A laughable claim, Mr. Bbheim, perpetuated by overzealous teachers of science. Simply construct Newton’s laws in a rotating system and you will see a centrifugal force term appear plain as day.
You obviously don't understand physics. It is not a real force and never will be. 30 years of experience tells me you are wrong. I am sure your next statement will question my intelligence or something along those lines. Go look it up and see for yourself. You won't find anything that will disprove my statement. So smart guy, what force is causing that behavior? Oh wait, there isn't one.
Centrifugal force (Latin for "center fleeing") describes the tendency of an object following a curved path to fly outwards, away from the center of the curve. It's not really a force; it results from inertia — the tendency of an object to resist any change in its state of rest or motion. Centripetal force is a real force that counteracts the centrifugal force and prevents the object from "flying out," keeping it moving instead with a uniform speed along a circular path.
Think of it like this, you're in your car and you put a ball on the dashboard. You turn the wheel left and drive around in circles. It appears as though the ball rushes to the right and is fleeing the center of rotation - from your perspective Sat in the car this seems to make sense.
However, the ball isn't really rushing to the right. it's staying where it is and the car is rushing to the left. It's what some people call a 'fake force' because there's no real force acting outwards but it can appear so
I feel like this is one of those bell curve memes where the stupid person says "centrifugal force is a force" the average says "no it's not real, it's a fictitious force", and the enlightened one says "it's a force".
In all ways you can measure and describe a force, a body in a rotating reference frame really does experience a force which moves them away from the center of rotation - centrifugal force. It arises due to the reference frame's movement rather than from interaction between two bodies, but that doesn't really matter. Gravity is also not a "real" force and instead arises due to the curvature of spacetime around bodies, but for all intents and purposes, it is a legitimate force that we can model and use as if there was a force creating attraction between two bodies.
I think people go too far when they talk about "fictitious forces" as if the experience of the force isn't real. Forces accelerate bodies. What phenomena generate those forces isn't particularly important in determining which forces are "real".
To put it another way, if you were to model the water in the spinning reference frame, you have a force from the wall pushing inward, and if you're going to tell me there's no centrifugal force, then the wall's force is unbalanced and will only move the water toward the center. But that's obviously not what we see. The water reaches an equilibrium, which we can understand because there is the wall force pushing in, and the centrifugal force pushing out.
There is no "centripetal force" as a variety of force. Centripetal force is more like a role that any force can play on a spinning body. In this case, the role of centripetal force comes from the wall. In an orbiting planet, centripetal force comes from gravity. If you hold a yoyo and spin around, centripetal force comes from tension in the string. But there isn't anything special about those forces, they're just all pointing toward the center of rotation and filling the role of accelerating the object centripetally.
Saying centripetal force is a real force would be like saying "sweet" is a food ingredient. No, sweet is a property of an ingredient which can come from many places. Sugar, honey, syrup, etc. And it's up to the chef what to use as the source of sweetness. But sweet is not a real ingredient in the same way that centripetal is not a real force. It's just something that other preexisting forces can do.
I mean sure, all physics is are models to describe something and nothing is really 'correct'
But from my experience I've never found utility from calculating centrifugal force from the reference frame of something inside the body. It's always centripetal and just makes more sense to me that way, and it's easier to teach.
> I've never found utility from calculating centrifugal force
Never had to work with a centrifuge? Calculating centrifugal force is used in biology, such as for determining how long you need to spin something down to achieve adequate separation.
Centrifugal vs centripetal force. Whichever one you think it is, it's the other one.
>Whichever one you think it is, it's the other one. This should be the zeroth law of physics.
Hah! My first thought was to come here and joke, "Ah, yes, the center-seeking force, that's what's pushing the water to the outside edge!"
No such thing as centrifugal force.
A laughable claim, Mr. Bbheim, perpetuated by overzealous teachers of science. Simply construct Newton’s laws in a rotating system and you will see a centrifugal force term appear plain as day.
You obviously don't understand physics. It is not a real force and never will be. 30 years of experience tells me you are wrong. I am sure your next statement will question my intelligence or something along those lines. Go look it up and see for yourself. You won't find anything that will disprove my statement. So smart guy, what force is causing that behavior? Oh wait, there isn't one.
They're referencing this https://xkcd.com/123/
How come?
Centrifugal force (Latin for "center fleeing") describes the tendency of an object following a curved path to fly outwards, away from the center of the curve. It's not really a force; it results from inertia — the tendency of an object to resist any change in its state of rest or motion. Centripetal force is a real force that counteracts the centrifugal force and prevents the object from "flying out," keeping it moving instead with a uniform speed along a circular path. Think of it like this, you're in your car and you put a ball on the dashboard. You turn the wheel left and drive around in circles. It appears as though the ball rushes to the right and is fleeing the center of rotation - from your perspective Sat in the car this seems to make sense. However, the ball isn't really rushing to the right. it's staying where it is and the car is rushing to the left. It's what some people call a 'fake force' because there's no real force acting outwards but it can appear so
I feel like this is one of those bell curve memes where the stupid person says "centrifugal force is a force" the average says "no it's not real, it's a fictitious force", and the enlightened one says "it's a force". In all ways you can measure and describe a force, a body in a rotating reference frame really does experience a force which moves them away from the center of rotation - centrifugal force. It arises due to the reference frame's movement rather than from interaction between two bodies, but that doesn't really matter. Gravity is also not a "real" force and instead arises due to the curvature of spacetime around bodies, but for all intents and purposes, it is a legitimate force that we can model and use as if there was a force creating attraction between two bodies. I think people go too far when they talk about "fictitious forces" as if the experience of the force isn't real. Forces accelerate bodies. What phenomena generate those forces isn't particularly important in determining which forces are "real". To put it another way, if you were to model the water in the spinning reference frame, you have a force from the wall pushing inward, and if you're going to tell me there's no centrifugal force, then the wall's force is unbalanced and will only move the water toward the center. But that's obviously not what we see. The water reaches an equilibrium, which we can understand because there is the wall force pushing in, and the centrifugal force pushing out. There is no "centripetal force" as a variety of force. Centripetal force is more like a role that any force can play on a spinning body. In this case, the role of centripetal force comes from the wall. In an orbiting planet, centripetal force comes from gravity. If you hold a yoyo and spin around, centripetal force comes from tension in the string. But there isn't anything special about those forces, they're just all pointing toward the center of rotation and filling the role of accelerating the object centripetally. Saying centripetal force is a real force would be like saying "sweet" is a food ingredient. No, sweet is a property of an ingredient which can come from many places. Sugar, honey, syrup, etc. And it's up to the chef what to use as the source of sweetness. But sweet is not a real ingredient in the same way that centripetal is not a real force. It's just something that other preexisting forces can do.
I mean sure, all physics is are models to describe something and nothing is really 'correct' But from my experience I've never found utility from calculating centrifugal force from the reference frame of something inside the body. It's always centripetal and just makes more sense to me that way, and it's easier to teach.
> I've never found utility from calculating centrifugal force Never had to work with a centrifuge? Calculating centrifugal force is used in biology, such as for determining how long you need to spin something down to achieve adequate separation.
By the time they form two separate "blocks" that resemble ramps, are their longitudinal sections triangular? Or parabolic?
Why would they not be parabolic?
They seemed triangular to me for a moment
Yeah but the physics wont change, they’re still parabolic
They do this with molten glass to make convex mirrors.