Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
"al" == al clark <al@sci.nccu.edu> writes:
al> You do not feel a force pulling you out, ie. a centrifugal
al> force, What you feel is the force pushing you in. ...
Let me rewrite Al's paragraph thus
You do not feel a force pulling you down, ie. a gravitational
force, What you feel is the force pushing you up.
This statement is equally correct. However, does this mean that
gravity is a "fictitious" force? Well, maybe from a GR standpoint it
is. Nonetheless it is quite useful to work in a Newtonian reference
frame where the gravitational force on an object is quite "real",
i.e. must be accounted for in F=ma.
The same is true for the other "fictitious" forces. For example, itWhy not just include the Coriolis acceleration above, and omit the
is much simpler to handle the problem of the ballistics of a long
range artillery piece using a non-inertial frame at rest with the gun
and include the Corriolis force, than to work in the frame where the
rotation of the earth must be accounted for explicitly.
general connotations associated with "fictitious". So while students
need to come to see how the forces simplify (every force has a source)
when we view the situation from an inertial frame, exorbitant efforts
to "prove" the fictitious-ness of these forces I believe merely
"prove" that physics is not related to the students' reality.