OK, so....Ttasky Pseudo-Science here...
If you weigh yourself at the North Pole, then go down and weigh yourself at the Equator, you will be lighter at the latter.
The understanding is that centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation causes this.
Still a fictional force?
Isn't that just because your closer to the gravitational force at the poles? Just a matter of distance....
Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
Laptop: Dell Precision 5510 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: Huawei P30 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM14 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive
Right, everyone, please stop. I have certain people's posts on ignore by default, but even without seeing those this is becoming a joke. If people bothered to read the wiki entries for centripetal and centrifugal force I reckon we could quickly put this pointless pedantism to bed.
This BS about centrifugal forces not existing is only true in the case where you look at things in an inertial frame of reference that excludes any motion, including rotation. This is a problem for several other mechanical situations, and also relativity etc. It is always important to analyse things using the correct frames of reference for the problem at hand.Originally Posted by wikipedia
which is basically everything that has collectively been said by everyone in the previous posts. So please stop winding each other up and realise you are all saying the same thing, but failing to be consistent in understanding and acknowleding the differences in your respective frames of reference.Originally Posted by wikipedia
In the case of the airplane above. In terms of a person walking up and down the airplane, they move in a straightline. Inside the inertial frame of reference everything is linear. But to the observer on the ground, outside of that frame of reference, the plane, and the person inside it, are following an arc trajectory to maintain constant height above the earth. That trajectory cannot be explained without the additional pseudo forces - in this case gravitational pull acting as the required force.
As the article states centrifugal force is a correct usage of the equal and opposite force to centripetal. And it gets better because that reactive centrifugal force IS always present, and does not depend on frames of reference:
It is all there in the articles. So a centrifugal force can be rightly be regarded as pseudo/ficticious, and also rightly as real and observable. Let's leave it there shall we?Originally Posted by wikipedia
And to link it back to the OP and thread title. A little research before posting might have been beneficial here - in this case lack of research is where we risk the plain stupid coming into it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reacti...he_turning_car
From now on let's only acknowledge the strong / weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces.
Yeah the issue here is this idea is flawed, based on flawed assumption that cross wind landings are hard due to the cross wind, rather than the gusting nature of the wind in question. That it would be easier to land in a curve than handle a cross wind in the circumstances an airliner must be able to land say with an engine out.And to link it back to the OP and thread title. A little research before posting might have been beneficial here - in this case lack of research is where we risk the plain stupid coming into it.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
My understanding is the Earth is not a proper sphere so yes there will be differentials in weight.
I still have my old A'Level Physics text books by Tom Duncan and there is no mention of centrifugal force whatsoever in the index. Plus the fact that my old Physics teachers instilled in me there was no such thing as centrifugal force. However, I'm more than happy to accept Ik9000's explanation on this issue in terms of isolated mechanical forces in a particular timeframe. I suppose I could contact an ex-school colleague, who is now Head of Physics in a University, for a second opinion...
Yeah, but I'm thick, so all I can do is joke and hope that it helps people enjoy the thread a bit rather than it descending into a blazing argument.
I also assume I'm one fo thsoe on ignore anyway, but hey...
I think the Special Forces might take issue with your lack of acknowledgment...!!
From sciencey people at NASA:
"The effective acceleration of gravity at the poles is 980.665 cm/sec/sec while at the equator it is 3.39 cm/sec/sec less due to the centrifugal force. If you weighed 100 pounds at the north pole on a spring scale, at the equator you would weigh 99.65 pounds, or 5.5 ounces less".
So centrifugal force is real and it's the cause in this instance... apparently.
Imagine the Earth disappeared, what would happen to you? You've fly off into space at a constant speed in a straight line (Ignoring the effects of other bodies). It requires force, caused by gravity, to keep you moving in a circle. This force causes an acceleration, meaning a change in speed or direction.
The 'effective acceleration' is the key. Assume the Earth were a sphere, and consider two masses at different points on the surface. One at the equator, and one at a higher latitude. Both bodies travel in a circle, relative to the Earth. The one at the equator travels faster, since it's circle is larger. As a result, it requires a larger force to change it's direction. Gravity, however, on our model sphere, is constant. Effective acceleration, being caused by the remainder of the force pulling you toward the planet, is reduced.
You can visualize the same thing by considering orbital dynamics. Accelerate a body to a high enough speed, and eventually the force from gravity equals the amount needed to keep the orbiting body moving in a circle. The effect is what's called 'weightlessness'. Reduce the speed, and the body will fall back toward earth.
The BBC has published a follow-up article; still not convinced!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39643292
So, the one thing we can take out of this is: if you want to lose weight, move to the equator.
I'll tell the wife.
Smudger (21-04-2017)
So still absolutely zero mention of the fact most wind gusts are the problem rather than pure cross wind. No mention about the extra wear on the airplane. Even the remark about the ILS sounds shoddy as hell. (No you don't want your ILS moving...)Henk replies: A higher speed will be necessary, indeed.
Take-off and landing run will increase because of this and the time that an aircraft spends on the runway will be about five to ten seconds longer.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
From the follow up:
This should have been highlighted more. They might find out something useful [accidentally] even if circular runways have too many problems.It is like a concept car in a car exhibition - it will not be implemented exactly like this, but we learn a lot from the ideas, from simulations and, later on, practical tests.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)