Re: heat, centrifugal force, etc.

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

John Barrer wrote:

> Would ... be satisfied
> if we (in HS) said "There is no such thing as
> centrifugal force in our usual reference frame"?

Could I plead for a slightly different wording?
 1) IMHO "usual" is a bit vague, and
 2) There are advantages to saying where it
    does exist, not just where it doesn't.

How about:

"Centrifugal force exists in a rotating reference
frame and not otherwise.  Such frames are fairly
common, but analyzing them is beyond the scope of
the discussion right now.  Ask again in ___ months."

Or something like that????

In general, there's a big difference between
 ++ XXX is beyond the scope of the discussion.
 -- XXX does not exist.