Originally Posted By: jaj
It's angular momentum that keeps it spinning and kinetic energy that does the damage.
We're not arguing semantics, if we're arguing at all...
Or maybe we are - a force pulling on you is not "acting on you" because it's not producing a measurable response. As I said - you can feel it, but nobody else can measure it because you're not moving.
Way I see it, We're basically arguing whether manifestations of inertia can be called forces relative to particular/special points or frames of reference.
I think they can and, as shallow as my understanding of such matters goes, that's exactly one of the things the principle of equivalence states.
For all intents and purposes, you cannot differentiate gravity (indubitably a force, no?) acting on your body on earth from your own inertia inside of a spaceship accelerating uniformly through space.
The centrifugal force is just another manifestation of inertia. Its relevant referece frame taken into consideration, it is just as much a force as the centripetal force.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
No a force on you is a force acting on you...whether it causes you to move or not.
The force in the string is the centripetal force that you are applying to the object to cause it to deviate from linear motion. If you were tied by the feet to the rotating end of the string, you would feel the centripetal force trying to tear your feet off.
You would also "feel" a force trying to rip your head off which doesn't exist...it's the centripetal force that your neck is applying to your head, dragging it into the curve, while your head wants to continue charging in a straight line
From the point of view of the hammer, in a hammer throwing competition, spinning it at constant angular velocity is basically uniform acceleration, is it not?
Does not the principle of equivalence apply here in that the hammer's own inertia resisting this constant acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity (indubitably a force?).
It's angular momentum that keeps it spinning and kinetic energy that does the damage.
We're not arguing semantics, if we're arguing at all...
Or maybe we are - a force pulling on you is not "acting on you" because it's not producing a measurable response. As I said - you can feel it, but nobody else can measure it because you're not moving.
Way I see it, We're basically arguing whether manifestations of inertia can be called forces relative to particular/special points or frames of reference.
I think they can and, as shallow as my understanding of such matters goes, that's exactly one of the things the principle of equivalence states.
For all intents and purposes, you cannot differentiate gravity (indubitably a force, no?) acting on your body on earth from your own inertia inside of a spaceship accelerating uniformly through space.
The centrifugal force is just another manifestation of inertia. Its relevant referece frame taken into consideration, it is just as much a force as the centripetal force.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
No a force on you is a force acting on you...whether it causes you to move or not.
The force in the string is the centripetal force that you are applying to the object to cause it to deviate from linear motion. If you were tied by the feet to the rotating end of the string, you would feel the centripetal force trying to tear your feet off.
You would also "feel" a force trying to rip your head off which doesn't exist...it's the centripetal force that your neck is applying to your head, dragging it into the curve, while your head wants to continue charging in a straight line
From the point of view of the hammer, in a hammer throwing competition, spinning it at constant angular velocity is basically uniform acceleration, is it not?
Does not the principle of equivalence apply here in that the hammer's own inertia resisting this constant acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity (indubitably a force?).
