What would be some fact that, while true, could be told in a context or way that is misinfomating or make the other person draw incorrect conclusions?

    • lotanis@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “A laughable claim, Mister Bond, perpetuated by overzealous teachers of science. Simply construct Newton’s laws into a rotating system and you will see a centrifugal force term appear as plain as day.” https://xkcd.com/123/

    • bobthened@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It does, it’s just called a different thing. Centripetal force is exactly the same thing as what most people assume centrifugal force means.

        • davidgro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think centripetal force is whatever is pushing/pulling the object toward the center of rotation, such as the closed door of a car pushing on you while driving around a curve, where otherwise you would fly out of the car. Another example is the wheels of the car causing it to travel on a curve instead of straight. Or the rope of a tetherball for a pulling example.

          In most cases (besides orbits in space) the force is question is actually the electromagnetic force, like any other case where objects made of atoms touch.

          Personally I think it’s weird to call that a specific force, especially by those who don’t want to give centrifugal force a name - sure it’s really just things “tending” to travel straight instead of following the curve, but no reason that can’t have a special name, it’s certainly intuitive enough.

    • Cynar@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t exist in an inertial frame of reference. In a non-inertial frame it’s a perfectly valid force