Centrifugal forces ' appear ' to act opposite to gravity . How is this possible?

[swansont]

Thanks, so we are both expecting the same thing in that the mass will move along the tubes and be thrown out in a direction that is a combination of their tangential speed and the speed they climbed the tube. We might be able to see that direction during the experiment.

So to stop the ball rising in the tube we would have to apply a force to stop that motion wouldn't we? What would you called that force? If it was a piece of string you might call it a centripetal force. If you blocked the end of the tube you might call it a normal force.

Yes. For string it would be tension, or as you say a normal force if a surface was blocking it. And the direction is inward, so it would be centripetal.

 

These forces are acting against an opposing force.

 

No, because motion does not allow one to infer a force. Forces cause accelerations, which are changes in velocity.

 

Those masses wont travel in a circle unless there is a sufficient centripetal force. So when we say they are thrown out by centrifugal force but is it just centrifugal motion?

The motion is due to the fact that the object is already moving. It is not centrifugal, though.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

What level of training do have as a scientist by the way? Do you think you should have a high reputation in the field of science due to your knowledge experience and education?

.

.I am not sure what you expect me to say?

7 years old ,built Meccano .

10 years old ,built Crystal set

16 years old, built Transmitter

18 joined Royal Naval Reserve as Radio Operator

' A'. Levels . Pure Maths , Applied Maths , Combined maths , Physics.

University ( 1st Time) Brunel London electronics 3 years .

Career in Electronics . Missile Test Equipment. Change to Civilian Electronics,

Design Acoustic Modem-Start of Internet , Cable harness manufacture for Computers

Dept of Trade and Industry business consultant ( Engineering Manufacturing) 3 years.

University ( 2nd Time) Plymouth Devon. 4 years .( BEngHons Satellite Communications . )

Teacher training PGCE 1 year

Final (10years) Teaching Science, Physics, Business studies

Died, May 2015, found Slaughtered in a back alley behind Science Forum HQ Building . ( Joke )!

 

Surely : there is some reputation in the ' field of science ' in all this lot? Worth some Brownie Points? Reputation in Science.

 

Mike

Edited May 14, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[physica]

.

.I am not sure what you expect me to say?

7 years old ,built Meccano .

10 years old ,built Crystal set

16 years old, built Transmitter

18 joined Royal Naval Reserve as Radio Operator

' A'. Levels . Pure Maths , Applied Maths , Combined maths , Physics.

University ( 1st ) Brunel London electronics 3 years .

Career in Electronics . Missile Test Equipment. Change to Civilian Electronics,

Design Acoustic Modem-Start of Internet , Cable harness manufacture for Computers

University ( 2nd ) Plymouth Devon. 4 years . Teacher training PGCE

Final (10years) Teaching Science, Physics, Business studies

 

Surely : there is some reputation in the field of science in all this lot? Worth some Brownie Points? Reputation in Science.

 

Mike

You do realize that this is one huge appeal to authority. People are taking issue with what you're saying. You are getting basics wrong. As for your qualifications I notice you were a teacher. My mum taught physics at secondary school in the UK. She can't differentiate basic functions and she will be the first to tell you that she would fail and A level physics paper if she had to sit one at short notice. Now she's retired she's got some A-level maths and physics books and started to learn again. Physics and maths are the easiest to forget. Every time I revise for exams I'm always mildly shocked how much I forget from the start of the year. University of Bath states in it's admissions process that taking a gap year if you're taking physics or maths isn't advisable. The fact that you did a PGCE and was teaching a broad range of subjects makes me guess that you taught at secondary school for 10 years. That's a lot of time to forget basics. You've made some great achievements in your life, a first class degree is something to be proud of, however, your post doesn't jump out and tell me that you must know what you're talking about. Focus on the specific points that people have raised.

[studiot]

It is interesting to note that at least one respected technical university is still teaching centrifugal force as a real force, to engineers.

 

See here from the University of Newcastle Department of Chemical Engineering.

 

2.1.1, line 1)

 

http://lorien.ncl.ac.uk/ming/particle/cpe124p2.html

Edited May 14, 2015 by studiot

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You do realize ...........

....... your post doesn't jump out and tell me that you must know what you're talking about.

 

 

. I don't know that I do know what I am talking about.!

 

It's just that all my different experiences throughout my life, with all the whirling about in circles , all my whirling other things about in circles, the feelings I get when I do this whirling, whether skating , throwing buckets of water above my head , in front of a class full of students, riding my motor bikes . All the physics and maths I have learned .

 

All give me one hell of a hunch , yes HUNCH . that we are missing a trick here .

 

This straight line motion with all its inertia, momentum , or whatever,

This curved and circular motion with its own specific , angular momentum ,circulating ' forces, acceleration , and the like .

The universe is stuffed full , of things going about their business , in straight lines trajectories , and/or curved / circular motion.

 

That tells me that those two attributes alone , are crying out with , " the nature of the cosmos" paradigms .

 

That is one hell of a hunch !

 

Mike

Edited May 14, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

. I don't know that I do know what I am talking about.!

 

It's just that all my different experiences throughout my life, with all the whirling about in circles , all my whirling other things about in circles, the feelings I get when I do this whirling, whether skating , throwing buckets of water above my head , in front of a class full of students, riding my motor bikes . All the physics and maths I have learned .

 

All give me one hell of a hunch , yes HUNCH . that we are missing a trick here .

 

This straight line motion with all its inertia, momentum , or whatever,

This curved and circular motion with its own specific , angular momentum , and the like .

The universe is stuffed full , of things going about their business , in straight lines trajectories , and/or curved / circular motion

 

That tells me that those two attributes alone , are crying out with , " the nature of the cosmos" paradigms .

 

That is one hell of a hunch !

 

Mike

 

 

Until such time that you figure out what that missing trick is, we have the subset of physics called mechanics, which do a tremendous job of telling us how to figure out how things move, and the concepts behind them.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

So, would you agree that force had to be applied to the 8 ball, inorder to get it going in a straight line, before the ring changed its direction?

 

My speculation here is not in the least meant to redefine force or acceleration, or mass, but to investigate the forces applied to the object, before it was turned by the ring.

 

The motions of the experimenter are quick, practiced and similar, every time he starts the ball going in the circle again. I tried to watch several times and determine what forces are applied to the ball to provide it with its inertia. I am thinking that one must overcome the stationary inertia of the ball, with a force, inorder to get it moving in a straight line so its direction can be changed by the ring.

 

Earlier in the thread, after reading a few articles, I made the comment, based on what I had read, that reactive centrifugal force is different than apparent centrifugal force. And that the reactive centrifugal force was an actual complimentary force to centripedal force, required by the 3rd law. Is this not the case, that reactive centrifugal force is a different idea, than centrifugal force?

 

If so, are there places in this thread where a false thing is said about centrifugal force that would be a true thing if the speaker had instead said reactive centrifugal force?

 

Regards, TAR

[Robittybob1]

Yes. For string it would be tension, or as you say a normal force if a surface was blocking it. And the direction is inward, so it would be centripetal.

 

 

No, because motion does not allow one to infer a force. Forces cause accelerations, which are changes in velocity.

 

The motion is due to the fact that the object is already moving. It is not centrifugal, though.

I did a search for the words centrifugal motion and came up with this animation. "Centrifugal Motion Demonstration"

I'll have to think about it a bit more.

Another interesting one "Tangential Force (centrifugal motion) on Fluid Demonstration IV".

Edited May 15, 2015 by Robittybob1

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

So, would you agree that force had to be applied to the 8 ball, inorder to get it going in a straight line, before the ring changed its direction?

Yes. Again, this is Newton's first law.

 

My speculation here is not in the least meant to redefine force or acceleration, or mass, but to investigate the forces applied to the object, before it was turned by the ring.

IOW, nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. The force could have been applied at a time and place far removed from the location where the circular motion commences. An electron that is accelerated through a potential and enters a uniform magnetic field, for example.

 

Earlier in the thread, after reading a few articles, I made the comment, based on what I had read, that reactive centrifugal force is different than apparent centrifugal force. And that the reactive centrifugal force was an actual complimentary force to centripedal force, required by the 3rd law. Is this not the case, that reactive centrifugal force is a different idea, than centrifugal force?

Yes, the fictitious force is present when you analyze the motion in a rotating frame.

 

If so, are there places in this thread where a false thing is said about centrifugal force that would be a true thing if the speaker had instead said reactive centrifugal force?

No. The centrifugal force in that case is not real. It's a fudge factor, there to make a rotating frame seem like it is inertial, so you can apply Newton's laws of motion.

[DrP]

Hey - I know we have covered all this... but this vid which was further down robertybob's link explains the lot, again.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHpAifN_2Sw

 

 

But I can't seem to link it - never mind.... It is the vid entitled "Centripetal vs centrifugal" 8th one down.

Edited May 15, 2015 by DrP

[Spyman]

Hey - I know we have covered all this... but this vid which was further down robertybob's link explains the lot, again.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHpAifN_2Sw

 

 

But I can't seem to link it - never mind.... It is the vid entitled "Centripetal vs centrifugal" 8th one down.

Here you go:

 

[DrP]

Thanks spyman... I think that explains everything quite well.. it explains why it 'appears' that there is an outward force but there isn't. It also explains centripetal force... the force needed to make the motion go circular (friction twixt bum and seat on a roundabout, tension in string on pendulum, friction on tyres etc.).

 

The reason the lizard flies out of the tube is because there is not enough centripetal force (From friction from inside the tube) to keep it's path circular.... so it flies off at a tangent in a straight line... funneled out through the tube.

 

 

PS - PLEASE rep me down if I am wrong. I wouldn't want anyone to think this is correct if it is wrong and go away with the wrong idea. x

Edited May 15, 2015 by DrP

[swansont]

Thanks spyman... I think that explains everything quite well.. it explains why it 'appears' that there is an outward force but there isn't. It also explains centripetal force... the force needed to make the motion go circular (friction twixt bum and seat on a roundabout, tension in string on pendulum, friction on tyres etc.).

 

The reason the lizard flies out of the tube is because there is not enough centripetal force (From friction from inside the tube) to keep it's path circular.... so it flies off at a tangent in a straight line... funneled out through the tube.

 

 

PS - PLEASE rep me down if I am wrong. I wouldn't want anyone to think this is correct if it is wrong and go away with the wrong idea. x

 

No, you are not wrong. That's a good summary of the issues.

[tar]

Yes. Again, this is Newton's first law.

 

IOW, nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. The force could have been applied at a time and place far removed from the location where the circular motion commences. An electron that is accelerated through a potential and enters a uniform magnetic field, for example.

 

Yes, the fictitious force is present when you analyze the motion in a rotating frame.

 

No. The centrifugal force in that case is not real. It's a fudge factor, there to make a rotating frame seem like it is inertial, so you can apply Newton's laws of motion.

 

 

SwansonT,

 

I am not sure it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. In the rotating frame, there is something in the inertial frame that is causing the rotating frame to establish. The direction of the force that gets the merry-go-round spinning is important and interesting. The kid standing on the ground and pushing the ride to the left is applying an equal an opposite force on the ground, through his sneakers, in the opposite direction. This causes the ride to gain an inertial movement, and there is nothing at all moving in a straight line. Every peice and part of the ride is being coaxed into a circular path. Every peice and part following an instananeous tangent to the circle its distance from the center, puts it on/in. Every piece and part feeling the force of the surrounding structure, accelerating it toward the center, when it would rather go off on a tangent. Therefore there is force inherent in the momentum of the ride, as it continues to circulate and slow to a stop, even after the kid stops pushing, and there is nobody on the ride.

 

So there is a force, an equal and opposite reactionary force applied by the peice of the ride to the outside of it, as is applied by the peice to the outside to it. A reality that is modeled by the propeller designers we talked about before, that model the propeller as concentric rings, applying various forces on each other. In their figuring the reactive centrifugal force must be considered, or the integrity of the propeller can not be assured.

 

So, a body at constant velocity has inertia, but no force needs to be applied for it to continue to move. However, forces need to be applied to change the direction of a tangential straight line moving mass. Which is happening continually to all the peices of a spinning disk, inacted by all the peices around it, pushing or pulling on it. The only real forces we have to work with, are gravity, electromagnetic forces, and the forces that hold atoms together. There is no such thing as kid force, yet he is the one that got the merry-go-round, going. When he pushes the ride to the left he pushes the far side of the ride to the right, at the same instant.

 

Here, my analysis of 24 tangential lines, approximating 24 radial lines (90 degrees offset) is important to consider, because each piece and part of a rotating disc is undergoing forces applied by the pieces surrounding it, and are thusly attached by the forces that hold materials together, to the parts of the disc heading North, as securely as they are attached to the parts of the disc heading West.

 

The thought is that inertia heading out in 24 tangential directions, adds up to being radially outward. And so the pendulum swings in that direction.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 15, 2015 by tar

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

I am not sure it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. In the rotating frame, there is something in the inertial frame that is causing the rotating frame to establish. The direction of the force that gets the merry-go-round spinning is important and interesting. The kid standing on the ground and pushing the ride to the left is applying an equal an opposite force on the ground, through his sneakers, in the opposite direction. This causes the ride to gain an inertial movement, and there is nothing at all moving in a straight line. Every peice and part of the ride is being coaxed into a circular path. Every peice and part following an instananeous tangent to the circle its distance from the center, puts it on/in. Every piece and part feeling the force of the surrounding structure, accelerating it toward the center, when it would rather go off on a tangent. Therefore there is force inherent in the momentum of the ride, as it continues to circulate and slow to a stop, even after the kid stops pushing, and there is nobody on the ride.

In a polar coordinate system, there is a radial direction and a tangential (or angular) one. These are orthogonal. Thus, the behavior is completely separable.

 

So there is a force, an equal and opposite reactionary force applied by the peice of the ride to the outside of it, as is applied by the peice to the outside to it. A reality that is modeled by the propeller designers we talked about before, that model the propeller as concentric rings, applying various forces on each other. In their figuring the reactive centrifugal force must be considered, or the integrity of the propeller can not be assured.

The reactive force from one part is exerting a force on another part. It's important to the other part. But that's a much more complicated system, and obscures the fundamental physics that's going on.

 

So, a body at constant velocity has inertia, but no force needs to be applied for it to continue to move. However, forces need to be applied to change the direction of a tangential straight line moving mass. Which is happening continually to all the peices of a spinning disk, inacted by all the peices around it, pushing or pulling on it.

 

Yes. There must be a force inward.

 

The only real forces we have to work with, are gravity, electromagnetic forces, and the forces that hold atoms together. There is no such thing as kid force, yet he is the one that got the merry-go-round, going. When he pushes the ride to the left he pushes the far side of the ride to the right, at the same instant.

The force the kid exerts, and the one that holds atoms together, is ultimately an electromagnetic force, and it does, in fact, exist.

 

Here, my analysis of 24 tangential lines, approximating 24 radial lines (90 degrees offset) is important to consider, because each piece and part of a rotating disc is undergoing forces applied by the pieces surrounding it, and are thusly attached by the forces that hold materials together, to the parts of the disc heading North, as securely as they are attached to the parts of the disc heading West.

 

The thought is that inertia heading out in 24 tangential directions, adds up to being radially outward. And so the pendulum swings in that direction.

If you add those vectors together you will get zero. Each one cancels with one in the opposite direction. No matter, though, because the analysis is meaningless. Newton's laws reflect the instantaneous force on an object, and you are talking about something that happens over time or to many parts.

 

The pendulum swings outwards because that's what's necessary for the tension to be able to provide the required centripetal force. It moves tangentially, which causes r to increase, and it rises up because the string constrains the motion. That provides a radial force (inward), and this continues until the tension yields the centripetal force required for circular motion.

[Robittybob1]

Hey - I know we have covered all this... but this vid which was further down robertybob's link explains the lot, again.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHpAifN_2Sw

 

 

But I can't seem to link it - never mind.... It is the vid entitled "Centripetal vs centrifugal" 8th one down.

is where I found it. Quite a messy presentation though.

Here you go:

 

That was ok but the direction of the "sliding off" was incorrect. You move in the tangential direction but you slide off in the direction opposite to the centripetal force i.e. the "centrifugal force" or as I prefer now in the direction of the "centrifugal motion"

....

The motion is due to the fact that the object is already moving. It is not centrifugal, though.

As I see it since the mass has a tangential speed and a speed of moving from the inner part to the extremity of the tube, so it has a combinational velocity of those two. The ultimate direction it leaves the system is not purely tangential or radial but at an angle away from the tangent.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

INERTIA

 

The inertia as a stubborn desire to continue to move in a straight line , has been mentioned quite often in these videos.

And it appears this stubbornness gives rise to the apparent drifting away from the centre as the rotation moves on. It would be nice to call this ' drifting away from the centre due to inertial stubbornness " centrifugal " , but it appears to be a word that is ' sacrosanct ' . The fact that inertia is heavy, pulling in its own stubborn direction , drags heavy particles outward in a centrifugal filter, pull men's cheeks practically off there faces in a test bed space traveller test for 'g' forces. And a lot of other effects of heavy strait line inertia effect do the same thing as they try to move' effectively ' radially outward , yet to them they are just in an inertial way trying to keep in a straight line . Why this cannot be referred to as Centrifugally , I do not know. By all means, carry the rider , that there is 'no single force ' trying to push its way up the radius. But that the effect , is of a forced rotation of an inertial object , ' none the less ' causes such an effect to be generated.

- Centrifugally -

 

Mike

Edited May 16, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Robittybob1]

.

INERTIA

 

The inertia as a stubborn desire to continue to move in a straight line , has been mentioned quite often in these videos.

And it appears this stubbornness gives rise to the apparent drifting away from the centre as the rotation moves on. It would be nice to call this ' drifting away from the centre due to inertial stubbornness " centrifugal " , but it appears to be a word that is ' sacrosanct ' . The fact that inertia is heavy, pulling in its own stubborn direction , drags heavy particles outward in a centrifugal filter, pull men's cheeks practically off there faces in a test bed space traveller test for 'g' forces. And a lot of other effects of heavy strait line inertia effect do the same thing as they try to move' effectively ' radially outward , yet to them they are just in an inertial way trying to keep in a straight line . Why this cannot be referred to as Centrifugally , I do not know. By all means carry the rider that there is no single force trying to push its way up the radius. But that the effect of forced rotation of an inertial object , ' none the less ' causes such an effect to be generated.

- Centrifugally -

 

Mike

It won't work.

[swansont]

 

As I see it since the mass has a tangential speed and a speed of moving from the inner part to the extremity of the tube, so it has a combinational velocity of those two. The ultimate direction it leaves the system is not purely tangential or radial but at an angle away from the tangent.

 

The example being discussed was not of the tube, but yes, it's possible the tube is also exerting a force. But that's an additional force and an additional complication from the basic scenario.

.

INERTIA

 

The inertia as a stubborn desire to continue to move in a straight line , has been mentioned quite often in these videos.

And it appears this stubbornness gives rise to the apparent drifting away from the centre as the rotation moves on. It would be nice to call this ' drifting away from the centre due to inertial stubbornness " centrifugal " , but it appears to be a word that is ' sacrosanct ' .

 

The fact that inertia is heavy, pulling in its own stubborn direction , drags heavy particles outward in a centrifugal filter, pull men's cheeks practically off there faces in a test bed space traveller test for 'g' forces. And a lot of other effects of heavy strait line inertia effect do the same thing as they try to move' effectively ' radially outward , yet to them they are just in an inertial way trying to keep in a straight line . Why this cannot be referred to as Centrifugally , I do not know. By all means carry the rider that there is no single force trying to push its way up the radius. But that the effect of forced rotation of an inertial object , ' none the less ' causes such an effect to be generated.

- Centrifugally -

 

Mike

We don't call it radially outward motion for much the same reason we don't call going east "going north".

 

Centrifugal literally means center-fleeing. Not spiraling away, which is the motion of an object still within the spinning system, or moving at a tangent, which is the motion once it leaves the spinning system. And, of course, there is no force pointed away from the center. We don't use the word because it's wrong as a description.

 

Now you know.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

How do you get an instantaneous force if the definition of a Newton is the force required to move a kg one meter per second per second? Don't you need some time for the mass to move at a certain rate? Or in our circular example, you need the thing to change direction. How can you change direction instantaneously?

 

In our merry-go-round example and our motor bike example we have humans experiencing an outward pull. This, I think perhaps is experienced over time, and is not an instantaneous judgment.

 

I read somewhere that a human moment is about a second and a half, long. It makes a certain amount of sense to give humans at least a few tenths of a second to make a determination that requires signals to come from their inner ear, and nerves in their arms and signals from their eyes, and motor pulses to be sent to the various muscles attempting to keep the human from falling and hurting themselves. Seems a person would lean to keep from falling off or falling over. The direction he/she would lean would be away from the direction they thought they were going to fall. If they were feeling the instantaneous force, they would lean out, to gain their balance. They don't lean out.

 

The situation, over time, is that your inertia is taking you out, away from the center. Like you said, the tangential motion is increasing your distance from the center. You are not so concerned with forces, as much as you are concerned with where you are going to go, if you grip fails. By the time you realize you are being pulled East, you are already being pulled North, or for a more reasonable example, if you broke the circle into the 15 degree segments we were talking about on the space station, and you were to ask the person to call out which of the 24 directions she was facing and which of the directions she felt she was being pulled in, I would bet she would lag the proper call by at least a few sections, since it takes time to sense and vocalize. Such slop should be considered when trying to figure why we feel we are being pulled in a certain direction.

 

Regards, TAR

[Robittybob1]

 

The example being discussed was not of the tube, but yes, it's possible the tube is also exerting a force. But that's an additional force and an additional complication from the basic scenario.....

The tube keeps the mass going at the same omega (rotational velocity). As it travels outward it is being accelerated by the tube but only in a tangential direction. It needs a centripetal force to hold it in a circular motion but the mass's centrifugal force, that would have acted at the center, is not attached to the center, so it accelerates the mass to the exit end of the tube. Here it can no longer accelerate. When it leaves the direction will be a result of the addition of the two velocity vectors. Same must happen on a merry go round as you slide outward you will be accelerated to a higher velocity at the larger radius as you get closer to the edge. At the edge your final velocity will depend on the ratio of the two velocities.

A different situation applies if there is a string under tension.

If the rotation (or circular motion) is enabled via a string, the string providing the required centripetal force and the string then is instantly cut, the mass has no way of accelerating further and the only velocity it will have is the instantaneous tangential velocity.

 

Centrifugal literally means center-fleeing. Not spiraling away, which is the motion of an object still within the spinning system, or moving at a tangent, which is the motion once it leaves the spinning system. And, of course, there is no force pointed away from the center. We don't use the word because it's wrong as a description.

....

It will have a spiralling motion within the system which is why when it leaves it won't be leaving tangentially as you say.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

With all that has been said, it becomes clear now. There is no absolute answer. Unless you view it from outside the universe. Then it will probably look like an oscillation , finally going to a point.

 

Every other perspective is related to the frame of reference , you are in , or observing from . Any one of those frames has no more presidency than another , ( does it ) , depending on , who or what is experiencing the effect of being or observing from that particular position, within that particular frame.

 

However , inertia , or Mass does seem to have a relevance . As demonstrated by the video discussion of a centrifugal filter. Where the more massive liquid went one way and the light bubble went another way.

 

This seems to tie well in with Einstein's General theory of gravity and Relativity. ( now that is significant and interesting ) !

 

Can we really say one frame of reference is more important than another.

To me on the roundabout or in the tube ( if I am a Lizard) , My experience of thrust is outward in a straight line , radially and centrifugally.

 

To the lady pressing my I pad observation button , observing my lizard, or knowing of my lizards journey up the tube and out , is clearly spiral as Janus diagrams show. Thus not linear, or radial . Thus not described well by the word centrifugal . Yet from the lizards perspective very centrifugal.

 

But even then the ladies observation from my I pad , if seen from a telescope from outer space say halfway too the moon , would be different again. Not spiral, but complex.

 

And so on to outside the solar system, galaxy, supercluster and beyond to outside the universe to " a gods eye view " whether you believe there is a god there or not. It is only outside the universe could you say it is ' absolute '. Super symmetric .

 

So one can only return to which frame is important , for what you want to use or observe. Which I would say is very subjective, as to wether you wish to filter, have fun, fly, or just speculate.

 

So centrifugal is a correct word or description, in one frame , or more . And in other frames incorrect .

 

No frame , is more right or important than another!. IS IT ?

 

Mike

 

Ps. Then again, who is to say a 'spiral flight' is not as significant as a straight radial flight. Centrifugal (centre fleeing ) , it's still centre fleeing ,even if only a longer route. Perhaps we are then into semantics (meaning of words ) .But maybe that's where we are anyway !

 

Meaning of word :- Centrifugal . Wikipedia

Quote "

Centrifugal force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

Centrifugal force (from Latin centrum, meaning "center", and fugere, meaning "to flee") is the apparent force that draws a rotating body away from the center of rotation. It is caused by the inertia of the body.

‎Centripetal force - ‎Rotating reference frame - ‎Reactive centrifugal force. Unquote "

 

Link :- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force_(rotating_reference_frame)

Edited May 16, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Robittybob1]

With all that has been said, it becomes clear now. There is no absolute answer. Unless you view it from outside the universe. Then it will probably look like an oscillation , finally going to a point.

 

Every other perspective is related to the frame of reference , you are in , or observing from . Any one of those frames has no more presidency than another , depending on , who or what is experiencing the effect of being or observing from that particular position, within that particular frame.

 

However , inertia , or Mass does seem to have a relevance . As demonstrated by the video discussion of a centrifugal filter. Where the more massive liquid went one way and the light bubble went another way.

 

This seems to tie well in with Einstein's General theory of gravity and Relativity.

 

Can we really say one frame of reference is more important than another.

To me on the roundabout or in the tube. My experience of thrust is outward in a straight line , radially and centrifugally.

 

To the lady pressing my I pad observation button , observing my lizard, or knowing of my lizards journey up the tube and out , is clearly spiral as Janus diagrams show. Thus not linear, or radial . Thus not described well by the word centrifugal . Yet from the lizards perspective very centrifugal.

 

But even then the ladies observation from my I pad , if seen from a telescope from outer space say halfway too the moon , would be different again. Not spiral, but complex.

 

And so on to outside the solar system, galaxy, supercluster and beyond to outside the universe to " a gods eye view " whether you believe there is a god there or not. It is only outside the universe could you say it is ' absolute '. Super symmetric .

 

So one can only return to which frame is important , for what you want to use or observe. Which I would say is very subjective, as to wether you wish to filter, have fun, fly, or just speculate.

 

So centrifugal is a correct word or description, in one frame , or more . And in other frames incorrect .

 

No frame , is more right or important than another!. IS IT ?

 

Mike

Swansont showed us what radial was but what is radial in a rotating system? One would think it would mean that the rotational rate is not changing as the point moves further from the center. This could be described as a spiral, but it would be a special type of spiral (and I don't have the terms at my fingertips).

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Rob

Swansont showed us what radial was but what is radial in a rotating system? One would think it would mean that the rotational rate is not changing as the point moves further from the center. This could be described as a spiral, but it would be a special type of spiral (and I don't have the terms at my fingertips).

.

.Rob , this is a fascinating subject, and I do not consider it a waste of time , thrashing it about a bit. I think quite a lot of other people also find it fascinating. The more you dig , the more interesting it gets . I enjoy your comments.

 

What I am not sure about is , which if any , is the BASE FRAME OF REFERENCE ,so to say . " this is the frame that is the one to base everything else on , or compare everything else to. If there isn't one , we are floating around in a soup of frames. I suspect it must be the one we see when we open our eyes? The question is ' where are we, when we open our eyes. Are we on a merry go round? Are we in a centrifuge, are we on the ground looking up, straight forward ?

 

Inertia is mentioned quite a lot. Inertia is the massiveness of mass , as far as I can make out . Mass from dust to black holes has inertia . Centrifugal (..............) something , whatever it is, one of the vehicles of ' mass ' movement in a circle , yet it has this mystery hanging over it, as to whether it even exists . Yet general relativity, by Einstein was/ is a contributor somewhere in here , do you not think so.

 

Seeing as our very existence is all about " stuff" namely mass thus inertia. How and why it behaves the way it does , why, how it is what it is , and what is going on when it moves in a circle is ,I would have thought , very fundamental, yet it seems full of mystery. What do you think ? Are you any clearer now ? I still feel a bit shaky !

 

Mike

SwansonT,

 

How do you get an instantaneous force if the definition of a Newton is the force required to move a kg one meter per second per second? Don't you need some time for the mass to move at a certain rate? Or in our circular example, you need the thing to change direction. How can you change direction instantaneously?

 

In our merry-go-round example and our motor bike example we have humans experiencing an outward pull. This, I think perhaps is experienced over time, and is not an instantaneous judgment.

 

I read somewhere that a human moment is about a second and a half, long. It makes a certain amount of sense to give humans at least a few tenths of a second to make a determination that requires signals to come from their inner ear, and nerves in their arms and signals from their eyes, and motor pulses to be sent to the various muscles attempting to keep the human from falling and hurting themselves. Seems a person would lean to keep from falling off or falling over. The direction he/she would lean would be away from the direction they thought they were going to fall. If they were feeling the instantaneous force, they would lean out, to gain their balance. They don't lean out.

 

The situation, over time, is that your inertia is taking you out, away from the center. Like you said, the tangential motion is increasing your distance from the center. You are not so concerned with forces, as much as you are concerned with where you are going to go, if you grip fails. By the time you realize you are being pulled East, you are already being pulled North, or for a more reasonable example, if you broke the circle into the 15 degree segments we were talking about on the space station, and you were to ask the person to call out which of the 24 directions she was facing and which of the directions she felt she was being pulled in, I would bet she would lag the proper call by at least a few sections, since it takes time to sense and vocalize. Such slop should be considered when trying to figure why we feel we are being pulled in a certain direction.

 

Regards, TAR

I think you must have had the same childhood as me. Parks roundabouts . I think health and safety would not allow them nowerdays.

Ice skating was another of mine. Being on the outside of a line of skaters holding hands going in a circle . Last one on the line , went like stink, then let go .

 

Motor bikes and the lot . I still have the motor bikes.

 

And still like doing practical experiments ! With cardboard carpet rolls and toy lizards. ( I still wish I knew how to upload my I pad video , only 20 sec long , ) but the lizard shoots out the top with a mixture of tangent and outward inertia . It's worth seeing . In the tube it's restricted to going totally radially upwards and outwards away from the centre. And if you viewed it while being attached to the inside of the tube it would be a straight radial line !

 

I think if I knew how to upload it to you tube , it would go viral.

 

There is this idiot ,in the middle of a country park, flinging a 5-6 meter cardboard tube , with all the energy he can muster in an arc. Looking like a slightly deranged scientist, straining at every seem , the rat or lizard ( lead and woollen mix ) shoots out the end , like a low velocity rifle. I forgot that the pipe , with its inertia wanted to complete the circle. It smashes into the ground and breaks in half ,. Dogs and the ladies child ( who was a kind passing stranger agreeing to press my I pad start button ) , all running about amock! But, she did it , screaming hysterically " I got it " ! All on video 20 seconds long .

 

I don't even know if ' radial ' is a pre-requisite of centrifugal or centrifugal force , for that matter ?

 

Mike

Edited May 16, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Robittybob1]

...

 

I don't even know if ' radial ' is a pre-requisite of centrifugal or centrifugal force , for that matter ?

 

Mike

Forces on inclined slopes ... mean forces and surfaces can meet at any angle and still yield some sort of analysable result.

Your tube could be facing some degrees forward of radial and your lizard might still climb out of the tube.

This was the principle off a juice extractor that I invented. I got someway through designing working prototypes before having to can the project.

Some rotary juice extractors use centrifugal motion an inclined sieve but mine used on forwardly inclined curved sieves that rotated like the vanes of a centrifugal pump. (but in a centrifugal pump they usually curve backwards of the direction of rotation.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Robittybob1