Tangential motion is perpendicular to radial motion and it induces a radial acceleration. I'm not quite sure if you are being genuine as regards your enquiry about the meaning of tangential. It is a trivial issue which most people take for granted. You should try not to filibuster the more important issues by getting the discussion sidetracked into pedantic trivia such as discussing the meaning of 'tangential'.
In doing so you are ignoring all the interesting questions such as the link between electromagnetism and centrifugal force. Brews, Tangential motion is perpendicular to radial motion. It only has any meaning when it is referenced to the background stars, because in that case it results in outward radial acceleration. Just imagine two points passing each other but not colliding.
The tangential motion is the component of the motion of each particle that is perpendicular to the line that connects the two points. The radial motion is the motion that affects the distance between the two points. That is centrifugal force in a nutshell. But it doesn't tell us very much about the underlying physics or the nature of any associated potential energy.
The underlying physics has not yet appeared in the textbooks, just as the underlying physics behind the force of gravity has not yet appeared in the textbooks. Timothy, we'll have to agree to differ there. You talk about the ramblings of Maxwell. You are overlooking the fact that he led us to the standard equations of electromagnetism that we use today. You may argue that we can obtain these same equations using relativity.
Well I disagree. Maxwell and relativity don't mix. The reason why I have sided with Maxwell is because we need to have a physical explanation for the displacement current. The textbook derivation of Maxwell's displacement current is flawed. I'm sure that you would agree with the textbook derivation but there's nothing I can do about that. Don't assume that I am not familiar with relativity. The difference between you and I is that I scrutinize these things to make sure that there are no flaws in the derivations.
And that gets us back to centrifugal force. You come back after a few months as if all those arguments we had about rotating frames never happened. I showed you exactly where the flaws were in your extrapolation of those equations to particles that are stationary in the inertial frame. You used every trick in the book to wriggle out of having to acknowledge those flaws. You tried to cloud the whole issue up by introducing the three body problem.
You tried to cloud it up by allowing the reference point in the rotating frame to be in motion relative to the rotating frame. And now you are pulling the oldest trick in the book. You are returning as if those arguments never took place and that your own understanding of centrifugal force is perfect. And from your writings its pretty easy to deduce that you are completely unfamiliar with the contents of general relativity. Otherwise you would for one know that it in fact identifies gravity as just another inertial force, which results from using coordinates in which geodesics are not straight lines.
You would also not be making silly mistakes resulting from erroneously identifying the tangent spaces of different points. So it seems very safe to assume that you have very little knowledge of general relativity. That is the true difference between you and me. I have actually understood the underlying physics, while you seem to be milling in the same confusion that the 19th century physicists were struggling with.
Paolo has removed the following material without discussion from which I have dropped the original figure and here's another possibility :. I see no harm in alerting the reader to more general cases and proving links where more information can be found. It is clear that the case of a fixed axis of rotation provides a good starting point, but it is easy to get the idea that it is the only case of importance.
Anybody have suggestions? Brews ohare talk , 18 July UTC. This section must be rewritten. Brews, I warned you that the language in this reference was sloppy, and you reinserted it without even bothering to clean it up. This section is about the figure showing gyroscope precession. I am very happy to be able to write again a section with this title. I believe we all now agree on this please correct me if I am wrong :.
Now, what about the new figure? Is there anybody who would like to help Brews to find a better figure? I guess the precession of our planet is not quick enough to be interesting in this context. The new figure proposed by Brews see above is not good enough. It shows three successive not simultaneous rotations about fixed axes. Moreover, it refers to the concept of Euler Angles. I strongly suggest to leave this concept out of this article, if possible.
Centrifugal force is already a difficult topic. Let's spare the readers additional doubts. Paolo has deleted a note quoted below , without discussion on this "talk" page, concerning the independence of one's choices for coordinate system and observational frame of reference:.
RF, in physics, allow measurement of kinematic quantities. Cannot exist without a CS. This rationale does not address the content of the deleted statement, which does not deny possible association of a reference frame to a coordinate system, but merely the plurality of this choice. In addition, the rationale is incorrect in that a reference frame can use vectors, which choice allows description of observations that are independent of any coordinate system.
Paolo's terminology "strictly associated" brings to mind Paolo's earlier remarks on the talk page. On the talk page Paolo suggested coordinate systems and observational frames of reference were the same thing. I answered with the excerpt below from earlier discussion, which Paolo did not address:. Additionally, the example of an "arc-length" description of motion by both the moving and stationary observers is discussed at length in the article and in more detail in other articles as already pointed out to Paolo in earlier discussion.
The short version of all this discussion is: Choice of coordinate system and choice of frame of reference are distinct and separable, one's choice of one does not limit the choice of the other. That is what the deleted Note says, and it should remain in the article. I believe it is reasonable that an active issue on the talk page be given some attention on this page before being deleted. Brews ohare talk , 19 July UTC. I am sick of these repeated lies. For the second time, Brews wrote above, at the beginning of a new section, the phrase: "without previous discussion".
The discussion about this topic began in a previous section , and has not finished yet. Here's my recent edit summary:. As I repeatedly pointed out previously, if two editors strongly disagree, the opinion of one of them cannot suddenly appear on the article, before an agreement is reached or at least the relative majority of the editors participating in the discussion agree!
So, we should first discuss, hopefully with the help of others, then decide what we should write on the article. Dear editors, can you see how many times I have to repeat this simple concept to Brews? Do you mind to help me to convince him? He likes to be a one-man-band. He is extremely talented, but Wikipedia is an orchestra. He perhaps deserves to be the prime violin, but should not be allowed to be a one-man-band. Please help me. Aren't there administrators in this group? Aren't there editors interested in symphonic music?
I know, and I will reply, of course. But, as I repeatedly pointed out, the main problem with you is another. You behave as the owner and treat others as guests. This makes cooperation too hard. The same happened when we discussed the gyroscope example see previous section.
Please remove again your controversial sentence about CS and RF, and wait for this discusion to end. Brews, yes we are. I am convinced that your opinion about this topic is absolutely wrong, and the paragraph in the article expresses your own opinion.
You need to admit that there are only two ways to be peer:. Now, would you mind to just guess what is the only one of these two possibilities which does not break Wikipedia policies? Another question: would you accept to keep my opinion on the article, if you were convinced it was wrong? And I do think you are wrong. So, at least in this respect we are peers. I do things one at a time. First, I want to convince you to work as a peer, not as the owner of this page.
What is the only one of the above listed two possibilities which does not break Wikipedia policies? The main issue under discussion here is that you want to impose your opinion. This is against Wikipedia policies.
Your opinion will be expressed on the article if and only if we will agree or somebody else will "vote against me". Right now, your opinion has exactly the same weight as mine. If you agree on this rule, we will continue our discussion and you will possibly be able to prove you are right.
I accept discussion only on a peer-to-peer basis. This is extremely important to me, and I hope that somebody else will help me to let you understand the importance of this principle. This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.
I don't know why gyroscopes are getting discussed on these pages. Gyroscope theory as per the textbooks involves neither centrifugal force nor Coriolis force. My own personal opinion however is that the Coriolis force is heavily involved in gyroscope theory and that it is the reason why pivoted precessing gyroscopes don't topple over. I have studied the official Lagrangian explanation in the textbooks in the greatest detail and I find it totally lacking as regards explaining why pivoted gyroscopes don't topple.
This extra force is denied by modern physicists. At any rate, all discussions about gyroscopes should be removed away from these pages and unto the Coriolis force pages. We should be re-introducing the elliptical planetary orbit topic which is heavily related to centrifugal force.
It's true that Coriolis Force has no equivalent potential energy. It's also true that Coriolis force acts perpendicularly to the direction of motion and so it only acts to change the direction of a velocity and not the speed. Hence kinetic energy is conserved under the action of a Coriolis force.
Furthermore, any actual potential energy involved in examples of centrifugal potential energy are actually gravitational potential energy or hydrostatic pressure. We are witnessing centrifugal kinetic energy being converted into some other kind of potential energy. In fact the so-called expression for centrifugal potential energy given in the article is in reality merely a kinetic energy term. The kinetic energy of rotation merely converts to potential energy of another kind. In that respect we can loosely refer to it as a centrifugal potential energy.
Centrifugal potential energy as such does not exist. Centrifugal force and Coriolis force stand in an identical situation in this regard as they are merely mutually perpendicular aspects of the same thing. OK Brews, let's go inside a rotating bucket of water. The water surface is curved up the sides of the bucket due to centrifugal force.
Every element of water is co-rotating with the rotating frame. The centrifugal force is exactly perpendicular to the motion of every element of the water. We're back once again to your denial of the fact that something needs to be co-rotating in order to experience centrifugal force.
So let's then consider a rotating bucket in which the water is not co-rotating. The water surface will be level. There will be no centrifugal force and no potential energy. In fact this is exactly the famous Bucket argument. David: you have twice removed the phrase in italics from the sentence: "The Coriolis force has no equivalent potential, as it acts perpendicular to the velocity vector and hence rotates the direction of motion, but does not change the energy of a body.
Rracecarr talk , 20 July UTC. There will be absolutely no radial motion. So how can there be any centrifugal force? The expression for centrifugal force involves the tangential speed of the particle in question. If that tangential speed is zero, how can there be any centrifugal force? So if an object is not co-rotating in a rotating frame, it will not experience any centrifugal force. Just take a look at a stationary bucket of water from a rotating frame centred on the axis of the bucket.
Does that make the water climb up the walls? So there is no centrifugal force and no centrifugal potential energy. RRacecarr, you can't go storming in and reverting other peoples' edits and then come here stating that you are not willing to discuss the issue.
You have been advocating that centrifugal force and Coriolis force are both fictitious. Yet you are now claiming that while Coriolis force has got no associated potential energy, centrifugal force nevertheless has an associated potential energy which can cause rotating water to climb up the side walls of a bucket. There are alot of matters connected with both centrifugal force and Coriolis force which you need to take a closer look at.
The section on centrifugal potential energy contains a contradiction which needs to be resolved. You know fine well that the water in the rotating bucket is moving perpendicularly to the centrifugal force. So you can't then go on and cite the fact that Coriolis force doesn't have a potential energy because it is perpendicular to the direction of motion. I would opt for the latter and re-word the remainder of the article to the extent that the term 'centrifugal potential energy' is really only a measure of rotational kinetic energy.
The stored energy in the rotating bucket is actually gravitational potential energy. It is not centrifugal potential energy. However it comes about as a result of the conversion of some rotational kinetic energy into gravitational potential energy as a result of centripetal force acting against the centrifugal force. So loosely we might say that the stored gravitational energy is centrifugal potential energy.
A similar situation can indeed occur with Coriolis force. A channel of water flowing along a radial drain pipe on a rotating turntable will have a similar gravitational potential energy as a result of the water being force up one side of the pipe tangentially. And finally I should point out that according to your artificial circle theory which I totally disagree with, a Coriolis force acts radially inwards on stationary objects in the inertial frame, as viewed from a rotating frame.
It has twice the magnitude of the centrifugal force and it takes on the same expression but with a factor of two, ie. Nonsense as this is, it is the core of the entire belief system of all the other active editors here. And on this basis, we can indeed construct a potential energy term from which to take a gradient and derive the Coriolis force. If you are going to assume the role of unofficial guardian of the centrifugal force and Coriolis force pages, then you will need to learn to enter into constructive debate.
So far you have been relying entirely on your trump card which is that you have a large group of administrators who you can depend on to back you up in any edit war. No RRacecarr, You're the one that doesn't listen. I discuss things on the talk pages. I then make edits. You revert and then wrongly accuse me of not discussing it all first.
Then when we go back to the talk pages you declare that you are not going to discuss anything. This is because you operate in the full knowledge that you have a team of administrators behind you who will back you up everytime. This encyclopaedia operates on the principle of personality politics. I have just noticed yet another flaw in the article. You state that Coriolis force is not position dependent. Yet your artificial circle theory depends on an expression for Coriolis force that is position dependent.
Your entire understanding of centrifugal force and Coriolis force has not been thought through properly. Wolfkeeper, you have just demonstrated to everybody that you can't see the difference between a rotating bucket of water in which the water climbs up the side walls, and a stationary bucket of water in which the surface is level.
You have tried to use specious mathematical arguments to convince us all that the two scenarios are exactly the same. As usual you guys are bashing David Tombe and treating him badly. That is your typical behavior. You act like the thugs which you are. You still need to apologise to him for your past bad behavior.
You didnt do that so you have shown you are really not civilized people. I am still waiting for that apology to David, when are you going to do it??? He has repeatedly refused to discuss the validity of this disputed note, despite many examples and careful presentations by myself. His attitude is that he will eventually get around to discussing the matter, but it seems from his unwillingness to respond that may be some considerable time.
I would like to have an independent review of this matter. First, is there anything to dispute? As far as I can see Paolo hasn't got a leg to stand on. Maybe if he would explain himself, I could see he has a different perspective, but at present I just don't know what his objections can be. All we have so far from Paolo are some categorical, unsupported statements, and a refusal to engage in their discussion.
Brews ohare talk , 21 July UTC. I'm a previously uninvoled editor. To be honest, I'm have a really hard time following this debate. I don't see what the real dispute is. Is it a matter of source citing? Is one WP:RS contradicting another? I see that you've posted three proposed edits in this section. I should point out that neither of the edits listed here has any sources, so at this point, accusations by either side of WP:OR are undefendable. Assuming sources can be found to support the third proposed edit, I have some recommendations in regards to the actual wording.
If I'm not mistaken, the difference between a coordinate plane and an "observational frame of reference" is the former always starts at the same point and in the same direction, and the latter is always relative? I'm a math major and I'm having a hard time deciphering your meaning, that says something about the tone of the article I think. Additionally, the use of the word "obviously" in the last sentence is not only poor math writing books with this word always frustrate people , but it violates words to avoid.
I suspect including that word was meant more for Paolo's benefit than the readers'. OK, you people are obviously not interested in looking for consensus on this issue. The core group of editors on this page seems to be content to argue with each other until Hell freezes over, meanwhile you accomplish nothing. The project is not well served by these never ending circular arguments.
Beeblbrox talk , 23 July UTC. Hey, you may actually have a point here worth considering. What you guys need to do is ask yourselves what the user needs to know, and stop splitting fine points that the user will never understand. I give this article an F grade because it is not written for the user to understand but for wikipedia egos. I've stopped keeping continuous track of this article, but it looks to me like there is still too much argument and too little sourcing.
A very good example is the edit war over the difference between "reference frame" and "coordinate system"; it would be resolved much more easily by referring to a reference than by repeated addition and removal. There also seem to be flurries of editing over very minor points, which then end up overemphasized in the article--is it possible that, this being a general-purpose encyclopedia, we could resolve some of the arguments more concisely simply by being less specific?
It has become clear that citations will not settle the matter. The distinction between inertial frame and coordinate system spelled out in the citations still appears to Paolo to be inessential. Brews ohare talk , 22 July UTC. The root cause of all the problems on these pages lies in the fact that centrifugal force is being treated as something that only occurs in rotating frames of reference.
I did applied maths and theoretical physics at university and I used the Goldstein's classical mechanics textbook as well as Williams's 'Dynamics'. In both those books there are two quite distinct chapters in which the subject of centrifugal force emerges.
There is,. Centrifugal force is a subject in its own right and it doesn't have to be studied exclusively in connection with rotating frames of reference. That is what is causing all the confusion on these pages. Every time a demonstration is introduced, they all have to start rambling on about looking at it from the inertial frame and looking at it from various rotating frames.
They refuse to look at centrifugal force as a phenomenon in its own right. I have tried many times to introduce planetary orbital theory unto the main page as a means of demonstrating centrifugal force. But those edits were instantly erased on every occasion, usually on the quite dishonest grounds that I hadn't supplied any citations when in fact I had.
The problem on these pages will not be resolved until a new independent group of administrators get involved and put the likes of RRacecarr and Wolfkeeper on a lead. At the moment, those two along with a few others have enjoyed a total liberty to delete the edits of anybody who they perceive to be contradicting their own prejudices, and the administrators that have been involved so far such as SCZenz and Anome have shown themselves to be totally biased.
I am most certainly not confused in that respect. Any satisfactory article about centrifugal force will ultimately have to detail all these different phenomena which come under the umbrella heading of centrifugal force.
The definition of centrifugal force as is given in this article is quite wrong. Centrifugal force is not defined exclusively in connection with rotating frames of reference. I can give you at least two quality citations from university textbooks which deal with rotating reference frames in one chapter and lead up to what they describe as the 'well known centrifugal force'.
In other words, centrifugal force is something that is already understood and defined independently of rotating frames of reference. This is corroborated by the fact that the same 'well known centrifugal force' is then mentioned again in another chapter on planetary orbital motion in a context which does not involve rotating frames of reference.
I am finding it difficult to accurately follow your argument with Brews. It seems to me that you are arguing about coordinate frames and coordinate systems. I believe that the confusion is totally connected with the fact that matters to do with centrifugal force as would normally be dealt with using polar coordinates, are being dealt with in the article within the totally unsuitable context of rotating frames of reference.
While I was blocked in June, a new editor called TstoneT appeared. He seemed to be arguing what I am saying, that polar coordinates can be used to deal with centrifugal force independently from rotating frames. But TstoneT has now disappeared. Nevertheless, TstoneT's comments hit a raw nerve with Wolfkeeper who stated that the article is about rotating frames and that he has no intention of changing that. Wolfkeeper has also stated in strong terms that this article is not about polar coordinates.
Wolfkeeper has got absolutely no right, or no basis in the textbooks, to demand that centrifugal force must be treated exclusively in connection with rotating frames of reference. But you will notice that there is a hierarchy amongst the group of editors here that control the article. Nobody ever crosses Wolfkeeper. The administrators always back up Rracecarr and Wolfkeeper.
Until that state of affairs is altered, the situation doesn't look very hopeful. Once more to make this very clear to you guys. The user is going to enter centrifual force, he is not going to know the difference between this and reactive centrifugal force. So this article will be useless to him because it doesnt discuss what he is seeking information about. You need to combine the articles and explain the difference in the one article.
Otherwise you are confusing the user. I made an edit to the introduction which in normal circumstances shouldn't have needed a reference because it is uncontroversial. Nevertheless I decided to put a reference in for good measure. Within five minutes of having made the edit, and while I was in the process of typing in the reference, Wolfkeeper in his normal style swooped in and deleted the edit.
Wolfkeeper, the introduction does not define centrifugal force at all. Nothing at all regarding rotating frames has been removed from the introduction. This is the most stupid ridiculous answer I have even read. The user doesnt enter reactive centrifugal force he enters centrifugal force. Thus he gets the wrong page, because your definition ignores what the user is thinking. This is why you guys are creating a web site that users find stupid and poorly written.
You need to stop writing articles that feed your own egos, and start writing articles that users really can use. They dont care about your ego trips here in the wikipedia dream world. They want information that they can understand and use. You get an F grade on that score. This is a sticky subject.
There are many influences on the tides. A principle influence is the tidal force which has nothing to do with centrifugal force, but has to do with the gradient of the Moon's gravitational force. The radially outward component of this tidal force appears to be less significant than its tangential component.
In addition, the centrifugal force that is operative is the centrifugal force due to rotation about the barycenter , not the about the Earth's axis of rotation. Thus, bringing this matter up is a dubious exercise as it is not a clean example of centrifugal force, but requires a great deal of background. As it is, the article on tides is a total mess and cannot come to grips with the issues involved. I'd recommend that no mention of tides be made. Brews ohare talk , 23 July UTC.
Inadequate links and discussion of this figure. How does the figure contribute to the understanding of the article? As it stands, it does not contribute. A description of Lagrange points has not been attempted and might lead the reader far off topic. Without more context, this figure should be deleted. If necessary context is too large, it also should be deleted.
Wolfkeeper, the potential energy due to centrifugal force in a gravitational field exists as a matter of fact without involving rotating frames. There's a whole page on it in Goldstein's page Centrifugal potential energy in a gravitational field is obtained by substituting Kepler's areal constant into the expression for kinetic energy and obtaining a position dependent term inverse square law to be precise, which means that centrifugal force in a gravitational field is an inverse cube law repulsive force.
In the example given in the centrifugal potential energy section in this wikipedia article, prior to you introducing the three body problem, we are dealing with the conversion of rotational kinetic energy into other forms of potential energy.
The example of the rotating water is in fact a reactive centrifugal force example in which the potential energy is associated with the pressure caused by the centripetal force that forces the water off its inertial path. It is also a point in fact however that tangential kinetic energy or for that matter, rotational kinetic energy is in fact the same thing as centrifugal potential energy. So the example involves centrifugal potential energy being converted into gravitational and hysrostatic potential energy.
Interstingly, if you agree with Maxwell's theory of magnetic repulsion which employs centrifugal force, then it becomes clear that magnetic repulsion does not obey the inverse square law. On summation over his molecular vortices, it may not even obey the inverse cube law.
But at any rate, it becomes quite clear why we can have magnetic levitation. Earnshaw's Theorem should not be involved when considering magnetic levitation. Hence there should be no controversy. Based on Maxwell's works, we can deduce that magnetic potential energy is in fact fine-grain centrifugal potential energy. Goldstein's backs me up on this. In the Lagrangian chapter at page 23, they derive A. And there is some on-line encyclopaedia something like Eric Weisstein that writes the Lorentz force using grad A.
But in order for it to make any physical sense, we would have to involve vorticity. In fact, I think that we should move all references to potential energy in connection with Coriolis force off these pages completely and unto the Coriolis page page, as the matter is highly controversial. Wolfkeeper, you are a wikistalker. You are messing the whole article up out of sheer spite. We need one centrifugal force article.
This article is not about rotating frames. It is about centrifugal force. Planetary orbits are thee single most important example of centrifugal force. They determine the inertial path. You are making a dog's dinner out of it all. You are bringing in alot of unnecesary complications about three body problems into the potential energy section while at the same time deleting all references to the two body problem.
This is because you can't understand the two body problem. Nobody can understand the three body problem and that is why you like to hide behind the three body problem. Now we are seeing the mechanisms very clearly. In order to prevent Wolfkeeper breaching the three revert rule, his ally FyzixFighet takes over. No discussion whatsoever. FyzixFighter deletes perfectly good sourced material for the sole purpose of backing up Wolfkeeper.
And the administrators let all this happen. If we analyze the motion of the Sun-Earth system from a frame rotating with Earth, it is of course just the balance between the centrifugal effect and the gravitational attraction that keeps the Earth and all that are on it and Sun separated. An analysis in a Newtonian inertial frame gives a different picture.
As was described in Section 3. FyzixFighter, You have admitted that you made the reversion before you had even studied the details. Your excuse about the three revert rule was nonsense. How could I have broken the three revert rule without Wolfkeeper also having broken it? That was a total rubbish reason.
Your prejudice means that nothing that you say above can be taken seriously. You have simply adopted the usual stance which you guys do when you are confronted with citations that contradict what you have been saying. PeR, and Anome denied the Maxwell reference, you are playing the old trick of pretending that you see a different meaning in the reference.
It's quite clear to all unbiased observers simply from what you have written above, that centrifugal force is involved in central force orbits without recourse to rotating frames of reference. Your attempts to try and pretend that Goldstein meant otherwise were pathetic.
It's just a pity that there aren't any administrators who can see right through the likes of you. David: Can you divert yourself from engagement in the social heirarchy of Wiki to answer this question asked earlier:. David: You are confusing me about what you really think about the two objects in straight-line non-intersecting motion in an inertial frame fixed to the fixed stars. On one hand, you have said that two such bodies in straight-line motion do exhibit tangential motion and will be subject to centrifugal force.
Now you say they will be subject to centrifugal force only if they are also subject to centripetal force. I cannot see any centripetal force occurring unless the objects are in a curved path. So, you can see my dilemma. What do you want to say?? But in the inertial frame of the fixed stars, straight-line motion means no net force. So how can there be centrifugal force?? There is nothing to balance it, to make zero net force, because there is only one other body, also in straight line motion.
The only force that body generates is centrifugal force. Sounds impossible?.! Brews ohare talk , 24 July UTC. Brews, we don't need to introduce frames of reference at all to discuss centrifugal force. If two points possess mutual tangential speed relative to the background stars, then they will automatically possess an outward radial acceleration. It is as simple as that. That is the very centrifugal force that is used in the analysis of planetary orbital motion.
Brews, I agree with Newton's three laws of motion absolutely. But I think that they are better expressed in the singular form of Mach's definition of inertial mass. Mach said that the mass is inversely proportional to the induced accelerations associated with mutual interaction. That is Newton's three laws all in one. There is nothing that I have said above that contradicts Newtons laws.
But I think I know what you are thinking. You see straight line motion in an intertial frame and you think of inertia and Newton's first law. You think that no forces are acting and that there is no acceleration. Then here comes me telling you that there is a centrifugal force acting radially outwards between the two particles.
Actually, my disagreement with Newton is over the issue of the existence of this centrifugal force. But if it does exist then it causes a centrifugal acceleration and hence it doesn't breach Newton's laws of motion. It's absolutely true that I have never been happy with the Newtonian concept of the inertial frame of reference and X,Y,Z.
As I said above, I much prefer Mach's approach. I do see your point that my application of Newton's laws to a force in the radial direction is at variance with Newton's law of inertia in X,Y,Z. But then of course that applies to the centripetal force just as much as to the centrifugal force.
One of my biggest problems during the height of this edit war was that my opponents would use polar coordinates for their arguments but then switch into X,Y and Z in order to sabotage centrifugal force. My argument was that planetary orbital theory is done exclusively in polar coordinates. My opponents have consistently refused to allow any mention of that topic in the main article despite my having provided very good references from standard university textbooks.
In my mind, centrifugal force is the same thing as inertia but described in a different language. The logic that my opponents were using in order to deny the existence of centrifugal force was equivalent to saying that aeroplanes don't exist because in German we call it a Flugzeug. In summary, I fully support the principle of Newton's laws of motion but even to the extent of extending them into polar coordinates.
If that makes me at variance with Newton's original intentions, then Brews does indeed have a point. But the modern classical mechanics textbooks are also at variance with Newton's approach to planetary orbital motion for that very reason and I was basing my own approach entirely on how I learned it at university through Goldstein's etc. I am not advocating any original research as regards centrifugal force on these pages.
I am glad however to see that you have been able to identify the issues because few others have. There is another anonymous that seems to have identified the issues, and there was a username TstoneT who came here briefly in June. I think that he was on the right lines too and he suppplied some references regarding dealing with centrifugal force in polar coordinates in what he called the inertial frame.
At the time, he disagreed with me but it was because of a misunderstanding regarding him talking about stationary polar coordinates in the inertial frame. His terminology confused me but I realize now that he was talking about polar coordinates and the fact that centrifugal force was a radial force. On the issue of original research, I do do original research.
You said that a Machian approach had never been completed and that I should enquire into why. I have been working hard on decyphering Maxwell's molecular vortices and linking centrifugal force to magnetic repulsion. I haven't as yet encountered any problems with the particle to particle approach. Can you give me any summary of where it is believed that such an approach breaks down.
Until now, I've largely ignored the discussions on this page, as it appeared that nothing terrible was happening to the article and no edit wars were breaking out. I do think that the participants in the discussion are having a general discussion about physics rather than a discussion about how to improve the article using sourced, properly referenced materials from standard texts, which is what everybody's supposed to be doing on Wikipedia. Disparaging remarks have no place here, nor does original research or analysis.
This article is the subject of informal mediation as noted at the top of the page, and I strongly urge that everybody avoid endless philosophical discussion and complaints about other editors. Acroterion talk , 23 July UTC. Yes Acroterion, on the last two occasions, I was blocked for supposedly being uncivil to other editors following severe provocation. The provocation came from Wolfkeeper who was blatantly wikistalking. He broke all the rules. Meanwhile, SZCenz hung around waiting for me to show the first signs of anger and then he blocked me for one month.
On the previous occasions, I was blocked on the basis of downright lies on the part of administrator Anome. Anyway, I hope you live up to your word. I'm soon going to re-install the sourced sentence about centrifugal force in planetary orbits. I'll be looking forward to seeing you locking the page.
If you are genuine and you read what FyzixFighter wrote above, I think you will begin to understand what this edit war is really about. Acroterion, it's not much use having an administrator who openly admits that he doesn't understand the content of the dispute and who directs his complaints generally at everybody involved in the dispute. That is not how disputes are resolved. Have you ever thought about enquiring into why this group are so determined to mask the truth regarding centrifugal force?
You have seen for yourself how they denied that a marble on a rotating turntable would roll outwards along a radial groove. They denied that and deleted my edit on the matter as a result of which I got blocked for a month. Do you not have the least curiosity to ask yourself why these people are denying such a basic fact? You have now seen them attempting to deny the involvement of centrifugal force in planetary orbits despite the fact that I have supplied a very professional reference on the matter.
Are you not ineterested to know what is the driving force behind this corrupt behaviour coming from these young college students? I can tell you exactly what it is. These guys are uncomfortable with the fact that centrifugal force is an absolute effect. It contradicts the philosophy that they were introduced to at university that all things are only relative and that nothing is real.
That's what it's all about. It is a fanatical group of denilaists just like the other group over on the Mozart page who are in total denial of the fact that Mozart was a German despite a large number of citations which indicate the contrary. These kind of people seem to gather together and dominate many of the pages on wikipedia.
Are you one of that kind? David, these kinds of remarks are the reason you've been blocked so many times. Some of the editors you call "young college students" are experienced physicists with PhD's, who have published in reputable mainstream journals.
You could learn from them if you'd listen, instead of constantly arguing with them. They have been reverting your misinterpretation of sources, and have tried to explain the material to you. Personally, I gave up on trying to discuss this with you a long time ago. Plvekamp talk , 24 July UTC.
Hey, plvekamp, that is just plain wrong. Mr Tombe is correct that the editors are biased, I have seen it. You guys just dont want to see yourselves as users see you. Users see you as biased ego tripping brutish thugs who delete edits of those you dont like. You are just an unfair biased clique who dont want to straighten out your mean and nasty behavior towards users who are not members of your clique. Administrators are as bad as the others.
Wikipedia is just a poorly written stupid excuse for an encyclopedia. You need to reform it so it can really be something worth while, but you are too busy ego tripping. I suggest replacing into the potential energy section the sentence: The Coriolis force has no equivalent potential, as it acts perpendicular to the velocity vector and hence rotates the direction of motion, but does not change the energy of a body.
It was removed by DT because he claims it is controversial. It is not. He is the only one who thinks so. He has an original theory about potential energy of Coriolis and magnetic forces. I would also like to add something to the section about centrifugal and gravitational potential on the surface of the earth. Here's a stab:. Calculations done in the reference frame of the earth or any other rotating planet can be simplified by combining the centrifugal potential with the gravitational potential.
The gradient of the resulting potential function is the effective gravity , and can be treated as a single force field. It does not matter, dynamically, how much of the force is due to gravity and how much to the centrifugal effect.
The equipotential surfaces of the combined potential are everywhere perpendicular to the direction of effective gravity, which is the direction shown by a plumb-bob. Mean sea level is one these equipotential surfaces. Rracecarr talk , 24 July UTC. Racecarr, I dont understand what you mean by this.
Since the article is about an apparent force and not a real force this entire topic seems to be a lot of calculations regarding a force that doesnt really exist. You guys seem very confused to me. Is this article about a real force or an apparent, fictitious force or is it about something else? You need to get clear what you are talking about in this article.
RRacecarr, Coriolis force does indeed act at right angles to the motion. But so does centrifugal force. Hence that cannot be used as a reason for why Coriolis force doesn't have an associated potential energy. Furthermore, on closer examination, it is clear that centrifugal potential energy is actually just tangential kinetic energy.
In an irrotational gravity field, we can substitute the Keplerian areal constant into the centrifugal potential energy term and obtain an inverse square law position dependent expression for centrifugal potential energy. It's all on page 77 of Goldstein's. The combined gravitational potential energy and centrifugal potential energy leads to a graph just like the inter-atomic forces potential energy graph. And it is a radial effect similar to what you said above regarding combining gravity and centrifugal force into one.
In an irrotational field, Coriolis force only changes the direction of an object and so there is no potential energy involved. But the wording in the sentence that I removed, does not accurately refelect this state of affairs. I told you at the beginning that all the facts were correct but that the reasons weren't the reasons for the facts. I should also add that in an irrotational field, I can't think of any way of obtaining a Coriolis force apart from externally applying one, such as in the example of water flowing radially through a pipe that is fixed on a rotating turntable.
To obtain a Coriolis force naturally we would need a vortex field such as we get in magnetism. In that case we could indeed have a Coriolis potential energy simply by considering the radial kinetic energy and a gradient taken on the basis of a tangential coordinate. It's best that this topic is taken to the Coriolis force page since is is only cluttering up an article on centrifugal force that is already top heavy with irrelevencies. It seems to me that this is exactly what Mr Tombe has been saying.
Now you are saying what Mr Tombe has said. But you blocked him for saying this. So it seems you are either mistaken or just plain prejudiced against Mr Tombe. So explain why you deleted his edits when he is saying just what you say here. I think you are just confusing things, and act out of disrespect towards Mr Tombe for no real reason that makes sense to me. I certainly can see why Mr Tombe is argry with you guys, you appear to be hypocrits.
It always seemed to me that it was simply a matter of "prevented inertia". In other words, a ball on a string is being propelled in a straight line until the string pulls the ball off line and into the circular motion around the center.
In the instance of sitting in a car, the car turns a corner, my body wants to continue in a straight line, which it does until prevented by the door or my seatbelt, and my forward propulsion is curved off the line. What is fictitious about that? It's a question of the language that we speak in.
In X, Y, Z, it's inertia. Nakheel floats tenders for major Dubai shopping mall. Other centres specialise in just one area, but we are a huge centre spread across 20, sqft area. Our centre spread shows the journey from January 5, , when the Chamber of Commerce was founded, and some of the significant milestones over the past years for the organisation that helps North East business achieve together what they would be unable to achieve individually.
Ladbrokes believe it's only a matter of time before KK poses naked for Playboy - that's so long as they can fit her bum in the centre spread. They can always write: "Continued overleaf. Spending an evening commentating on the opening ceremony with David Wilkie and managing not to tell him that in another life, I put his topless picture in the centre spread of Jackie magazine. My surreal snapshots. I read with interest the centre spread on the ordination of women in the March issue of the Anglican Journal [pp.
Choices limited. The talks went superbly until 'Sullivan' then added: "Just one thing, David, would you also be the centre spread for one of my magazines? Moyes learns the bare truth. Dictionary browser?
Investments ci commercial brokerage review managing director investment banking skills services bernard investment plan in malaysia ringgit brunei havsfrun investment loti investments funds start dollar cost pension and investments johanna emanuelsson kalmar beijing annual investment income download crack corel stirling non current investments accounting apax investment home without investment american forex indicator predictor review spark ibm investment regional investment criteria investment james non-current investments investment bank investment linked annuities prudential cdc names african investment plan purchases prudential standards investments that shoot minmetals land investments ltd forex investment properties trading system liberforex fraude moody's investment grade philippines newspapers limited life debt investment entity fat paragonex forex m currency trading foreign exchange securities investment trust co.
2 limited tsd neptune investment management forex carolyn investments in company investments cara withdraw hedge funds. ltd whatcombe road frome investments equities fabian jearey forex broker consulting ben ollila thrivent.
In these cases, there may not even be a point spread available for the game and you can only bet on the moneyline. This is a very common occurrence in sports betting and sportsbooks have the full right to shift the spread or odds for any given match prior to its start. Many factors can influence a change of the spread such as injuries, the number of bets coming in for either team or the weather, to name a few.
Depending on the timing of placing the bet, the bettor can also have an advantage or a disadvantage depending on which way the spread has shifted. If bettors had wagered on Dallas on Monday, that means they would be at a disadvantage compared to bettors who waited until Thursday because the Thursday bettors now only need Dallas to win by four points instead of five.
But it can also go the other way:. Yes, in fact, sportsbooks also release spreads for different points in the match like after the first quarter or first half, which is called live betting or in-game betting. As you can see, Dallas is a 2.
Look for key numbers such as five and seven because they tend to represent two- and three-possession games. In both cases, the spread is almost always If New York pulls off an outright upset, then that is also a winning wager. Need more winning picks? The handicapping, sports odds information contained on this website is for entertainment purposes only.
Please confirm the wagering regulations in your jurisdiction as they vary from state to state, province to province and country to country. Using this information to contravene any law or statute is prohibited. The site is not associated with nor is it endorsed by any professional or collegiate league, association or team. OddsShark does not target an audience under the age of Please visit gambleaware. Google Tag Manager. Oddshark logo linked to Home.
If you are or, if you just want to try betting an unfamiliar sport, here are some guides to help you out! What is a Point Spread or Side Bet? Thanks to changes in state law, Indiana residents and those visiting the state can now go place sports bets Coronavirus and Sports Betting Monday, 01 February The coronavirus pandemic has changed the lives of millions of people around the world.
Professional gamblers and betting companies were no After a long wait, we finally know which teams will be facing each other in the 55th Super Bowl on February 7 at the Raymond James Stadium in Tampa,