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: R&M replies from R




This is the nub of the disagreement -- you seem to restrict mechanics to
computing and predicting correctly KINEMATICAL quantities only (position,
velocity and acceleration). But from measurements of kinematical
quantities mechanics must predict also accurate values of the important
dynamical quantities: real work done, real energy changes, both losses
and gains (the sort of things the energy companies make us pay real money
for), real mass values, real momentum changes. By introducing fictitious
dynamical quantities, such as a centrifugal force inside a turning car,
you completely obfuscate the issue of computing real dynamical quantities,
such as real energy expended, and then if and when you decide you want to
compute such quantities, you are going to have to go back and remove the
fictions (i. e., get back to an inertial frame) to see what real dynamical
quantities you actually have.


I think the point is that some people find it easier to handle problems
of motion in a rotating reference frame with the use of the apparent
centrifugal and coriolis "forces", and there is no reason to deny them
the freedom to do that as long as they know what they are doing, and that
the apparent kinetic energy may be just that, apparent only.
Al Clark