- #36
pbuk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
- 4,799
- 3,075
AlephZero said:On the other hand I have never (in 30 years in industry) heard anybody use the term "reactive centrifugal force", until a few recent threads in PF - and I don't see any merit in it.
I agree; I had never heard it before until used here and I will stop using it (even reluctantly and in brackets) now.
AlephZero said:FWIW I spend a lot of my working life on the dynamics of rotating machines. I can live with the term "centrifugal force" though I prefer "centrifugal stress" which is both a real stress and self explanatory - i.e. the stress fiield caused by the rotation of the system.
I can see some merit in "centrifugal stress" - but only if we replace "normal force" with "normal stress" too! And if we are going to stop using the word "force" for things that are forces, we should definately stop using it for things that are not - so "centrifugal effect" is a much better term to be used in a rotating reference frame.
On a more serious note, what WOULD be better would be if those who have mastered the maths of non-inertial frames of reference (or think they have) did not proclaim with such puffed-up joy statements such as "centrifugal force doesn't exist" which causes confusion and doubt in minds that are beginning to relate equations of motion to their everyday experience - this is exactly what turns intelligent, curious people away from science.