, and its different flavors are really difficult to grasp. And that easily leads to confussion and errors.
“The devil is in the details” … The subject requires not only that we should have very clear basic concepts, but also that we must be very careful with the details.
I already said nature is much more complex than what our mathematical simplifications show …
A typical misleading error is to say that thanks to centrifugal force things can be given an extra speed (sling, hammer throwing, and even what said on #11-PUPPYPOWER: "We use the moons and planets to sling shot satellites to distant planets. We make use of the centrifugal force …”)
I´ve already said, many times, that centrifugal f. does exist, that it is a force quite REAL.
But due to its very nature, it cannot be the “cause” of mentioned effects.
I was planning to analyze several, frequently missing details, starting with the sling, similar to hammer throwing.
Prepairing the work, I´ve seen that JERRYGG38 also said (#0):
"So we get a law of physics such that "A planet moving with velocity V tangent to the radius from a star will generate a centrifugal force that balances the centripetal force and this keeps the planet from falling into the star”.”
That is also UTTERLY ERRONEOUS. I know many people say that (a piece of the big confusion),  but I challenge him, and anybody else, to find that supposed “law of physics” written on a university or high school book on the subject..
I´ll send mentioned analysis tomorrow on another post.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Rmolnav said:I Insist: you had better going back to basic Mechanics. You say absurd things relative to “gravitational fields”, perhaps because you don´t actually grasp its meaning.
You seem to consider that "A mass has a gravitational field”, sort of rucksack carried by the mass. That is utterly erroneous, but even if it were right, you say contradictory things:
"the gravitational field of the mass moves to the same steady state velocity as the mas itself”
 "The moving mass accelerates and the mass cuts its own field"
Why that “rucksack” moves with the mass when constant velocity, but can´t accelerate with the mass, and the field is cut by the mass “carrying" the field?
Jerrygg replied: There is a time delay between the mass and its field. You move the mass and its field exists as part of a huge field which combines with the fields of others. The field of the earth reaches hundreds of millions of miles from the Earth. The earth is the center of its field. As the Earth moves the field will follow but there is a time delay. The net result is that the Earth which is present time interacts with its field which is prior time. The same is true of a rock but the field of the rock becomes indistinguishable from the Earth’s field in a few miles.
Rmolnav said:… By the way, no wonder you say such things, because you also said (#0):
“… In this case the centrifugal force does not have to exist but is merely a vector caused by the momentum of the ball and the length of the string”
MERELY A VECTOR? What do you think is a “mere vector”? Are not all forces represented by vectors?
Jerrygg replid: Others have concluded that centrifugal force does not exist. I just rephrased what they implied. I believe that centrifugal force exists.
Rmolnav said:I can´t really understand why you talk about gravitational fields, apparently so convinced, having such Physics/Maths education gaps.
Jerrygg replied: I graduated BSEE (summa cum laude) from Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute in 1966 which I feel was a pretty good education. I never had a test in science or engineering that I got less than 100%.

[rmolnav]

#114 (continuation)
After drafting as "notes" what follows, I´ve seen reply 115. I prefer to send it already, and later or tomorrow I´ll read #115 and reply.
 Differences between the case of two celestial objects rotating around their barycenter, and the case when an object is being rotated by us by means of a cord o similar tool (as e.g. in hammer throwing), go beyond the “physical” difference that nothing connects the celestial objects to each other, apart from the “tele-connection" of gravity …
Somehow the celestial objects were initially given their speeds very long ago, and no energy is transferred now from/to each other.
When an athlete initiates hammer rotation, he has to transfer energy to the hammer, in order to increase its tangential speed the more the better.
For the sake of simplicity, i consider a rotation always around a vertical axis. The “tension” of the wire, I mean the inward force, is not strictly “centripetal”. It has three components:
One vertical, which has to support hammer weight (the wire can´t be completely horizontal).
Another horizontal and centripetal, which produces the centripetal acceleration necessary for the hammer to follow its circular path.
And yet another horizontal but tangential, the usually “forgotten” force. It is due to the fact that athlete hands are also rotating, but the straight line hands-wire-hammer is not a radius of hammer trajectory … The athlete tries and increases the angular speed of his hands, with the purpose of increasing angular and tangential speeds of the hammer, before releasing it. There is a sort of angular “delay” of the hammer relative to the situation of athlete hands. That´s the cause of the tangential component of wire tension.
(I can´t erase this 4 !!) So, the athlete increases more and more wire tension, and both its centripetal and tangential components increases too. Centrifugal force (opposite to centripetal one: the hammer pulling outwards wire end) increases as the centripetal one does… That outward, centrifugal force that increases more and more, could appear to cause the hammer to “fly” when the athlete releases it. But IT IS NOT.  The cause is actually mentioned tangential component of wire tension, that increases velocity revolution after revolution, with continuous transference of energy from the athlete to the hammer … As soon as the wire is released, hammer (+ wire) is “free” and go straight at its acquired tangential velocity (apart from weight and air friction effects).
After all, the centrifugal force was NOT being exerted on the hammer, and even if it had been, it would require time to increase any velocity, but it “dies” at same instant the hammer is released.
So, we can say centrifugal force rol is “important: the wire could not exert any centripetal force on the hammer not being tight, and it could not be tight acting only a force at one of its extremes !!
And don´t forget that, as I´ve been referring to during last weeks, centrifugal forces have other important roles in other cases. I have to decide which case may be worth to insist on.

[rmolnav]

#115 jerrygg38
Besides my challenge on #114, if you got your degree where and when you say, I challenge you to find a text book used there with written statements similar to yours. It may not be a problem of Physics/Maths, but of Logics, not always properly kept in mind for so long.
Another key, erroneous idea of you. You said (#0):
"You have a momentum and a gravitational pressure (?) pushing (?) the earth toward the sun. What keeps the earth from falling into the sun?  That is the big problem” Apart from what with my ? within parenthesis, Is that really the big problem? Are you sure that it is not one of YOUR problems, and that earth is not somehow falling at least “toward” the sun? …
It is BASIC Physics. If earth were moving at a higher speed, it could not follow its current orbit, and it would have gone far away from the sun. If at lower speed, sun gravitational PULL would have made earth fall into it.
But earth speed vector is such that, at actual earth distance to sun, the gravitational pull is just what necessary to change earth speed vector direction and make earth follow its orbit.
And that whatever the possible deep nature of gravity: space-time curving originated by the sun, according to Einstein´s theory, or any other …
If you have other (bizarre) ideas, they must be of your own invention, not coming actually from your degree education. You could challenge Newton and Einstein, and apply for a Nobel prize … Be lucky.
By the way, earth/sun case is very, very similar to the center/string/rotating object case wrongly exposed by you at the beginning of #0, as well as to hammer throwing case brought up by me (#116). The unique difference is that sun gravitational pull is exerted independently on every earth molecule, as if there were "infinite” tiny, invisible strings, connecting each molecule to sun (for the sake of simplicity, to its C.G.). And the “tension” of those virtual strings would vary from midday closest areas to antipodes, the closest the higher gravitational pull, and the smaller centripetal force necessary to rotate at 2PI/year angular speed ...
That happens all across the universe, to ANY rotating object. And it is the root cause of ALL tidal effects, because mentioned local imbalances (between gravitational pulls and centripetal forces required for common angular speed of rotation) generate internal stresses/forces, an “infinite” number of action/reaction pairs …
The result of all acting forces is that earth is deformed and tries and get a shape tending, relatively very litle, to a rugby ball. In the closest earth half, centripetal forces dominate over centrifugal ones, and the opposite in furthest half.

[rmolnav]

After my last post I´ve been visiting other sites talking about our subject. I couldn´t imagine I was going to find so much confusion.
E.g. many say centrifugal force is only an “apparent” force, because they consider it as if it were exerted on same rotating object as the centripetal, when what actually happens is that it is exerted BY that object on the other (the one exerting  the centripetal).
And some, trying to explain real phenomena where centrifugal f. is root cause, have to build “unbelievable" kind of contraptions.
There are even some well known dictionaries (Collins, Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary …). Where possible, I refuted them too. I´ll let you know if any answer.
Fortunately I am not "alone" ... Following link is from an education group, and they say same things I´ve been using to refute others, even with very similar words …
(I´ve also been using the example of hammer throwing with a spring dynamometer between wire extreme and hammer):
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/centripetal-force-centrifugal-force.html

[nilak]

After my last post I´ve been visiting other sites talking about our subject. I couldn´t imagine I was going to find so much confusion.
E.g. many say centrifugal force is only an “apparent” force, because they consider it as if it were exerted on same rotating object as the centripetal, when what actually happens is that it is exerted BY that object on the other (the one exerting  the centripetal).
And some, trying to explain real phenomena where centrifugal f. is root cause, have to build “unbelievable" kind of contraptions.
There are even some well known dictionaries (Collins, Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary …). Where possible, I refuted them too. I´ll let you know if any answer.
Fortunately I am not "alone" ... Following link is from an education group, and they say same things I´ve been using to refute others, even with very similar words …
(I´ve also been using the example of hammer throwing with a spring dynamometer between wire extreme and hammer):
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/centripetal-force-centrifugal-force.html

It says there that:"The centrifugal force is often mistakenly thought to cause a body to fly out of its circular path when it is released; "
Of course a body is not trying to fly out of its circular path. Instead, the body is trying to keep its straight line trajectory. But being constantly corrected by the force in the string it moves in a circular path and also generates an inertial force, which is the centrifugal force. That is what it says here. If the body is conected by an string which length increases with time, the inertial force will not be the same formula with the centrifugal force. An eleptical orbit will also generate a different formula for the inertial force pulling outeard.