As I patiently explained at a simple enough level for even you, that is not how the term is used. In the parent of the thread, even if the rubber band were exerting a "centrifugal force" ( on what? There is no hand or anything else for it to exert that force on), how would it affect the motion of the rubber band itself? You started your bizarre arguments in response to my saying there was no such force acting on rubber band, don't reply "Who said anything about rubber bands" as you did above.
Does it make you feel like a hard man to swear at people online? You are using terms contrary to conventional usage, so that your arguments are simply meaningless. Above you write
"The ONLY context I've ever heard centrifugal force be rightly used is when applied to the rock and the string" but earlier your "proof" of the existence of the centrifugal force was that the rock exerted a reaction force on the hand. So which is it? Does the centrifugal force apply to the rock or the hand?
Take it slow and read so you can understand every word. The term "centrifugal force", as used by the entire world, refers to the rock, not your hand. We are talking apples, you are talking oranges. Your whole argument is pointless because you are misusing the term. The parent of the thread was talking about a centrifugal force on a rubber band rolling down a slope. We informed him the term was a misnomer. You piped in with some nonsense about centrifugal force being a reaction a rock exerts on a string. And you have repeatedly made a fool of yourself trying to defend an untenable position.
Ok, internet tough guy. Real scary.
I will make this simple enough for you to understand. If you cut the string, the rock will fly off in a straight line along its' instantaneous velocity due to its inertia. It is sometimes mistakenly attributed to centrifugal force, which does not exist.
You are the first person I know of who believed centrifugal was exerted on the
hand or the string. Thank you for elucidating this for us. I'm sure Stockholm will soon be calling to award you for your great insight, which had escaped Newton, Einstein, Feynman, and all the rest. You have truly joined the ranks of the the all-time greats of physics.
Or rather should I say you are a simpleton and a blowhard.
You are such an ignorant dolt you fail the see the glaring flaws in your own reasoning. You have at least two people pointing out your obvious mistakes in this thread. Instead of trying to understand why your logic is flawed, you resort to base profanity. Most impressive.
Wrong again. Inertia gives it momentum along the tangent. I do not have time to refute every mistake you make because there are so many. Likewise, think that perhaps you understand less than you think you do. Either that, or you are a troll.
"It is in fact also experiencing a force along the tangent (i.e. the diretion of instantaneous velocity) of the same circle. But, here is where it gets interesting. It is actually experiencing neither of those. It is in fact experiencing a force that is at an angle slightly between the direction of the tangent to the circle and along the radius."
The only force it experiences is radial. There is no tangental component of force. There is a tangential velocity at all times, but the magnitude of that velocity never changes, only the direction, because no work is done - work is given by the integral of the dot product of force and displacement , which are at all time perpendicular to each other, so the dot product is zero. No work is done. Thus no tangential component of force.
"So, if there is a corresponding force pulling inward on the rock (the "Centripetal Force") then there is also a force pulling outward along the radius (the "Centrifugal Force"). In fact, the Rock is pulling on my hand with such an equal and opposite force. So, my hand (and the string) is experiencing "Centrifugal Force". So, "Centrifugal Force DO EXIST!" "
The rock is exerting a reaction force on your hand. But this on no way implies that there is an outward force on the rock. Action and reaction forces are exerted on DIFFERENT bodies. The force on the rock is unbalanced, That is why the velocity of the rock changes direction. You seem to the think the centrifugal force is exerted on your hand. Getting back to the rubber band in TFA, what does it exert centrifugal force force on? There is no hand. And you are abusing an already misused term. Centrifugal force, if it were real, would be exerted on the rock, not the string or your hand.
The observers are in an inertial frame of reference. The rubber band is a non-inertial frame of reference. So the experimenters cannot use a fictitious force in their bookkeeping to explain the motion of the rubber band.
Centrifugal forces don't exist. They are fictional forces used to make non-inertial frames of reference conform to Newton's laws. So they aren't going to compensate for much of anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think it's surprising that the systems are similar if the same people have a hand in designing them?
And how often is it the same dude drawing maps for different cities?
You didn't correct yourself. You repeated your previous error.
As I patiently explained at a simple enough level for even you, that is not how the term is used. In the parent of the thread, even if the rubber band were exerting a "centrifugal force" ( on what? There is no hand or anything else for it to exert that force on), how would it affect the motion of the rubber band itself? You started your bizarre arguments in response to my saying there was no such force acting on rubber band, don't reply "Who said anything about rubber bands" as you did above.
Does it make you feel like a hard man to swear at people online? You are using terms contrary to conventional usage, so that your arguments are simply meaningless. Above you write "The ONLY context I've ever heard centrifugal force be rightly used is when applied to the rock and the string" but earlier your "proof" of the existence of the centrifugal force was that the rock exerted a reaction force on the hand. So which is it? Does the centrifugal force apply to the rock or the hand?
Take it slow and read so you can understand every word. The term "centrifugal force", as used by the entire world, refers to the rock, not your hand. We are talking apples, you are talking oranges. Your whole argument is pointless because you are misusing the term. The parent of the thread was talking about a centrifugal force on a rubber band rolling down a slope. We informed him the term was a misnomer. You piped in with some nonsense about centrifugal force being a reaction a rock exerts on a string. And you have repeatedly made a fool of yourself trying to defend an untenable position.
Ok, internet tough guy. Real scary. I will make this simple enough for you to understand. If you cut the string, the rock will fly off in a straight line along its' instantaneous velocity due to its inertia. It is sometimes mistakenly attributed to centrifugal force, which does not exist. You are the first person I know of who believed centrifugal was exerted on the hand or the string. Thank you for elucidating this for us. I'm sure Stockholm will soon be calling to award you for your great insight, which had escaped Newton, Einstein, Feynman, and all the rest. You have truly joined the ranks of the the all-time greats of physics. Or rather should I say you are a simpleton and a blowhard.
You are such an ignorant dolt you fail the see the glaring flaws in your own reasoning. You have at least two people pointing out your obvious mistakes in this thread. Instead of trying to understand why your logic is flawed, you resort to base profanity. Most impressive.
Wrong again. Inertia gives it momentum along the tangent. I do not have time to refute every mistake you make because there are so many. Likewise, think that perhaps you understand less than you think you do. Either that, or you are a troll.
"It is in fact also experiencing a force along the tangent (i.e. the diretion of instantaneous velocity) of the same circle. But, here is where it gets interesting. It is actually experiencing neither of those. It is in fact experiencing a force that is at an angle slightly between the direction of the tangent to the circle and along the radius." The only force it experiences is radial. There is no tangental component of force. There is a tangential velocity at all times, but the magnitude of that velocity never changes, only the direction, because no work is done - work is given by the integral of the dot product of force and displacement , which are at all time perpendicular to each other, so the dot product is zero. No work is done. Thus no tangential component of force. "So, if there is a corresponding force pulling inward on the rock (the "Centripetal Force") then there is also a force pulling outward along the radius (the "Centrifugal Force"). In fact, the Rock is pulling on my hand with such an equal and opposite force. So, my hand (and the string) is experiencing "Centrifugal Force". So, "Centrifugal Force DO EXIST!" " The rock is exerting a reaction force on your hand. But this on no way implies that there is an outward force on the rock. Action and reaction forces are exerted on DIFFERENT bodies. The force on the rock is unbalanced, That is why the velocity of the rock changes direction. You seem to the think the centrifugal force is exerted on your hand. Getting back to the rubber band in TFA, what does it exert centrifugal force force on? There is no hand. And you are abusing an already misused term. Centrifugal force, if it were real, would be exerted on the rock, not the string or your hand.
The observers are in an inertial frame of reference. The rubber band is a non-inertial frame of reference. So the experimenters cannot use a fictitious force in their bookkeeping to explain the motion of the rubber band.
You certainly are abrasive, for being so wrong. I read physics books every day, since I am a physicist.
Centrifugal forces don't exist. They are fictional forces used to make non-inertial frames of reference conform to Newton's laws. So they aren't going to compensate for much of anything.