Question for mandrin

[Ringer]

What I have not said is that "centrifugal force" isn't useful. Because it does calculate most of our experiences well it can be very useful. But that doesn't make it factual. I remember hearing NASA still uses most of the Newtonian calculations for space shuttle missions. But as we all know Newtons THEORY on gravity is wrong... but the calculations are accurate. Since it's simpler to use, they use it.

Suppose I made up a calculation that correctly identified how much DARKNESS a light bulb "sucked up". According to my theory, a light bulb doesn't emit light, it sucks the dark. And my proof is once the light bulb goes out, it turns dark. That's where all the darkness goes!

Obviously I'm wrong, but if my calculations exactly predict how long the bulb will last and how much "darkness" will be reduced then it can be used to accurately predict things.

Well guess what, you guys are hitching your horses to a dark sucker instead of a light emitter.

Rotating frames are nice when trying to do calculations. That doesn't make them right. Newton was proved wrong and it seems funny to me that in a place driven to seek truth, it's being outright rejected because of one person's popularity.

 

[lia41985]

Well guess what, you guys are hitching your horses to a dark sucker instead of a light emitter.

Rotating frames are nice when trying to do calculations. That doesn't make them right. Newton was proved wrong and it seems funny to me that in a place driven to seek truth, it's being outright rejected because of one person's popularity.

What a PATHETIC attempt at being poetic--just as PATHETIC as your attempts to be scientific. Quit your crying and pontificating and make your "discussion" relevant to golf. You are whiny.

 

[Ringer]

What a PATHETIC attempt at being poetic--just as PATHETIC as your attempts to be scientific. Quit your crying and pontificating and make your "discussion" relevant to golf. You are whiny.

Wow, I could not make a better case for just how vile some people can be than to just quote you.

 

[lia41985]

If you call that vile, that's fine. I've thanked you for other stuff you've done on the boards, like the Tiger Woods videos you've posted. However, this tirade your on is ridiculous and I'm not going to be shy to call you out on it. Deal with it.

 

[mandrin]

What I have not said is that "centrifugal force" isn't useful. Because it does calculate most of our experiences well it can be very useful. But that doesn't make it factual. I remember hearing NASA still uses most of the Newtonian calculations for space shuttle missions. But as we all know Newtons THEORY on gravity is wrong... but the calculations are accurate. Since it's simpler to use, they use it.

Suppose I made up a calculation that correctly identified how much DARKNESS a light bulb "sucked up". According to my theory, a light bulb doesn't emit light, it sucks the dark. And my proof is once the light bulb goes out, it turns dark. That's where all the darkness goes!

Obviously I'm wrong, but if my calculations exactly predict how long the bulb will last and how much "darkness" will be reduced then it can be used to accurately predict things.

Well guess what, you guys are hitching your horses to a dark sucker instead of a light emitter.

Rotating frames are nice when trying to do calculations. That doesn't make them right. Newton was proved wrong and it seems funny to me that in a place driven to seek truth, it's being outright rejected because of one person's popularity.

Ringer,

It looks like you are starting to prepare a fall back defensive position.

But please don’t use for your defensive retreat that often used and silly argument - centrifugal force doesn't really exist but let’s just pretend it does and use it for calculations.

Science is not some bag full of Houdini tricks. A force is either there or it is not. Pick your side and don’t start using wishy-washy arguments.

I am expecting better from someone versed in the very subtle and intricate theories of Mach and Einstein - not many people are, very impressive indeed.

Let me just me refresh your memory with some of your own posts, which convincingly show that you simply don't believe centrifugal force it to exist at all.

I'm surprised someone that is so incredibly nit-picky about the science of any of my other posts wouldn't have been smart enough to mention how centrifugal force doesn't exist at all.

So much for the great all knowing Mandrin.

From a website which has been cited here SEVERAL times..

http://www.scigolf.com/scigolf/myths/myth2.htm

And of course anyone that wants to can just type "centrifugal fictitious force" and see allllll the scientific evidence. But I guess I'm the crazy one.

You are using Kuykendall as a reference above:

(Kuykendall) "When I swing a ball on a string, around my head, many people would say that "CENTRIFUGAL FORCE" keeps the string taut. But there is actually no force pulling the ball out. There is nothing out there pulling the ball.
CENTRIFUGAL FORCE IS FICTITIOUS!

This is so funny. You just can't admit that you're wrong, can you Mandrin. There is no such thing as centrifugal force because if it did exist the instant you let go of a rotating object it would fly STRAIGHT away from the center and not at a 90 degree angle to the radius. There is only momentum/inertia and centripetal force. Rotating frame of reference was never fully explained by Newton since it failed at the point when he tried to describe Space itself as the frame of reference. (see spinning bucket) Thank goodness for people like Leibniz who offered a counter argument to Newton and of course Ernst Mach that founded much of Einsteins theories to dispel this fictitious force and give us general relativity.

Or are you going to do a song and dance about the coriolis effect.

BTW, I didn't have to consult any of my co-workers to bust you on this one.

 

[Ringer]

I'll say it again because I'm not backing off from the point. Centrifugal force does not exist. The calculations used to predict it are effective. But just as what we FEEL isn't always what's happening, so is Newtons theories of absolute space.

Are you saying that Einstein's REPEATABLE calculations to be more accurate than Newtons are incorrect? Do we even need to discuss the whole "moving train" stuff? People want us to stay on track with golf but we're just going back and forth about theory.

If Newtons calculations are good enough for NASA I'm prepared to let them be when it comes to golf. I just thought someone as nit-picky about science as you would have at least MENTIONED that it's a fictitious force. Instead you're saying that basically the physics community since the early 1900's is wrong.

 

[lia41985]

Fall back. Withdraw. Retreat. Back to the barracks!

 

[Ringer]

Fall back. Withdraw. Retreat. Back to the barracks!

Don't you have some dogs to kick or ants to burn?

 

[lia41985]

No, but I can see you have a pretty perverted mind--as well as a perverted understanding of physics and science!

 

[RickPinewild]

A record

89 posts in 4 days, is that a record?

 

[mandrin]

I'll say it again because I'm not backing off from the point. Centrifugal force does not exist. The calculations used to predict it are effective.

Ringer,

Don’t you feel some tiny trace of contradiction in above? Tell me what is the value of a theory which predicts things to exist which yet seemingly don’t exist.
I know you are very deep into Mach and Einstein but have you ever heard of Newton’s Third Law?

 

[JeffM]

Steve - when one spins a ball, which is attached to a string, around-and-around in a circle, the ball starts to gain momentum. If one suddenly lets go of the string, the ball will fly off in a direction that is at a tangent to the circular arc. What is that force that propels the ball - and is it not functionally equivalent to a centrfugal force?

Jeff.

 

[holeout]

Mandrin,

I remember you using the term "inertial force." But before that you had stated that inertia is not a force.

So now I'm curious: what is inertial force?

 

[lia41985]

Great question, holeout.

 

[Biffer]

If you have a weight (mass) hanging vertically on a string the weight is providing a force, which is pulling downward on the string. If you let go of the string, the weight will fall straight downward. If you twirl the string and weight on a circle, the mass will still provide a force, but now that the mass is moving on an arc we use the term centrifugal force to indicate that specific situation. And, of course, as previously mentioned by several, the mass will fly off in a straight line, tangent to the arc of rotation.

So, what the heck is the argument all about? Scence? Facts? Egos? When it comes to the golf swing, all you need to know is how to swing the club to make it contact the ball to produce the desired ball reaction. Whether or not you understand physics will make no difference. You don't need to know how a combustion engine works in order to be able to properly drive a vehicle.

And now folks, back to the golf swing mechanics discussion. Please.

 

[Ringer]

Steve - when one spins a ball, which is attached to a string, around-and-around in a circle, the ball starts to gain momentum. If one suddenly lets go of the string, the ball will fly off in a direction that is at a tangent to the circular arc. What is that force that propels the ball - and is it not functionally equivalent to a centrfugal force?

Jeff.

The force that propels the ball would be all of the kinetic energy you developed to create the inertia. Remember that an object in motion tends to stay in motion LINEAR. It only knows back, forward or not at all. In order for it to move circularly it must constantly be pulled off of it's straight course.

Imagine a ball rolling along a table and at the very end of the table sat a "swing" which the ball would roll into. All of the intertia the ball had to move along the table would now want to continue along it's path. But the string attached to the swing would keep it from going that direction and instead pivot around the axis of the swing.

So there we have Centripetal force constantly pulling the ball away from it's straight line direction. The FORCE that caused the ball to roll along the tabel is the same force acting on the ball that is pulling the string taught.

The idea that centrifugal force exists is only there because of the 3rd law. It makes it just a tad bit cleaner. As mandrin insists, inertia is not a force but rather a property of mass. In order to change a bodies inertia it requires an external force to act upon it. Since Newton needed an opposing force to centripital force but couldn't say it was "inertia" he created centrifugal.

Now Decartes classified "momentum" as an actual force which is mass times it's velocity. Why Newton so opposed the idea of inertia being a force and instead insisted on it being a property is a question for the ages.

To be honest, centripetal is also just a classification of an uknown force without specifics. For example. You could substitute centripetal with gravitational and you have our moons orbit. Without specific forces being specified to the situation and with just "theoretical thinking" to come to a general understanding of our world around us, it was much easier to classify this "force x" as centripetal. But since centripetal force doesn't exist, neither does centrifugal. They're just placeholders for the actual forces that are being exerted until you actually define the specifics of the experiment/situation.

 

[JeffM]

Steve - you state that there is a "centripetal force constantly pulling the ball from its straight line direction" that keeps the ball moving in a circular arc. That statement allows me to conceptualise what is meant by a centrifugal force (even if you do not believe it exists) - it's the converse of the centripetal force and of the SAME magnitude, and its "presence" becomes immediately apparent if the string breaks, and the centripetal force disappears. As another forum member has stated, one can automatically sense what is meant by the term "centrifugal force" when one drives one's automobile around a tight bend in the road at too fast a speed.

Jeff.

 

[mandrin]

Mandrin,

I remember you using the term "inertial force." But before that you had stated that inertia is not a force.

So now I'm curious: what is inertial force?

holeout,

Inertia is a latent property of all matter, i.e., the charateristic to resist being set into motion. Like people matter has an innate abhorrence to get moving.

However once set into motion inertia can manifest itself as an inertial force when it meets some resistance caused by another object.

 

[Ringer]

Steve - you state that there is a "centripetal force constantly pulling the ball from its straight line direction" that keeps the ball moving in a circular arc. That statement allows me to conceptualise what is meant by a centrifugal force (even if you do not believe it exists) - it's the converse of the centripetal force and of the SAME magnitude, and its "presence" becomes immediately apparent if the string breaks, and the centripetal force disappears. As another forum member has stated, one can automatically sense what is meant by the term "centrifugal force" when one drives one's automobile around a tight bend in the road at too fast a speed.

Jeff.

Where is the "centripetal" force in the car? Once you answer that, how can two forces be occupying the same exact part of the equation?

Maybe that question isn't very clear.

Take the moon in orbit. We all agree that "Gravity" is what's keeping the moon from flying away right? Well if GRAVITY is pulling on the moon, where is centripetal force? You can't have gravity AND centripetal force or else the pull is twice what "centrifugal" force is and we're all doomed. That's why "centrifugal" is just an interchangable word acting as a placeholder for the actual force being exerted. It DOESNT actualy exist as a force.

 

[holeout]

holeout,

Inertia is a latent property of all matter, i.e., the charateristic to resist being set into motion. Like people matter has an innate abhorrence to get moving.

However once set into motion inertia can manifest itself as an inertial force when it meets some resistance caused by another object.

So if I throw a baseball at my television, the force exerted on the television by the baseball is inertial force, yes? Could inertial force also be classified as momentum (mass*velocity)? Or is this a way of measuring the amount of "inertial force?"

I ask because a clarity in the terms surrounding the debate over centrifugal force would be helpful.