Re: centrifugal force (cont)

[Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

On Friday, Dec 13, 2002, at 10:31 US/Eastern, Justin Parke wrote:

> I'd like to hear a fictitious dialogue between a professor and
> a thoughtful student where the professor is explaining the
> difference in viewpoints we are discussing here.

IS THIS GOOD ENOUGH?

Professor:
Centrifugal something is not a force because forces arise
from *interactions*.  A force is defined as a measure of
strength of interaction between two objects.

Student:
But according to an old book I any measurable push or pull
is a force. Centrifugal something, for example, on a bead
mounted on a horizontally rotating rod, can be measured
and it should be called a force. What is wrong with this?

Professor:
Is what you are measuring a push or a pull?

Student:
Hmm, it is neither push nor pull.

Professor:
Therefore, according to your definition this centrifugal
something is not a force. We will call it a pseudo-force.

The N3 law tells us that forces always appear in pairs.
You seem to be saying that Newton was wrong; the
centrifugal force on a rotating platform is acting on an
object but that object does not act on anything else with
an equal and opposite force.

Student:
Why is denying the reality of the centrifugal force better
than denying the universality of N3?

Professor:
Let me focus on negative consequences of rejecting
N3 and accepting reality of centrifugal forces.
blah blah blah...
Ludwik Kowalski