Re: Centrifugal Force

["Bob Sciamanda" <trebor@velocity.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: David Bowman <dbowman@tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us>
To: phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu <phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu>
Cc: dbowman@tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us
<dbowman@tiger.gtc.georgetown.ky.us>
Date: Saturday, February 21, 1998 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: Centrifugal Force
> . . .
> I wonder if there is not some confusion here . . ..  If the
> description is of a revolving particle then we seem to be using an
inertial
> frame and there is then, clearly, no such outward force.
>
> OTOH, if the particle is not revolving but is at rest at one end of the
> string, and the whole external world is revolving around the anchor
point at
> the other end of the string then there is apparently an outward force
> pulling on the mass.  The inward force on the mass from the string
tension
> then cancels this frame-induced force thus keeping the mass at rest.
This
> is the case only when we consider a force on an object as something that
> acts to tend to change the state of motion of that object, and we
consider
> forces necessary in order to cause the state of motion of objects to
change.
> . . .
How about "on the fourth hand", where the outward force on the
stationionary mass is caused by the "gravidynamic" field of the rotating
universe (like a magnetic field)?  Whatever happened to this "causal"
view?  It certainly seems to have been Einstein's view, at least in some
writings.  Did he change his mind?  What does one sacrifice by taking
this fourth view?
Granted this uses "actio in distans" (so does Maxwellian E&M).  With the
appropriate time delay, why not?
> . . .
> David Bowman
> dbowman@gtc.georgetown.ky.us

-Bob

Bob Sciamanda   sciamanda@edinboro.edu
Dept of Physics   trebor@velocity.net
Edinboro Univ of PA  http://www.edinboro.edu/~sciamanda/home.html
Edinboro, PA   (814)838-7185