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] |
...
The article called attention to the surprising and nonintuitive directions
of acceleration that would be found at and inside the event horizons of a
black hole. The author's terminology was sometime's confusing, but in no
case did his arguments depend on introducing nonexistent forces.
I'm willing to believe that the arguments do not *depend* on
"non-existent" forces, but Abramovicz uses them pretty freely:
"...the centrifugal force, the outward push away from the centre
of the curve"
"...the total force, which is the sum of the centrifugal and
gravitational forces..."
All your worst nightmares!
In answering a critic in a letter to Sci.Am. he says "...the
introduction of those fictitious forces makes the problem much
easier. My discussion could have been in terms of free-falling
frames and centripetal forces, but that would have obscured the
subject."
...
...
I found myself across the dinner table from him (the institute
where he spends some of his time is down the road from me) and
brought up the subject. In the course of the conversation he
said "...I wish people would not call them fictitious forces. In
the non-inertial frame they are perfectly real." - a statement
which I found pretty shocking at the time.
...
...We are using "frame-dependent" here in two different senses. Kinetic
As for the work done by a fictional force, why is this a
crucial objection? Work done by the accelerating force, and hence
kinetic energy, are frame-dependent even when we are comparing
inertial frames.
...
By the way, when investigating the centrifugal force as naively^^^^^^^^^^^
experienced inside a rotating space station