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



Regarding the thread on centrifugal force, George Spagna writes:

may I suggest that an appropriate term is "inertial forces" - at least
that's the term I use most often.
--

I worry that students have enough difficulty confusing the concept of
inertia with their intuitive desire to claim that an object that is
moving "has force." My experience tells me that high school students may
think of inertia as a force and I would shy away from ever using the
phrase "inertial force," in any context, until I was certain that I was
not perpetuating a misconception.

My view is perhaps too Newtonian, but I feel that the definition of a
force is found in the totality of the 3 laws. Newton clearly intended to
discuss only inertial frames (see law 1); therefore, if it's not a force
in an inertial frame, then it's not a force.

I agree however, that someone living in an accelerated frame of reference
(a rotating space station, for example), would need to invent a
fictitious force so that physical laws (at least the classical ones)
would hold true within that frame of reference. Nonetheless, the
centrifugal force is fictitious.

Dave

David J. Hamilton, Ed.D. "And gladly wolde he lerne,
Franklin HS, Portland, OR and gladly teche."
djhamil@teleport.com Geoffrey Chaucer