Thanks Mike, I take your comments in the generous spirit in which you sent them.
|
Quote:
|
|
You've got 25 somewhat extensive posts on this thread/subject matter and it's my feeling that no one (at least myself) has made any progress in understanding your perspective or the context and importance of your point.
|
Ok. Here's the gist of it. I'm interested in the physics underlying TGM. In essential terms my proposition is that centrifugal force does not cause the throw out effect.
This requires a very precise discussion of the physics. The discussion is not for everybody, requires either training or an inquiring mind and great patience, will only generate fresh insights for the very few, and will interest even fewer.
Now. ThinkingPlus has two physics degrees I believe, and physics is her job. Me too, except that I am now retired and I focussed on Pure and Applied Mathematics in my undergraduate days. Unfortunately, when she took me to task about frames of reference, it takes the discussion to a whole new level of abstraction. I had hoped not to have that discussion, but yoda made it necessary and stephanie put it centre stage.
ThinkingPlus, by the way, has given me an insight into why Mr Kelley may (I emphasize may) have explained centrifugal force in the way he did.
|
Quote:
|
|
keep the reader on track
|
Quite right. We all know that my proposition is that centrifugal force does not cause the throw out effect. We've done the boy and the rock to illustrate what is really happening in a simple situation involving centrifugal force (and taken a few side trips). Unless ThinkingPlus wants to discuss physics in non-inertial frames of reference, or anybody else wants to clarify any other issues, I'm ready to state my case.