Re: The old centrifugal force

["John S. Denker" <jsd@AV8N.COM>]

On 11/15/2003 07:46 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
> THE IDEA OF A ROTATING FRAME HAS NOT
> BEEN INTRODUCED IN MY COURSE, OR IN
> MILLIKAN'S BOOK. THE FIGURE 25 IN THAT
> BOOK SHOWS A LABORATORY APPARATUS
> FOR OBSERVING A CENTRIFUGAL EFFECT.

In a non-rotating frame, there is no centrifugal
field nor any Coriolis effects.

In the absence of a rotating frame, the whole
idea of this thread about centrifugal force is
self-contradictory.

> Who was the first to
> declare that the concept of centrifugal force should
> not be part of our vocabulary in physics?

In a non-rotating frame, it is not part of the
physics.

There is a big difference between a rotating
_object_ and a rotating _frame_.

If the frame is not rotating, there is no
centrifugal field, and the object is not
subject to any centrifugal force.

The force of constraint is an unbalanced force
that causes the object to accelerate in the
inward (centripetal) direction.