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: [Phys-l] Centrifugal redux



It just cracks me up when people just make up facts and principles
to support their opinions.

It's an old trick.
Simplicio says: My opinion is law. Your opinion doesn't count
because it violates such-and-such principle.
Salvatio says: I am not bound by your opinions, or by your
made-up principles.


As of today, this discussion is two layers deep in bogus principles.

The fact is, the centrifugal field is a term in the equation that gives
the acceleration in one frame in terms of acceleration in another frame.
The derivation does not even depend on Newton's laws of motion or other
physics; it's just mathematics. This is not my opinion; this is a
calculation. If you disagree with the calculation, please tell us which
step of the calculation is wrong.
http://www.av8n.com/physics/rotating-frame.htm

Bogus principle #1: The centrifugal field does not exist.

Bogus principle #2: The centrifugal field does not exist because all
forces have "agents".


I guess if you are going to tout one bogus principle, you might as well
support it with another bogus principle. What have you got to lose?


Galileo is considered the father of modern science because he explicitly
separated science from philosophy and metaphysics. The scientific laws
are required to explain what happens. They are not required to explain
the why or the how; in particular they are not required to identify the
"agent". Newton picked up on this idea and expressed it more succinctly:
Hypotheses non fingo. Talking about "agents" sets all of science back
nearly 400 years.

For example, should this paper have been rejected
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/debate/1996/hub_1929.html
on the grounds that it failed to explain the data in terms of a mechanism
or an "agent"? I don't think so.

===================

It is not surprising that people who have never bothered to learn about
the centrifugal field might conclude that it does not exist. This is
an example of a well known fallacy called _argument from no evidence_.
This type of fallacy is discussed at
http://www.av8n.com/physics/no-evidence.htm