His argument that the centrifugal force isn't real because it vanishes when you go to a non-rotating reference frame seems flawed, or at least incomplete. You could use the same logic to say that the centripetal force isn't real because it vanishes when you go to a rotating reference frame. It makes more sense to me to just leave the semantics out of it, and just say that the force that you consider (in calculations and whatnot) depends on the nature of your reference frame.
It's like growing up you find out that Santa and the tooth fairy don't exist! When you learn physics they tell you centrifugal force doesn't exist! It's just some people still can't grasp, then how do the presents appear under the tree :p
I'm gonna need a deeper dive. My whole life i've heard centrifugal force keeps the water in the bucket when you spin it over your head.. then I hear that there's no such thing as centrifugal force, it's all centripetal force. Then I hear that they both exist and they're different. When I was in the Navy the nukes would say there was not centrifugal force and as a matter of fact it is centripetal force that keeps the moon in orbit. So I'm going to have to do more research into these two terms and find out what's what. Just need to find a reliable source that is easy to understand.
centripetal force seems like the inertial force force just going against your movement. it just kinda feels wrong working with it. And as long as you know which frame your in you should just use what you like to use. No hating!
This is misleading. When you apply newton's second law in a non inertial reference frame e.g. rotating frame, you pick up correction terms. Centrifugal force is one of those terms, the coriolis force is another. You don't ever hear people talking about the coriolis force not existing. The centrifugal force is a totally rigorous and necessary concept for describing a rotating frame.
Well the "dispute" arises because you can look at rotating objects in their own frames as well as an inertial frame, right? The fictitious forces only appear when you treat non-inertial frames as if they were inertial.
There should be no dispute. There are two equally valid ways of describing the same thing. Fictitious is a bad term. When you transform to a rotating frame you pick up compensating terms, but that doesn't mean that either frame is more special or correct than the other.
But inertial frames *are* special. I'd agree with you if you said e.g. that you can't tell between a frame in a gravitational field from a frame in accelerating motion (equiv. principle), but I can't say I agree with this assessment.
The centrifugal force isn't pushing you away from the center it just pushes you tangently left or right depending on the room's rotation, clock wise or counterclock wise.
Yeah... What Taylor said. If your coordinate system is rotating along with the device you're being accelerated by, you get a centrifugal force that seems to be pushing you radially away from the center of the rotation.
This is one of those pointless debates about if something "really exists" when all you want know is effectively; if I put a spring here, what force does actually feel.
mina86 Classifying a force as "real" or not is pointless. The only thing that matters is that when you use newton's second law to describe a rotating frame, the centrifugal force appears as a correction term. It is absolutely necessary and mathematically rigorous when using a rotating frame.
I don't know why you are hung up on why it is real or not. Yeah, it's not like a fundamental force that acts between two points via a mediator or anything like that, but it accurately describes certain physical systems. That's all that matters. The frictional force isn't really "real" either. It's an emergent phenomenon from many individual electromagnetic interactions within the materials contacting each other. Who cares if the frictional force is real or not? It accurately describes lots of physical systems in a way that is easy to conceptualize. What's real or not is more of a philosophical question, physics just looks to describe nature with mathematical models.
This was awesome and thank you so much, Brady!!!
imo this is strongly correlated with the Tusi couple. The extra dimension formed has to form somewhere, and it plays out through adjacency.
Centripetal force is one of the strangest things to wrap your head around until you realize that every force has a counter force.
But can’t we describe centrifugal force as a consequence of inertia due to the acceleration of centripetal force?
His argument that the centrifugal force isn't real because it vanishes when you go to a non-rotating reference frame seems flawed, or at least incomplete. You could use the same logic to say that the centripetal force isn't real because it vanishes when you go to a rotating reference frame. It makes more sense to me to just leave the semantics out of it, and just say that the force that you consider (in calculations and whatnot) depends on the nature of your reference frame.
It's like growing up you find out that Santa and the tooth fairy don't exist! When you learn physics they tell you centrifugal force doesn't exist! It's just some people still can't grasp, then how do the presents appear under the tree :p
wouldn't relativity mess around with the misnomer as everything depends on the relative perspective regardless of outside observers?
Published on July 26, top comment 2 months ago.
MAAA, UA-cam is broken again!
And that's why Iran never had centrifuges.
I'm still pretty confused by all this XD
I'm glad i'm not the only one.
This looks like a video you can only find if you click on a link.
Robert black, that's generally how the Web works, yes ;)
Nah, I know what you mean. It's been published now though.
I'm gonna need a deeper dive. My whole life i've heard centrifugal force keeps the water in the bucket when you spin it over your head.. then I hear that there's no such thing as centrifugal force, it's all centripetal force. Then I hear that they both exist and they're different.
When I was in the Navy the nukes would say there was not centrifugal force and as a matter of fact it is centripetal force that keeps the moon in orbit.
So I'm going to have to do more research into these two terms and find out what's what. Just need to find a reliable source that is easy to understand.
centripetal force seems like the inertial force force just going against your movement. it just kinda feels wrong working with it. And as long as you know which frame your in you should just use what you like to use. No hating!
Centrifugal force *is* inertial force. Centripetal force is not. Also, neither of them need to act against your movement.
This is misleading. When you apply newton's second law in a non inertial reference frame e.g. rotating frame, you pick up correction terms. Centrifugal force is one of those terms, the coriolis force is another. You don't ever hear people talking about the coriolis force not existing. The centrifugal force is a totally rigorous and necessary concept for describing a rotating frame.
Well the "dispute" arises because you can look at rotating objects in their own frames as well as an inertial frame, right? The fictitious forces only appear when you treat non-inertial frames as if they were inertial.
There should be no dispute. There are two equally valid ways of describing the same thing. Fictitious is a bad term. When you transform to a rotating frame you pick up compensating terms, but that doesn't mean that either frame is more special or correct than the other.
But inertial frames *are* special. I'd agree with you if you said e.g. that you can't tell between a frame in a gravitational field from a frame in accelerating motion (equiv. principle), but I can't say I agree with this assessment.
The centrifugal force isn't pushing you away from the center it just pushes you tangently left or right depending on the room's rotation, clock wise or counterclock wise.
Pattern Nope. This is wrong. Centrifugal force acts in the radial direction.
No it doesn't. It's just a manifestation of the object's inertia at a given moment.
Yeah... What Taylor said.
If your coordinate system is rotating along with the device you're being accelerated by, you get a centrifugal force that seems to be pushing you radially away from the center of the rotation.
I think you're thinking of the Coriolis force.
Yes you are right. I was thinking of the velocity vector supposing the centripetal force.
This is one of those pointless debates about if something "really exists" when all you want know is effectively; if I put a spring here, what force does actually feel.
Yes, the whole subject has a point. But arguing that centrifugal force does / doesn't exist is pointless if you do understand what is happening.
If you understand what is going on than you won’t be claiming that it’s a real force.
mina86 Classifying a force as "real" or not is pointless. The only thing that matters is that when you use newton's second law to describe a rotating frame, the centrifugal force appears as a correction term. It is absolutely necessary and mathematically rigorous when using a rotating frame.
> the centrifugal force appears as a correction term
Precisely. This is what people mean when they say centrifugal force isn’t real.
I don't know why you are hung up on why it is real or not. Yeah, it's not like a fundamental force that acts between two points via a mediator or anything like that, but it accurately describes certain physical systems. That's all that matters. The frictional force isn't really "real" either. It's an emergent phenomenon from many individual electromagnetic interactions within the materials contacting each other. Who cares if the frictional force is real or not? It accurately describes lots of physical systems in a way that is easy to conceptualize. What's real or not is more of a philosophical question, physics just looks to describe nature with mathematical models.