CENTRIFUGAL Updated 140106 9:12A
Sent: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 4:40 am
Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Centrifugal Force
Hi Chan,
You have made the mistake that most wikipedians make. They base all their arguments on the special
case of circular motion without having any knowledge of the more general elliptical and hyperbolic
motions that arise in planetary orbits.
Secondly, they confine most of their arguments to the special case in which the inward centripetal force is
caused by the tension in a string, which is in turn caused by an inertial centrifugal force that acts on the
weight. For example, object A would not pull the string taut unless it was already subject to an inertial
centrifugal force itself. When that happens, the tension in the string exerts an inward centripetal force on
the weight A which is equal and opposite to the centrifugal force that the weight A first exerts on the
string.
However, in the planetary orbit, the centripetal force (being gravity) exists in its own right and is totally
independent of the inertial centrifugal force. The two are not in general equal in magnitude and certainly
don't form an action-reaction pair.
AMSask on the wikipedia talk page at this moment in time is a typical example of a totally confused
person who knows nothing about centrifugal force, but yet who wants to ban it from existence. You can
see how he has mixed up the fact that centripetal force is not an action/reaction pair with centrifugal force,
as is true in a planetary orbit, with the weight on the string scenario, where it is not true. Then in order to
try and make the centrifugal force vanish, he applies centripetal force to the weight on one side of the
centre of rotation but then jumps across to the weight on the other side of the centre of rotation and
applies centripetal force again. He wants to avoid any mention of the centrifugal force that both weights
are causing to act on the string, without which the string would not be pulled taut, and hence there would
be no centripetal forces.
Best Regards
David
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 17:17:48 +0800
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Hello David,
I have not joined those who deny centrifugal forces. The rather embarrassing truth is
that my background is only up to pure uniform circular motion.
I did make a check in the past on my classic dynamics text by Marion and Thorton and they gave the
equation that you are referring to. I remember Franklin too referred to this equation. As I do not
understand the equation yet, I would not be able to know what the centrifugal force refers to.
Thierry seems to hold the opinion that mainstream physics do not
yet consider centrifugal forces to be real. I cannot take a side if there are
subtleties beyond me.
Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:34 PM, David Tombe <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Chan,
OK, so
you are joining the ranks of those who deny the existence of
centrifugal force. Let's take a look once more at the radial planetary orbital equation, as first
proposed by Leibniz and still used today,
Leibniz called the inverse cube law term the 'centrifugal force'. You on the other hand say that it is not a
force and that centrifugal force doesn't exist.
The inward inverse square law centripetal term in the above equation is the force of gravity and nobody is
disputing that it is a force. I ask you therefore, in what respect is gravity a force where the outward inverse
cube law term that opposes gravity is not a force?
Best Regards
David
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:11:05 +0800
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Hello,
No meaningful debate can be pursued if the meaning of words are not understood in the same way and
agreed upon. In the discussion on whether there are real centrifugal forces, the difficulty and confusion is
in the use of the term force in :
1) the idea of force to the layman.
2) forces in classical mechanics and the mainstream.
3) a real force in an as yet unaccepted new theory on mechanics.
What the real centrifugal force that David is referring to is more of type 1) and 3); definitely not of 2). To
propose a new real centrifugal force is like shaking classical mechanics on its very foundation and none
of the people in wiki have that status yet to debate on such an issue.
Roger Anderton's latest posts is more related to the idea of force in our everyday experience; but the
layman's feeling about being thrown outward when riding a merry-go-round is about relying on the human
sensation of motion; but God probably did not design us to be sensitive to more than the first few orders
in infinitesimal calculus ,whereas on paper, the calculus is rigorous and exact. The calculus of circular
motion shows only the inward acceleration of rω² and the corresponding central force given the
unfortunate name centri*** something; there is no centrifugal force. As I don't have a proper background
in classical mechanics, I am not too sure if there are real situations when we really need to appeal to the
idea of a centrifugal force; or is it a failure in teaching mechanics passed down through the generations of
teachers.
The concept of force in Newton's second law is strict and applies only in inertial frame. If we keep on
changing reference frames in a discussion of force, then it would introduce the same confusion as when
we keep on changing between imperial pounds and kilogram in the course of a debate! When we analyse
the elliptic orbit of the earth around the sun with the fixed sun as the reference frame, there is only the
central force of gravity pulling on the earth; the earth's tendency to oppose such a force is not a real force
in Newtonian mechanics. But if we change the reference frame and have the sun orbits the earth, then
the picture is reversed. So we have to agree on a reference frame for a meaningful discussion.
Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:38 PM, David Tombe <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Lou,
The idea that centrifugal force is a reality defies Einstein's theories of
relativity by virtue of acknowledging a real physical effect that arises from
absolute (rotational) motion.
The denial of centrifugal force also robs Maxwell's physical model for the
electromagnetic field of its vital action, and hence derails those who have
already rejected relativity but who are looking for clues as to the nature of
the medium for the propagation of light.
For example, as soon as they start reading Maxwell's 1861 paper and see in the preamble that he utilizes
'centrifugal force', they will think that it is not worth any further reading since they will already have been
brainwashed by the education system into thinking that centrifugal force doesn't exist .
Denial of centrifugal force by mainstream protects Einstein's theories while
at the same time undermining Maxwell's aether theory
Mainstream don't want Maxwell's sea of molecular vortices resurrected.
Maxwell attributes all the EM repulsive forces to fine-grained centrifugal
force as the tiny vortices that fill all of space press against each other while
striving to dilate.
Best Regards
David
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Wikipedia and Centrifugal Force
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 14:02:15 -0500
Mentality is also referred to as a World View. As Islamic suicide bombers demonstrate, people will die to
defend their world views. A world view is essential for living things to move purposefully to meet needs.
The world view needs to be entirely predictable, which, of course, it never is. As I have remarked
elsewhere, what is, is. Our belief about what is will not change reality. The things we are discussing lie
primarily in the realm of that which cannot be proved or falsified. The most we can say is that our
particular organization of available data is superior to other organizations of the data, which gives us a
probability statement as to likelilhood of truth, not a certainty. And, of course, there is the problem that we
The NPA provides a
forum for the exchange of ideas and development of
ideas, which is extremely valuable, since we all agree that there is much yet
don't even agree as to the accuracy of the available data.
even if we all agree, we could
still be wrong. A little humility and mutual respect is in order.
to be understood and agreed upon. Recognizing that
As to the denial of Centrifugal Force, there is obviously a world view being defended here. You physicists
and engineers can tell me what that world view must be. What belief system does Centrifugal Force
violate?
Lou LaFollette
----- Original Message ----From:ROGER ANDERTON
To: David Tombe ; [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia and Centrifugal Force
David
>>>What's it all about?
It is as I said mentality of people.
Mentality explained at:
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/mentality
"A mentality is a way of thinking or
think and learn. If someone says you
of a kindergartener, that's great if
kindergarten, but if you're in tenth
probably calling you immature."
the ability to
have the mentality
you're in
grade, they're
"An obvious part of the noun mentality is the word
"mental," which means "of the mind." How your mind
works is your mentality, either in a way that's
measured in school or testing, or in the way you think
about things. A learned way of thinking comes from
experiences; for example you might have a competitive
mentality at mealtime because you share a table with
nine brothers and sisters."
[end quote]
People are at different levels of mentality. For some people
the modern world is just too complicated and they can't
mentally cope, because a different level of mentality is
required than the one they have is needed for them to cope.
Once a upon a time it made sense to people that the world was
flat; their mentality was able to cope with that, things fell
down only in one direction. So if there was anything on the
opposite side of the surface they were on then it fell off the
earth. To have something on the opposite side of the earth
falling up relative to them (i.e. obeying Newton gravity of
objects falling towards centre of mass) did not make sense to
them.
Star Trek's -- IDIC is an acronym for Infinite Diversity in
Infinite Combinations
ref http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/IDIC
There is alot of diversity in mentality there. If you think
there is a mentality too stupid to exist then you have not
appreciated IDIC.
Roger A
From: David Tombe <[email protected]>
To: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, 4 January 2014, 20:58
Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Centrifugal Force
Hi Roger,
The denial of centrifugal force actually arises in two mutually contradictory manifestations.
(1) The first manner of denial is to call it a fictitious force that can only be observed in a rotating
frame of reference. The picture of Robin however (attached) ought to make it clear that even
those who are not in a rotating frame of reference would be able to easily observe the centrifugal
force which is about to kill Robin.
(2) The second manner of denial arises in situations in which its reality is not in doubt, and so
they sweep it under the carpet by using word-play. Where a weight attached to the end of a string
they will say that the
centrifugal force acting on the string "is only the effects
of inertia". That may well be so, but to deny its existence by referring to its cause is the
moves in a circle and pulls outwards on the string,
same as denying the existence of fire on the grounds that it is only an effect of oxidation.
The important point to note in all of this is the sheer desperation and determination with which
mainstream physicists will battle in order to try and convince both themselves and the masses
that centrifugal force doesn't exist when in fact it very evidently does exist. Why? What's it all
about? What are they running away from?
Best Regards
David
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 21:07:59 +0000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Wikipedia and Centrifugal Force
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
David
I think what Burkett says is more significant "This is a
perfect example of the confusion that abounds by the use of
one term to mean two different things."
Terms have not been unambiguously defined, "fictious" was
never a good word to use, same as "imaginary" when talking
about "imaginary numbers" can cause confusion.
Roger A
From: David Tombe <[email protected]>
To: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, 3 January 2014, 20:32
Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Centrifugal Force
Hi Roger,
The last two comments alone on the wikipedia talk page for centrifugal force (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Centrifugal_force ) say it all.
First we have an absolute idiot called AMSask trying to argue that the reaction to a centripetal
force is also a centripetal force. What drives him to do this? He must clearly be driven by the
belief that the idea of 'centrifugal force' is thoughtcrime.
Then we have Martin Hogbin riding in behind him suggesting that the concept of reactive
centrifugal force is unhelpful.
Is it
some kind of instinctive fear that centrifugal force
undermines Einstein's view that all things are just
relative? Does the fact that centrifugal force proves absolute rotation worry them?
These two guys really are determined to get centrifugal force erased from the literature.
Best Regards
David
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 20:21:23 +0000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Wikipedia and Centrifugal Force
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
David
>>>But what drives some people to actively campaign to
have it erased for the literature?
You need to realise that people have different ways of
thinking about things. The people who are doing that have the
same mentality as those who did the Spanish Inquistion- where
they thought what they were doing was the right thing that
Jesus wanted. Those people have not gone away. The Spanish
Inquistion may have stopped, but people with the same
mentality are still living among us.
Roger A
From: David Tombe <[email protected]>
To: ROGER ANDERTON <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
Sent: Friday, 3 January 2014, 20:15
Subject: Wikipedia and Centrifugal Force
Just as a point of interest, I haven't been involved on the wikipedia centrifugal force article since
early 2011, however today I took a look at the talk page to see what is going on. I noticed that
two editors, Martin Hogbin and AMSask are battling very hard to have the existence of
centrifugal force as a reality denied,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Centrifugal_force
One must surely wonder what it is that drives these guys to make them so determined to deny the
existence of centrifugal force.
One can understand how many people might be brainwashed by mainstream propaganda into
believing that centrifugal force doesn't exist. But what drives some people to actively campaign
to have it erased for the literature?
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 20:01:47 +0000
From: [email protected]
Subject: General Relativity : Einstein vs. Newton
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
anyway back to complaining about Einstein's relativity
watch this short video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdC0QN6f3G4
General Relativity : Einstein
vs. Newton
The bit I think they have got wrong is the green arrows
bit that represent the apple on the tree before it
falls, because in the spacetime diagram for Einstein
they curve the time axis for that bit.
Newton spacetime diagram they have flat for whether the
apple is on the tree or falling from the tree.
Now taking the bit when the apple is on the tree as
when special relativity applies (treating i.e. no
gravity in that approx) then by special relativity that
bit is supposed to be flat. BUT they don't show it flat
in Einstein spacetime they show the time axis curved so
they got it wrong, they don't deal with Einsteinian
physics properly. It should be flat spacetime for the
green arrows bit and then when the apple is falling the
spacetime is curved. They "SCREW UP" to try to maintain
the mess with transition from Newton to Einstein.
Roger A