Is the centrifugal force a fact or a fiction?
85757
Centrifugal force is a fact, but we call it a fictional force. We interpret what we observe as a force because we want to apply the laws of inertia and so on that appropriate for a stationary, inertial frame to a nonstationary, noninertial frame. \n\nIt has the same root as the word "fugitive", a latin word meaning to flee. So if you spin a rock on a rope, it seems to you that the rock wants to flee away from your hand, and the string is holding it back with its centripetal force (or center seeking force, again from the latin). The fleeing force or centrifugal force is not really there, it is just our interpretation of what we observing from the application of Newton's laws in a rotating frame.
436378
i guess the question is how can the force of gravity be simulated on a spaceship. the answer is like the previous person said, by making it spin. this creates something called centripital force, which is an acceleration toward the center of the ship. the percived effect, however, would be that the people would be stuck to the outside of the ship ( i think).
919025
Let's clear up our terms a little bit.\n\nGravity only generally occurs between things of mass.  And it is pretty much independant of what the mass is doing.  And I say pretty much because there are things that can create or destroy mass... but in a general sense it all comes down to the mass.\n\nNow, as astronomical bodies form, they tend to get a spin.  Because of the conservation of angular momentum, things that suck up more mass tend to have more spin than others.  These are, however, tendancies, NOT necessities.\n\nCase in point - the Earth.  Because of the tides, the spin of the Earth is slowing down.  We used to have twelve-hour days millions and millions of years ago, but now they're twice as long.  Has this affected the force of gravity?  Not a bit.  The same mass is present, and it's causing the same amount of gravity.\n\nWhat your friend may be confused by is what is sometimes called centrifugal force (a physicist would probably just call it inertia, though).  Although gravity pulls us down to the centre of the Earth, the motion of spin carries us away from the centre, counteracting gravity.  This means if you take a tool to measure gravity near the equator, you'll get a lower reading then you will when you measure it at the axis.  The force of gravity hasn't changed at all, but the spin is creating another force that is mitigating gravity's effects.  On Earth, this force is pretty small, but it's concievable that it could amount to a huge amount on a fast-enough spinning object... say, a space station with almost no gravity, but which was spinning fast to simulate gravity but pulling out instead of in.\n\nSo in a literal sense, you are completely right.  Gravity has ONLY to do with mass (well, mass and distance).  In a squishier sense, your friend is sort of right, in that spin can change the APPARENT force of gravity in local areas and that objects with large gravities also tend to have large spins.\n\nHope that helps!
1123165
Do you believe wind is real?
788162
All three Newton laws are real. They do support other two law, there is no conflict in them.
869189
No it isn't true.  \n\nCoach
77780
4 - at first it seems strange to think that the energy increased, but you have to remember that she had to work against centrifugal forces to pull her arms in.\n\nplus, its always "all of the above"
572615
I would say that it is fiction.\nI am basing this on the fact that legal petitions require verifiable addresses and signitures which are checked against voter regisrations.
870575
The centripetal force has to be\nbalanced by an equal amount\nof centri fugal force for dynamic \nequilibrium. We therefore have.\ncentrifugal force\n=mass*centrifugal acceleration\n4*a=20\na=20/4=5m/sec^2
486526
Carezani is someone who I have heard of.  He claimed to have found an error in Relativity but so far no one other than him and his supporters seems to know what that is and he came up with a theory called autodynamics which he said was more complete.\n\nExperiments have since confirmed Relativity and shown autodynamics to be wrong but that doesn't seem to have stopped his supporters (I'm not sure what he is up to now).
1135511
Back in 1998 the idea of anti-gravity as a real phenomenon appeared to be possible - or is it?\n\nThe galaxies in the expanding universe appeared to be accelerating - was this some kind of anti-gravity force?  To account for this speed-up in expansion, most astronomers and astrophysicists favor bringing back Einstein's fudge factor. But keep in mind that no real evidence exists for reverse gravity; Einstein just made it up so that his equations would support the idea of a static universe. In a twist he could never have imagined, antigravity has returned to support the idea of a universe expanding forever at an increasing rate.\n\nThe fact that there MAY be an anti-gravity force implies there may be some way to take advantage of it, but if gravity is not actually a force but a distortion of space instead, the propulsion engine will have to find a way to distort space (we don't know how to do this).  When we understand the Higgs particle better, perhaps.\n\nCheck out the link below for an update on the subject of "anti-gravity"
1101343
I've seen several different "conspiracy theory" vidoes and I did some poking around on the Web to see what I could find. Here's a very interesting article you should check out:\n\nhttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1
578174
All forces ultimately resolve to so called "Magnetic", "Electrostatic" and "Nuclear" forces - all of which are explained as "action at a distance" via a "field".\nSince none of these actions at a distance can be explained except via artificial theories such as "ghost particles" in Quantum physics or "space/time distortions" as in Relativistic physics, your question is very valid and the simple answer is no-one knows what a "force" really is or how it is produced.
660806
centripetal force and centrifugal force\ncentripetal force and centrifugal force, action-reaction force pair associated with circular motion. According to Newton's first law of motion, a moving body travels along a straight path with constant speed (i.e., has constant velocity) unless it is acted on by an outside force. For circular motion to occur there must be a constant force acting on a body, pushing it toward the center of the circular path. This force is the centripetal (“center-seeking”) force. For a planet orbiting the sun, the force is gravitational; for an object twirled on a string, the force is mechanical; for an electron orbiting an atom, it is electrical. The magnitude F of the centripetal force is equal to the mass m of the body times its velocity squared v 2 divided by the radius r of its path: F=mv2/r. According to Newton's third law of motion, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The centripetal force, the action, is balanced by a reaction force, the centrifugal (“center-fleeing”) force. The two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The centrifugal force does not act on the body in motion; the only force acting on the body in motion is the centripetal force. The centrifugal force acts on the source of the centripetal force to displace it radially from the center of the path. Thus, in twirling a mass on a string, the centripetal force transmitted by the string pulls in on the mass to keep it in its circular path, while the centrifugal force transmitted by the string pulls outward on its point of attachment at the center of the path. The centrifugal force is often mistakenly thought to cause a body to fly out of its circular path when it is released; rather, it is the removal of the centripetal force that allows the body to travel in a straight line as required by Newton's first law. If there were in fact a force acting to force the body out of its circular path, its path when released would not be the straight tangential course that is always observed.
64466
Yes! There is centripetal acceleration on the ball.  It is actually accelerating in towards the center, but other forces keep it on the edge.
695246
You are trying to convert between two dissimilar units.  Pounds per square inch (psi) is a unit of pressure, which, in more fundamental units, is force per unit area.  The "centrifugal force" (or centrifugal acceleration) produced that is a result of rotation is just that -- a force (or an acceleration).  The *pressure* exerted by a body experiencing that force depends on the contact area between that body and another object.\n\nCentrifugal force is not a true force;  it is an apparent force that results from the use of a rotating reference frame.  Although it is not a true force, it is handy for analyzing many sorts of situations.\n\n----------\n\nIf it helps, the centrifugal acceleration experienced by an object located a distance "R" from the axis of rotation in a reference frame that is rotating with an angular velocity of "w" radians/sec is given by:\n\na = R*w^2\n\nNote that 1 rpm = 1 revolution/min = 2*pi/60 radians/sec\n\nNote also that "gravities" are a unit of acceleration.  One "g" = 9.81 m/s^2\n\nThe centrifugal "force" is the mass times this acceleration.
1127335
Some of what is presented in "loose change" can be disputed to the point of possibly being coincidental or hear say.\n\nBut there are also things that are pointed out in the film that cannot be disputed, as it would violate the laws of physics for them to have occurred in the way that our government has led us to believe.\n\nI have been doing research on both sides of this issue and there are several items that violate physics.\n\n1. No mater how structurally compromised the struck floors were, the towers could not have fallen at free fall speed. This can only occur when there is no support anywhere under the falling structure.\n\n2. You cannot take out multiple light poles on the way into the pentagon with out leaving massive amounts of debris in the path from the poles knocking chunks out of the plane much less the flaming fuel spill it would have produced. The Boeing fuel tests proved that a plane hitting even a single light pole would rip the wing off creating a huge fireball immediately. There was no debris or scorch marks anywhere other than the scorch marks at the building itself.\n\nThe laws of physics do not conveniently change for anyone no matter how much rhetoric that people spew. We will probably never know the truth about who was responsible, but we do know that the story our government has fed us doesn't hold water.