Re: [Phys-l] pseudo-force

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

Hasn't someone already called them frame forces?

I've been doing that for some time.

bc

p.s. pseudo scalar, etc. is OK?

Carl Mungan wrote:

> > I agree that the terms like  pseudo force and fictitious force are 
> > unfortunate. They imply that forces appearing in rotational frames 
> > of reference are not real. But they are real. Referring to discussed 
> > examples, I suggest the term "rot-force" (rotational frame force). 
> > It would probably be less puzzling that the term virtual force. 
> > Actually, the term centrifugal force is just as good as rot-force.
> >    
>
> Except that we also have pseudoforces appearing in translationally 
> accelerating systems (such as Einstein's elevator). My preference 
> would be to call them noninertial forces, but unfortunately many 
> texts call them inertial forces :-( .
>
> Incidentally, pseudoforces can do work, but the result has nothing to 
> do with pseudowork :-( .
>
> I don't generally like the adjective "pseudo" as it appears to mostly 
> have negative connotations. -Carl
>