Centrifugal force in 0G

File: graph.png (8KB, 610x563px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 610x563px

>>8506398

>>8506398
Centrifugal force works exactly the same in zero-g as it does on Earth.

>Would the body be pulled to the outside wall by the centrifugal force alone as shown by the green arrow, or would there need to be some external force acting on the body first and move it towards the wall (blue arrow) for the effect to kick in?
Assuming the body is travelling at roughly the same speed as the ring, it would accelerate towards the outer wall on its own.

>Also would the result be different if it was a in a vacuum or not?
A vacuum would make no difference.

>>8506474
I see. Thanks a lot, anon.

>>8506398
centripetal and centrifugal force is fake shit

Theres no such thing as centrifugal force. The ball seems to be pulled out of the circular tragectory becouse it follows the first Newton's law and want to keep moving in a linear movement. Therefore you need a centripetal force to make the ball go into the curve.

>>8506497
So in this case the centripetal force would just be tension? And for an orbiting body the centripetal force is gravity? Why do we even have a separate name for this? Can't we just refer to these as central forces?

>>8506508
>Why do we even have a separate name for this?
Because it's useful.

>Can't we just refer to these as central forces?
There's a whole set of "fictitious" or "pseudo" forces that show up in non-inertial reference frames. Centrifugal force is the simplest one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force

>>8506556
>Because it's useful.
How is it any more useful than saying "central force"?

>There's a whole set of "fictitious" or "pseudo" forces that show up in non-inertial reference frames. Centrifugal force is the simplest one.
But I'm not talking about centrifugal force, I'm talking about centripetal force. I get that centrifugal forces are useful, but centripetal forces are not fictitious nor are they useful.

>>8506561
>How is it any more useful than saying "central force"?
"Central force" could mean a bunch of different things.

>but centripetal forces are not fictitious nor are they useful.
Centripetal forces are very useful. For example, a discussion of the tension in the arms of a centrifuge is going to require to calculating the centripetal force involved.

>>8506567
>"Central force" could mean a bunch of different things.
So could centripetal force though. Is centripetal force a special case of central force where the tangential velocity is nonzero? I don't see any use in that.

>For example, a discussion of the tension in the arms of a centrifuge is going to require to calculating the centripetal force involved.
You would also be completely valid in saying "a discussion of the tension in the arms of a centrifuge is going to require to calculating the tension involved." It's just a different name for the same thing, it has no real "use"

>>8506577
I'm not really sure what you mean by "central force".

>>8506614
Here, from google:
>A central force is a force that points from the particle directly towards (or directly away from) a fixed point in space, the center, and whose magnitude only depends on the distance of the object to the center.
I can see the distinction between the two, and central is more general than centripetal, but I still can't imagine a physical situation where the centripetal acceleration is not due to a central force. So really what is the use?

File: graph.png (8KB, 610x563px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 610x563px

>>8506399
If the ball starts out stationary, then no, it's not going to be pulled toward the outside. Only if the ball is moving like pic related will it move to the outside, and that's because it's trying to follow a straight path.

>>8506398
>centrifugal
>force
pick one

>>8506398
If you're floating in a vacuum inside a cylinder, rotating the cylinder won't cause you to move with the cylinder.

OTOH, if there's air in the cylinder, rotating the cylinder will eventually drag the air around with it, which in turn will drag the occupant with the air flow.

>>8507288
Newton's third law. If A exerts a centripetal force on B, then B exerts a centrifugal force on A.

>>8506398
>>8506474
>>8506492
how is the american schooling system still allowed to say the centrifugal force exists, honestly

>>8508484
It doesn't. My professors have all said, time and time again, that centrifugal force is not a real force. Even my HS physics teacher said this.

space elevators wouldn't be possible if it was different in a vacuum I think. I'm fairly ignorant though but that's immediately what comes to mind.

>>8508484
>how is the american schooling system still allowed to say the centrifugal force exists, honestly
It does exist.
It's not really a force, but it clearly and measurably exists.

>>8506398
>or would there need to be some external force acting on the body first and move it towards the wall

Basically, yes.

If the only rotational force is from the spinning ring, the object would actually have to gain this velocity from friction with the ring in order to at least begin moving sideways.

Otherwise it would just kind of hover near the spinning wall, without moving.

>>8506556
like gravity