Re: centrifugal force

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>]

> When NASA accelerates a man strapped into a sled  along a LINEAR track,
> the man's face is squished inward (toward the rear).  But in this linear
> case we don't seem to be tempted to ascribe these effects to a newly
> named force.

Oh, but we do! It is called the "gee force" and it comes with
different names depending upon its sign in the frame of the
subject: eyeballs-in gee force and eyeballs-out gee force. I
am surprised that you know of these experiments (a fellow
named Stapp endured a lot of them) and every account I have
read of those experiments referred to the gee forces.

> These strains are the effect of stresses arising from the
> transmission of forces among the parts of an accelerating body - the
> centrifugal effect is no different and should not be treated differently.

I agree. Do you really think that naming a force is treating
it differently?

> I would speak of a centrifugal effect, not of a centrifugal force
> (within the context of Newtonian mechanics).

That's what we do not need: more names for well understood
physical quantities.

> (Sorry, but I was quiet the last time this can of worms was opened!)

Why this time, since you evidently understand the physics?

Leigh