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]

Re: non-inertial frames



I think most physicists feel strong reservations about the notion of
`fictitious or inertial forces' and I certainly share these reservations.
They are particularly dangerous at the introductory level. However, contact
with mechanical engineers and the way they use the concept to simplify
problems has tended to reduce my generalized hostility to their use in all
contexts. Descriptions of meteorological phenomena would be particularly
laborious without the use of the notion of Coriolis forces. I was troubled
by Abramovicz's use of centrifugal force when I read his Scientific American
article ... and even more troubled when, rereading an essay by Einstein on
meanders, I encountered his use of the centrifugal force to explain their
formation.

With this background, I would be interested in comments on the reason for
the use of rotating space stations (as remarked upon by Mark Sylvester),
especially in reference to plant growth. Plant hormones (auxins, if I recall
correctly) cause stems and roots to grow in opposite directions - a
phenomenon referred to by earthlings as negative and positive geotropisms. I
have a feeling that plants experience most things naively, and that they do
`experience' in some sense that centrifugal tendency measured by r x
omega^2 as just what the doctor ordered to direct their growth.

What with the presence of JR and Marlow, I wonder if I have wandered onto
the set of `Raymond Chandler does Dallas' ! Interesting though.

Lew

Lew Haddad
Physics Department
Dawson College
3040 Sherbrooke W.
Montreal QC
H3Z 1A4

(lhaddad@dawsoncollege.qc.ca)