I got a good one for you /sci/. Does or does not, centrifugal

>>7658569
None of that image makes sense.
If this were the case, then the object would travel in a straight path because the "centrifugal" and centripetal force terms would cancel, and "path of inertia" is absolutely retarded. Inertia is not a vector.
Centrifugal force is real when you construct the system in a non-rectilinear coordinate system. Not otherwise.

It's as real as gravity.

>>7658575
>Centrifugal force is real when you construct the system in a non-rectilinear coordinate system. Not otherwise.

can you explain that please?

I was always told that centrifugal force is not real and is only a misconception caused by a lack of centripetal force.

as in there is no force pulling the ball outward, there is only the centripetal force and the path of inertia, the ball flying away form you if you let go is the inertia without centripetal force acting on it any more

>>7658577
this
>>7658575
you're wrong

there is no such thing as centrifugal force, only a lack of centripetal force

centrifugal force is a meme

>>7658576
But what if "gravity" is just the flat earth accelerating at 9.8 m/s?

Joking, of course

>>7658577
If you write equations of motion in a polar coordinate system (or some other rotating frame), extra terms appear. One of these is equivalent to the centrifugal force. If you include these extra terms (called 'fictitious forces'), you can otherwise treat the rotating/accelerating reference frame like an inertial reference frame.

The other fictitious forces that come up in a polar coordinates are the coriolis force and the euler force.

>>7658580
That's the point. Gravity is a fictitious force. This is the line of thinking that led to general relativity.

>>7658580
>But what if "gravity" is just the flat earth accelerating at 9.8 m/s?

Funny you should say that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NblR01hHK6U

>>7658587
if gravity is a fictitious force then why does space time bend?

>>7658593
If spacetime = E, m affects E to a degree.

>>7658600
yes but why? the effect m has on E is what we call gravity. further more the effect m has on E is (according to my hypothesis) the origin of all motion and force in the universe

>>7658601
Mm if we look at the mechanics of a black hole,

E's a constant, ubiquitous force throughout the universe. Vacuum energy = exists.

In fact, increased energy CREATES mass out of itself. quarks and antiquarks popping into existence due to the effects derived from something called "quantum tunneling."

Can't explain it further. Apologies.

But if you imagine the wave-like properties of energy, when something forms into a spherical object, it's energy collapsing upon itself. Being sucked in.

>Mm if we look at the mechanics of a black hole,

E^2=(pc)^2 +(mc^2)^2

Of course it all being unified.

>>7658613
Sorry, quarks and antiquarks combine together via something called a 'flux tube,' and the farther away the quark antiquark pair are pulled away from each other, enough energy's put into the flux tube as to create a new quark antiquark pair. Which bind with the first two quanta.

>>7658613
>>7658622
can you link to any sources or videos to read about what your talking about here?

>>7658576
>>7658587
These are good.
Centripetal force is just a tensile force with a nice name.
Gravity, lol, explain gravitational waves, lol. Its a wave that travels? In intergalactic space? Where theres no mass? Lololol.

>>7658633
.Yep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztc6QPNUqls

>>7658569
depends on your coordinate system. In carthesian coordinates, centrifugal force doesn't really exist because there's no center in this coordinate system..

First of all, in an intertial system, you need a centriPETAL force pushing towards a center to keep something on a circular path.

In a co-rotating system, the object is stationary. However a co-rotating system isn't intertial, and therefor has pseudo-force terms, one of which is the centrifugal force. These pseudo-forces arise solely from the non-inertial frame of reference. Since the object is stationary, this (outward pushing) centrifugal pseudo-force must be compensated by a (inward pushing) centripetal force, which in strength is equal to that of the inertial system.

>>7658569
No, because its called centripetal force you semiliterate.

And centripetal force can be broken down to it's component fundamental forces if you chose to (although that would over complicate the hypothetical system in most cases).

So no and no.

>>7658785
If there is a centripetal force, then there must be a centrifugal force as well. Newton's third law.

>>7658809
No, the reactive force acts on the person in the center, not the object.

Centrifugal force exits in the corotating reference frame.

>>7658785
>No, because its called centripetal force you semiliterate.

Centripetal = towards the center
Centrifugal = away from the center

So not only are you wrong, you actually literally could not be more wrong.

File: ropepull.jpg (56KB, 485x247px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 485x247px

>>7658569
>centrifugal force exist?
Of course. You have to pull on both ends to keep the rope taut.

>>7658868
this kinda blew my mind.

the inertia is kinda of creating centrifugal force