Originally Posted By: Astro14
Oh dear...you are so far off on all this...having both studied and taught physics as well as flown fighters, I understand the principles involved...so...since I can't teach you physics in this forum...where to begin?
I wouldn't know, I've never been off the ground for more than 5 seconds straight, chief.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
The reference frame discussion has nothing to do with the turbine. You don't need an absolute reference frame to figure out simple Newtonian forces. A relative one will do. And the forces are simple to understand, as are their effect in that reference frame.
Of course it has to do. Relative to the reference frame of the aircraft's cockpit, the centrifugal force is quite real. Yet you're discounting it even in this instance. Why? Because you appeal to a supposedly higher reference frame to explain away the centrifugal force quite apparent to the pilot as ... what, exactly?
The centripetal force is only making him change direction. It's not crushing him in his seat. What force is doing that? Inertia? Inertia isn't a force, it is a property of mass. So is inertia capable of exerting force? What is that force called, in this instance?
Quite simply, if mass did not resist acceleration, there would be no inertial forces (including the centrifugal force). Yet you only deny the obvious inertial forces.
You maintain others' existence simply because they are less conspicuously owed to inertia. We shall see about these further on.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
The turbine is under constant acceleration (centripetal acceleration due to the rotation - see Newton's second law). The force of that acceleration increased with RPM until it exceeded the strength of the turbine - then Newton's first law took over and the bits continued on their inertial path...the motion of heavenly bodies (planets, moons, etc.) are circular because, are you listening?, they are under constant acceleration (centripetal acceleration) from the gravity of the object they are orbiting.
Please explain to me how one single solitary force can break objects up.
How can I crush or break something, a pencil with just one hand, pushing it against nothing?
How can I snap a steel cable that's not connected to anything but the crane's hook (considering the cable's own weight as negligible compared to its load capacity)?
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Weighing things inside a fluid has nothing to do with mass, you can weigh things in air for that...it has everything to do with determining density - see "Archimedes"...and yes, the bouyancy is completely accounted for.
All gasses and liquids are fluids. Atmospheric air is a gas.
The Archimedic force really is wholly unaccounted for. The Archimedic force is what makes hot air and hydrogen or helium balloons rise against the pull of gravity.
Were the Archimedic force accounted for, you'd need to know:
- the air density at the particular place and time of weighing (as it varies with atmospheric conditions and altitude/geographic location) and the mean density of the object you are weighing
or
- air density and the volume of air displaced by the object you're weighing.
In addition to the apparent weight measured by the scales.
So what was the physicists' solution to this conundrum?
Simple: ignore the Archimedic force altogether.
Unless you're weighing within water or some another liquid. Cause then the error caused by the Archimedic force becomes just a slight tad too large to keep sweeping under the carpet (considering water is some 800+ times denser than air).
To get rid of the pesky Archimedic force you need to weigh in high vacuum, like the good people at the UK's National Physical Laboratory do:
http://www.npl.co.uk/engineering-measure...hing-facilities
This all goes to show everything one sees and hears must be thoroughly filtered through reason.
I mean, if high-school and college physicists don't care about precision with something as basic as this (they don't even mention the Archimedic force of atmosphere, let alone account for it), what else are they being careless about on their kooky children's shows?
Originally Posted By: Astro14
The variations in the earth's gravity has nothing to do with your supposed "pesky" equivalent force and everything to do with the change in gravity due to distance from the center of mass. Simply accounted for if you understand that gravity varies with the inverse square of the distance...by climbing a mountain, you've varied the distance slightly and so you should experience less gravity.
Nice attempt at dodging right there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude
"At latitudes nearer the equator, the outward
centrifugal force produced by Earth's rotation is stronger than at polar latitudes. This counteracts the Earth's gravity to a small degree, reducing downward acceleration of falling objects. At the equator, this apparent gravity is 0.3% less than actual gravity."
Naturally, you may consider WikiPedia a source of ill repute. So here's Britannica's take on it
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...elestial-bodies
"Newton showed that
the equatorial bulge of the Earth was a consequence of the balance between the
centrifugal forces of the rotation of the Earth and the attractions of each particle of the Earth on all others. The value of gravity at the surface of the Earth increases in a corresponding way from the Equator to the poles. Among the data that Newton used to estimate the size of the equatorial bulge were the adjustments to his pendulum clock that the English astronomer Edmond Halley had to make in the course of his astronomical observations on the southern island of Saint Helena. Jupiter, which rotates faster than the Earth, has a proportionally larger equatorial bulge, the difference between its polar and equatorial radii being about 10 percent. Another success of Newton’s theory was his demonstration that comets move in parabolic orbits under the gravitational attraction of the Sun. In a thorough analysis in the Principia, he showed that the great comet of 1680–81 did indeed follow a parabolic path."
So is at least the Centrifugal Force accounted for in scales?
Nope. The scales would need an integrated GPS to tell it the latitude.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Drag is a real force. So is lift. So is thrust. So is induced drag. When you have more thrust than drag, the airplane accelerates - or climbs - but they're the same thing - an increase in energy, either potential (altitude) or kinetic (speed). When you do a constant "G" loop in a fighter, the curvature of the airplane's path changes with respect to airspeed and direction of turn. When inverted at the top of the loop, gravity provides part of the centripetal acceleration that turns the airplane back towards the ground. 2,000 hours as a fighter pilot, I know what the forces are...if you really wnat to understand how those forces interact on an airplane, I recommend a copy of "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators".
That's all well and good but I'm only interested in these statements:
"Drag is a real force.
So is lift.
So is thrust.
So is induced drag."
So you're basically admitting that inertia exerts force.
Drag is the inertia of air molecules resisting acceleration.
Lift is the inertia of air molecules resisting and imparting acceleration.
Thrust is the inertia of air and combustion gasses' molecules resisting acceleration.
So if you consider all these to be actual, real forces even though they are only exerted by inertia, why are you discriminating against the particular inertial force called the Centrifugal Force (just another example of mass resisting acceleration - perpetual acceleration in this case)?
Why you gotta be hatin' on the Centrifugal Force, man?
Originally Posted By: Astro14
If you're going to talk about this stuff, go to a university. Enroll in the calculus-based Newtonian mechanics class. When you've graduated, then we can talk. The children's show was actually pretty good...but you refuse to learn the principles...and so you use terms incorrectly, without the scientific meaning, and then wonder why you're not understood.
Why you gotta be puttin' me in my place like that? Don't you appreciate my debating prowess?
Do you change or buy your own engine oil?
I mean, unless you're a professional mechanical engineer and chemist you're clearly not qualified to offer opinion even on which engine oil ought to be used. Let alone actually change the oil.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
You're engaging in a serious of logical fallacies that support a layman's undestanding but are contrary to the principles of physics. Reminds me of the educated men early in the last century, at the beginning of the space program, who swore that a rocket could not work in a vacuum because there was "nothing to push against"...they failed to understand Newton's third law. There was not an "equivalent force" in space to make the rocket work...
You're the one claiming there's no centrifugal force despite the incontrovertible evidence right here in this thread.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Look, I would love to teach you physics, but it's not possible in this forum.
That's quite alright. I'm prolly a lost cause anyway.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
There is no "debate" here, your understanding, simply stated, is wrong. You don't "win" "Mr. Sheen"...I choose to walk away from a pointless discussion.
Ok, you don't lose. It's just that I win.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Good Luck - hope the centrifugal force doesn't fling you off the planet when one of those pesky equivalent forces causes a variation in gravity...
Pray tell, why do you people launch your shuttles from Cape Canavaral and the French launch their Ariane rockets from French Guyana?
Why not further up north, with the centrifugal force not existing and all?
Ok, that's enough. I must be gracious in victory.
