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] |
Let me summarize the conclusions I've made so far (note: this would
not agree entirely with the conclusions Marlow makes from the discussion).
Everyone agrees that there are effects when you make measurements
in a non-inertial frame of reference. Marlow wishes to only call them
accelerations,
... I see no point in being so dogmatic about that ...
... and feel quite
comfortable with multiplying by mass and call the resulting entity a
"kinematical" force. I feel uncomfortable with using the term "fictitious"
to describe the resulting entity;
... the reason being the effects are real as
measured in the non-inertial frame of reference and the word "fictitious"
has connotations of unreality.
... I don't think one can make measurements in
the non-inertial frame that can distinguish these terms
... as their introduction is
precisely so you can use the 2nd law and 3rd law (and hence all
of mechanics) in non-inertial frames and analyze things consistantly and get
correct answers.
...
So, one way to define a force then is operationally, by observing
the objects acceleration. If I stop there then I believe Marlow is
absolutely correct in saying I've reduced dynamics to kinematics. But there
is nothing wrong with that and "my" physics is perfectly consistent in doing
that, I get the same answers that Marlow gets to analysizing problems;
... we
predict the
same trajectories for the motion of objects under the influence of forces.
...