Goatboy - All of my posts here said basically the same thing. I was just tired the first time i explained my theory so it probaly sounded wrong.


Z3M-Why would you name it that? You used to write good posts now you just bullshit like this. What happened?

as far as centripetal force is concerned this page looks like it offers a good explanation.

*note the explination of the bogus centfugal force*
http://science.burney.ws/lessons/spin/circle.html

Biot, sorry, missed a word, it was late at night or something.

What I am saying is that no centrifugal force does not exist in reality, but it does have application as a mathematical tool to examine circular motion.
Again, it is the same as planar and normal forces on a plane.

That's a lie. I never wrtote good posts.

Z3m, you did too and still do when you do, this I know to be true, as do you.

I'd never ever supect you of fishing. Where did the supply off "slapping trout" come from?

Also, if VREK is in 8th grade and remembers your good posts on a regular basis days....well my intellect has practically
no place in this thread.

I think that there is an opposite to gravity, it seems to me that wasted time might be an effective tool in polarizing that whole concept.

It is as prevalent as gravity and the same property determining the continuance of wasted time, choice not to be down, has it's place in the applications of gravity as well.

See?
Is the question "Where does gravity come
from?" a stock question on toward the
question "Where does energy come from"
and since the dna genome has been mapped, what is the question to be answered regarding
what causes the variations in any one of those particular genomes?
Seems I spelled that wrong, genom...anyway

I am in 8th grade but have been lurking for a few months. I wish the old Z3M would come back. He was almost as good as you winki...wait never mind no one can be as good as you :-).
Winki- I didn't understand about half you post with the DNA and all but what I did get was good and informative. Thanks.

It doesn't represent circular motion so why would you want to model stuff after it? I have never once heard some one say "what's the centrifugal acceleration or that car as it turns" because there isn't such a thing. If you used centrifugal force to examine circular motion your examinations would be very incorrect.

Show me some of these centrifugal acceleration equations i would love to see them.

Have I been doing anything different?

Biot, the term would not exist if it did not represent something.

Using the car as an example: Imagine you are riding in a car that goes around a turn. You know you are going to be pushed "out" against the car door. In reality, there is no force "out". That would be impossible. But you still "feel" like you are being pressed against the door, because you are (Newton's 3rd Law). What it really is is your body trying to go in a straight line and since the car moves, its door moves you. THAT is what centrifugal force represents. That force that you put on the door. Really, its the door acting on you, but since your door has no nerves, and you do, You can feel it.

understand?

Santa represents an man chillin with elves at the north pole but he isn't real.

Sure you feel a force when the car turns and sure newtons 3rd law is in full effect. Your body what's to travel in a straight line tangent to the curve. To stay on the road there is an acceleration in towards the center of the curve, centripetal acceleration. Centrifugal Force doesn't really exist man, so you can't feel it. If people took physics classes, people would say "You feel that centripetal force?"

Basically I think we disagree about the words use. You know it's not a real force and so do I. But I wouldn't use the words to describe what i felt. I would use "centripetal".

Z3m, first response earilier today was, "No,
that's the thing...you , as far as I've ever read...aren't, " so, I guess trying to get the mental image of a 5th grader or 6th grader on-line or involved enough w/ the old dial-up to differentiate between....maybe too much thinking, relevance is ?????so...snarf!

then, I saw your rather adamant comment re spiritualism, then I just thought, Whoa!,
is that what it was!?!

Then I thought about the spiders and graduation.....

Then I don't recall I think I mopped the kitchen.

Biot- You are correct as someone who has taken physics would say "You feel that centripetal force?" but people who haven't taken physics would say "Whoah I was just *thrown* into the side of the car". So centrifugal force was created to explain to those who haven't taken physics or who have just started why they feel pressure applied by the door. It is then later explained that there is no force pushing them "out" against the car, instead a force pushes the car "in" against them. But as people we like to assume that we move into an object, not an object moves into us (You say "I walked into a wall" while it would be perfectly valid to say "A wall just moved into me").

the_editore

Winki?

I would not use the word centrifugal in say, a lab report or a book, but what I am trying to explain to you is that it, the word, DOES have meaning. The words Santa Claus ALSO have meaning. You say Santa, I think jolly old fat elf in red clothes with a slave business... erm elves. In other words, when I say centrifugal, you know exactly what I mean. Therefore the word does have meaning.

Otherwise the word "imaginary" Would Not Exist.

Get it now???

What Z3m?......
______________________________________

I think I may have actually blown a circuit this time....not just tripped the
breaker.....waaaaaay tooooooomany profound
..............????????????????@?@?@?@?@?@?
of late, I do not want or need an electrician!! Or anything! Slaves and catfood, slaves and catfood. The opposite of gravity in my reverse look-up dictionary is levitation. Still being ungrounded and wasting time seem alot alike. I really am sorry. Your post have always been good, would always easily fit if written on actuall 4x4's in Sharpie.... Some "every now and then", can't remember, spurts? were actually quite great! in their own right Can't shut up, can't shut down. Much is being repaired and straightened, Captn Chaos runs a productive ship, but brilliance has left the building.
I really am sorry, one for apologizing and two for anything I ought to be sorry for...

Maybe appropriate response was "What Z3m?"
Will scroll up and try it first now, last.

damn, i should visit this forum more often. where to begin?

whe youre in a car, and you turn quickly and hit the side of the car, its not you being thrown into the side of the car, its in a way the car slamming into you. biot, i think you mean newtons first law of motion, not his 3rd? his 1st states that an object in motion will stay in motion at a constant speed and at a straight line. its like inertia.

when you take a golf ball on the end of a string, hold the string and swing the gold ball around, you can feel a force thats pulling away from your hand. it just seems like its away thought, because its a straight force gone cyclic.

how can we tell that centrifugal force does not exist? well, centrifugal force would be the pull that the golf ball has away from your hand, outward. if this existed, then when you let go of the string, the gold ball would go off in the opposite direction of your hand, which is the direction the minute hand is pointing to on a clock. but when you let go of the string, the ball doesnt do this. it travels in a straight line in the direction it was going at the point of which you let go of the string. now that the centripetal force (the string) is gone, the "centrifugal" force is also gone. so i guess that niether centripetal nor centrifugal force can exist unless both exist. at the same time in the sam system. kinda crazy, just thought that up my self.

hey! i got it! centrifugal force is the golf ball obeying newtons first law of motion. centripetal force is the string obeying newtons 3rd law. so lets see here, the golf ball moves in a circle, but because its trying to obey the 1st law, it seems to exert an outward force. this force is then equalized by the string, since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, newtons 3rd law! ok theres spinning things. for more information refer to Bill Nye the Science Guy.

now, back to gravity. gravity has nothing to do with spinning things! true, the earth spins, but even if it didnt, the moon would still be attracted to it. newtons law of gravity is very true, and it does not mention any spinning at all. true, i dont know why gravity exists, but ive proven that its not because of anything spinning. why the hell would revolving electrons cause gravity?

there is a VERY good new scientific america magazine that explains the cause of gravity somewhat.

the big bang theory cant be correct if the way we interpret gravity is correct. something is wrong. because if all the things in the universe were moving away form a central point due to a big explosion (or bang is you prefer), then the gravity of the things would be pulling them together, so the things would be slowing down, and eventually stop, and then start going back to that central point. but theyre not slowing down. [i]theyre speeding up[i/]. that why scientisits now believe that much of the universe is filled up with something called, SHIT i forgot what its called, ill look it up. well anyway this stuff has little or no mass, but has gravity that repels, not attracts. this would better explain some of the results from this big bang.

i highly reccomend anyone whos interested should rent or buy this issue of scientific america.

was there anything else?

ill post it as i think of it.


[This message has been edited by unstable247 (edited 06-13-2001).]

oh, that stuff that i couldnt think of, the stuff that has repulsive gravity, is called quintescence

i think thats how you spell it

Unstable, were you in my immediate vicinity I would clap you on the shoulder, that was good.

About the Big Bang though, gravity is a very weak force(i mean, the "Weak Force" is greater), it would be real easy for objects to ignore it given even a small force. Also if this force is still acting then of course the universe would be accelerating apart. As the universe spreads out, its net gravitational pull on itself gets less, (distance increases, gravity decreases).

When I say "ignore", i don't mean literally, I mean mechanically.

unstable quintescence is a word meaning "the top/best, or most original of an objet example-the 'quintassential' hero(or teachers pet, villain, etc.)
making up words that u dont know the defintion of DOESNT make you like smart, quite the contrary
"tis better to keep ones mouth closed and only APPEAR stupid
than to open it and remove all doubt."
-some dead guy

yeah, uh, ill admit that i didnt know the original definition of quitessence. now i do. but now scientists have given this new, theoretical force that same name. so that is right. understand?

ill also have you know that quitessence was also believed to be the fifth basic element, after earth, wind, water and fire. it was thought to be the substance out of which all heavenly bodies were made.

What issue?

I just got May 2001 and it has some real dope shit in it about slowing/stoping light and quantum computing.

Those scientists also believed you could create maggots with rotting meat (without flies first, of course).

What scientists are you talking about? Keep in mind another scientist, by the name of Pasteur proved them wrong.

You already know, biot

First off is Quitensence(or how ever you spell it) the same as "dark matter"?
Second This is a different topic but it has to do with graviety so...If gravity equals the mass of the 2 objects devided by the distance doesn't this contradict with the law that in a vacuum all objects fall at the same rate?
Sorry if I sound moronic but I am only a ASPIRING physicist.