Re: [Phys-l] Centrifugal redux; muddied

["R. McDermott" <rmcder@gmail.com>]

I think the problem with this argument is that "centrifugal" and 
"centripetal" forces are generally assumed to represent forces ON the 
revolving object.  That being the case, N3 doesn't enter into the picture. 
It would also raise the issue of the agent for this centrifugal force, which 
is problematic, at least in an inertial frame.

As to why one would argue that there is no centrifugal force, the crux of 
that argument is dependent on the premise that all "real" forces require an 
agent and an interaction between two entities; which further brings up the 
issue of the nature of "fields".  Are they real "things" that can act as 
agents and, presumeably, exert and experience forces.

Imo, this, and other similar arguments here, are founded on the difference 
in perspective between high school (and lower) versus college (and higher) 
instructors.  What one can expect to "get across" to the general population 
of high school students, many of them never seeing a college-level 
classroom, and the vast majority of them never finding themselves in a 
college-level PHYSICS classroom, versus the handful that WILL, and who 
typically have superior math and intellectual skills to begin with, is night 
and day.  Recognizing that fact, and adjusting to accommodate, simply 
represents good teaching practice.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stuart Leinoff" <leinoffs@sunyacc.edu>
To: "Phys-L List server" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Centrifugal redux; muddied


> ..and perhaps just to muddy the waters here a bit:
>
> Doesn't "centrifugal" just mean "away from the center" (or from the Latin
> "fleeing" the center)?
>
> Even in the laboratory (inertial) frame, if there is a centripetal force, 
> by N3
> there would have to be a centrifugal force.  (or are we all assuming that 
> we
> are talking only about forces acting on the object moving in a circle?)
>
> Even so, why would anyone argue that there is no such thing as centrifugal
> force?
> --
> Stuart Leinoff