Talk:Centrifugal force
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Talk:Centrifugal_force".


content

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) article.
Article policies
Archive
Archives

Contents

What is a "scalar force"?

At the start of the current article there appears a list of pointers to other article, and the last item on the list says "For the scalar force that appears in polar coordinates, see the article on polar coordinates". I checked the article on polar coordinates, and the word "scalar" doesn't appear there. So, what exactly IS a "scalar force"? And why does the article point to another article for explanation of something that isn't even mentioned in the other article? Surely something is amiss.63.24.61.29 (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you are correct in pointing out the absurdity of a "scalar" force. This pointer should be removed altogether, but I have only edited it to remove the absurdity. The history of this article shows that this pointer was a concession to a long, drawn out battle that apparently exhausted all parties and led to this compromise. Brews ohare (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Any single dimension is a scalar- a scalar is simply a single number. There's nothing absurd about a scalar force any more than there is about a scalar acceleration. What is 9.81 m/s^2?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the "corrected" version. The acceleration component that it refers to (i.e., the one that arises in stationary polar coordinates) is explicitly described and given the name "centrifugal force" in countless reputable references, including:
(1) "An Introduction to the Coriolis Force" By Henry M. Stommel, Dennis W. Moore, 1989 Columbia University Press.
(2) "Methods of Applied Mathematics" By Francis B. Hildebrand, 1992, Dover, p 156.
(3) "Statistical Mechanics" By Donald Allan McQuarrie, 2000, University Science Books.
(4) "Essential Mathematical Methods for Physicists" By Hans-Jurgen Weber, George Brown Arfken, Academic Press, 2004, p 843.
This has been pointed out previously, with the relevant quotations. I don't think there can be any dispute of the fact that this particular acceleration term is indeed among the terms that are called (in contemporary reputable sources) centrifugal force. Needless to say, it's entirely a matter of convention as to what names we give certain terms appearing in certain equations, but since Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect verifiable facts from reputable sources, I can't see any justification for excluding this particular fact from the article. I think any discussion of the contemporary (let alone the historical) concept of centrifugal force is incomplete if it doesn't include this.
There are also other concepts that go under the name "centrifugal force" but that are not yet mentioned in this article. And conversely, there are lots of things discussed at length in this article that are only indirectly related to the concept of centrifugal force. I understand that much of this material has been added as part of a tutorial on general physics being given to placate some of the editors here, but ultimately I think it detracts from the readibility and relevance of the article.
Overall I think the present article has evolved into a lengthy set of notes that various people have made as they clarified in their own minds certain aspects and implications of the centrifugal force, as they responded to challenges from certain other editors. Sort of learning on the job. That's a commendable exercise, but it doesn't make for a very coherent article, and frankly, the "on the job learning" still has a long ways to go before it arrives at a fully consistent and complete account of centrifugal force. I'm not sure if this is really the best and most efficient way of authoring Wikipedia articles. (It may be... I'm really not sure.) If nothing else, I guess people are having fun.63.24.126.122 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The thing you're failing to understand is that fundamentally this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias have an article per definition, whereas a dictionary has an article/entry per word/phrase and has multiple definitions within that. So the wikipedia has to define a term and then describe it. We've decided that dividing the term up along these technical grounds is the way to go. Coordinate transformation centrifugal force goes in this article (sister article to coriolis effect), polar centrifugal force/effect is in the Polar coordinate system article, reactive centrifugal force is over there. Ultimately it is an editorial decision in conjunction with the various definitions that there are as to how the wikipedia is laid out, but this is the way it seems to be best to do it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Scalar forces

I believe this pointer is better left out in the first place, or a separate discussion should be added in this article. The whole idea that the radial term in polar coordinates is a centrifugal force in any sense of the word is a stretch to begin with. Were it not for D Tombe, I doubt that this idea would ever surface. Brews ohare (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Forget him, we need to do the right thing; we're narrowly swinging too far the other way, it deserves a link out- there is indeed a usage in polar coordinate systems, it's less common, and it's not the same thing. And because it's not the same thing, the description shouldn't be in this article, but we need to at least link it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
By calling it a "stretch" I agree with you that the polar coordinate thing is not a fictitious force in the sense of being related to a non-inertial frame of reference. Rather, it is a term that appears in even an inertial frame of reference when polar coordinates are used, and has been referred to in the literature (in a totally confusing way that brings with the confusion absolutely no advantages) as "centrifugal" only because of its formal similarity to the formula for centrifugal force. Brews ohare (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Your point of view seems to be that terms arising from the use of curved temporal axes may be called fictitious forces, but terms arising from the use of curved spatial axes may not, or at least that the latter constitutes a sufficiently different meaning of the term "centrifugal force" that it doesn't belong in the same article. You're certainly entitled to that point of view, but I question whether you're entitled to impose it on this Wikipedia article, especially since it is contrary to multiple reputable contemporary sources.
At the risk of discussing the subject of the article (which we're not supposed to do on Discussion pages), just think for a minute about a particle moving around in a circle of radius r with constant angular speed w relative to a system of polar coordinates rotating with speed W. The radial equation of motion is r" = f + r(W+w)^2 where f is the centripetal force (per unit mass). The total absolute angular speed of the particle is W+w, and the "extra" term that appears in Newton's law is r(W+w)^2. We might choose to treat this acceleration term as if it was an outward force, balancing the inward-pointing force f. This is the whole concept of fictitious force. But your position is that the "true" centrifugal force consists only of rW^2, and the rest of the terms (2rWw and rw^2) you believe should be called something else. Essentially you are trying to impose the old pre-relativistic segregation between spatial and temporal components of spacetime coordinate systems, and there are certainly plenty of reputable texts that adopt the same pre-relativistic point of view (although most of them take this naive approach only because they don't think anyone cares, not because it's justified). Nevertheless, there are also many texts that take the more sophisticated relativistic point of view, and reject any segregation of spatial and temporal components as artificial and meaningless.
I guess the question is whether this Wikipedia article should recognize all of these reputable sourced views of the subject, or reject all but the naive pre-relativistic view (as you advocate). From my reading of Wikipedia policy, if there are multiple views of a subject to be found in a significant fraction of the reputable contemporary sources on that subject, then all of those views are to be represented in the article.63.24.99.40 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Only if they're within the scope of the article, at the moment the scope is Newtonian, and rotating reference frames, as with the Coriolis effect article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to create an article on relativistic centrifugal force, by all means go ahead.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There can be little doubt that fictitious forces are different from the so called centrifugal acceleration terms found in polar coordinates. Thus, whatever the history, utility and beauty of these last, they belong in this article only to say that they do not belong here. Brews ohare (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... I've presented a well-reasoned and well-sourced case for why the full meaning of the term centrifugal force in contemporary reputable sources ought to be included in the article, and even explaining in detail why those reputable sources say what they say, i.e., the rationale for regarding the fictitious forces arising from curved coordinates to be the same category of conceptual entity, regardless of whether the curved axes happen to be just the time axis or just the space axes or any combination of those. In response, you say "there can be little doubt" that I'm wrong. Well, based on the facts as I've described them, and on your inability (or unwillingness) to offer any subtantive rebuttal, I would say we can proceed to modify the article along the lines I've suggested, i.e., more in conformity with Wikipedia policy and less reflective of the personal POV of individual editors.
In answer to Wolfkeeper, the subject here isn't relativistic centrifugal force, it is centrifugal force as grasped by people who have learned the epistemological lessons of relativity (and the rest of modern science), even though these lessons haven't found their way into some introductory engineering texts. I would also point out that the present article claims to be based on relativity, and even quotes Einstein's first postulate, so I don't think you can rationally claim that the current article excludes what it regards as the relativistic view of the subject.
Well, I agree with this latter point, the article shouldn't include relativistic definitions and so I have removed it. This article is really a sister article to Coriolis effect and that doesn't discuss polar coordinate systems or relativistic mechanics either. I would encourage you to start an article on that particular, quite different topic, but on practical grounds, I don't see that this article can be stretched to include both.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think you two have given me a good indication of the level of discourse (and intellectual honesty) here, and I think I'm out of my league, so I'll bow out and leave you to it. Good luck.63.24.104.68 (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have been responsive in describing exactly why the polar coordinate terms are not the same breed of cat as the fictitious forces. Your answers to this are not responsive. Instead, you drag in vague ideas like curved time axes, etc. without addressing specific items in the article, or replying to suggestions given. Brews ohare (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal force and polar coordinates

I'm going to support ip 63.34.xxx.xxx (btw, please register a user name it makes it easier to recognize your posts) on this. The term present in equations in polar coordinates and the term present in rotating reference frames are two sides of the same coin. (i.e. they are terms coming from the non-trivial connection coefficients involved in calculating the acceleration.) I think this article should cover both. Especially, since there is a whole bunch of textbooks that don't really distinguish between the two. (Marion and Thornton is one of them.) I do however see problems in providing a unified definition of the two, that distinguishes them from other fictious forces. (TimothyRias (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

They're not two sides of the same coin, because one centrifugal force is frame related (the force is proportional to the square of the rotation rate of the frame, and independent of the motion of the particle) whereas the polar coordinates is entirely object related (it depends on the rotation rate of the *object* around the origin). If you have a reference that says that they're the same thing, then we need that to make changes to the article, otherwise you're wasting our time. And quite frankly, that's the whole point, that they're not the same. Or, if all you're say is the trivial truth that the effect of centrifugal, coriolis etc. in both rotational frames of reference is the same as polar coordinates is the same as any other coordinate transformation that is equivalent to Newtonian Mechanics, then yeah, so? That doesn't mean that all coordinate transformations should be in this article, because the same argument applies to them also. And even that argument ignores the fact that this is a 3D vector treatment, whereas polar is only 2D.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I weigh in with Wolfkeeper on this: the mathematical terms in polar coordinates have not only no physical connection to fictitious forces, they also are completely unrelated mathematically to these forces except for the circular motion case, where you could argue that (when multiplied by a mass) they express terms that are the negative of the fictitious forces, but only in that limited case.
The reason for agreement in this singular case is that for circular motion the circle traversed happens to be the osculating circle for the entire path, and the center of polar coordinates happens to be the same as the center of the osculating circle. Remove either of these accidents and you lose any connection. I believe the distinction has been made very clearly and correctly in this article and in the polar coordinates article and again in the centripetal force article. Brews ohare (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
About polar coordinates being 2d, that's irrelevant the same term appears in 3d extensions of polar coordinates (i.e. spherical or cylindrical coordinates).(TimothyRias (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC))
I agree that dimensionality is irrelevant at a fundamental level. However, even in two dimensions a general planar motion does not lead to the polar coordinate expressions. You have to use the osculating circle. Have you thought about this point? It has come up earlier. See this. And this. Brews ohare (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
That is only necessary if you want the motion to be tangential at every point of the curve, and is an approach that I would not recommend. But there is no reason you couldn't describe an arbitrary planar curve in a single set of polar coordinates. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Hi Timothy: I'm left-adjusting the format of these comments so they are easy to find. The objective is not to describe a curve, but to describe a motion along a curve. Otherwise we are doing analytic geometry. not mechanics, and there is no "acceleration" and no "time dependence". If you track a motion, the kinematics of the motion must be referred to the osculating circle, a circle with time-shifting center in general, to determine the centripetal force in an inertial frame of reference. (See Curtis.) This centripetal force becomes the centrifugal force in the non-inertial frame of motion attached to the moving particle. See here. Brews ohare (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

About there being no physical connection I beg to differ. A change of frame is just a time dependent change of coordinates. That is it is just a change of coordinates in spacetime. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC))
There are many meanings of "frame". See Frame of reference, for example. However, here is the key issue: there are inertial frames and non-inertial frames. In inertial frames there are no fictitious forces That includes no centrifugal force. However, in an inertial frame you can use a time dependent coordinate system, like a polar coordinate system that tracks the particle. That does not mean you left your inertial frame. It means only that you adopted a time-dependent description of what you see from your viewpoint. Just like you can adopt a teen-ager's vocabulary to describe life, but that doesn't make you a teen-ager: you'll still be talking about pensions, retirement, and health care. On the other hand, you can jump onto a particle and share the particle's motion. Then you are in a non-inertial frame. The particle is at rest in this frame. However, if you want to explain various matters, you need to introduce fictitious forces, like centrifugal force. Otherwise, you don't understand why you are being pushed around even though you are at rest in your frame.Brews ohare (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(Since when are polar coordinates time dependent?)(TimothyRias (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Hi Timothy: If you track motion, the motion is time dependent. And then the polar coordinates describing the motion are time dependent. (See here.) Brews ohare (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that that is not what people usually mean with polar coordinates. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC))
Once you move into the general setting of (curved) spacetime the concept of a frame loses its (global) meaning. At best it has some local meaning. This because in a curved space the exponential map is not an isometry (as it is in flat minkoswki space.) The lesson from this is that viewpoints are inherently local. When comparing events at different points we must also account for the fact that we have to make a choice of "frame" at each point. If we have chosen coordinates, then this gives us an easy canonical way of choosing the local frame at each point, and thus of comparing events. In flat space choosing anything other than cartesian coordinates (with the usual SO(3,1) ambiquity) will lead to a non trivial comparison between points. Technically we will have non-zero connection coefficients. Going back to a 3d description by picking equal time slicings, will then give a description in which velocities and accelerations have picked up extra terms, which may or may not be interpretet as fictitious forces. From this point of view the centrifugal terms in rotating frames and polar coordinates arise exactly in the same manner. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC))
Well said.130.76.32.15 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Timothy: I have no ambition to discuss relativistic formulations. I'll bet Marion and Thornton don't do that either, in this context, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For a more down to Earth connection. In a central force problem, integrating out the integral of motion connected to rotational invariance (i.e. conservation of angular momentum) leads to the same centrifugal term no matter what coordinates you started in.(TimothyRias (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC))
If you are talking about analyzing the problem in polar coordinates, you get the polar-coordinate expression for "centrifugal acceleration". If you did the problem in elliptical coordinates, or in arc-length coordinates you would not. If you are looking at angular momentum, a constant of the motion in the central force problem, it is coordinate system independent. But that is not the same discussion. If you want to call some contribution to the angular momentum in some particular problem a "centrifugal contribution" that is a confusing choice of terminology, but it is a different confusion than the discussion of the polar coordinate acceleration term. Brews ohare (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd also love to see you guys give an explicit citation backing up your claim that there is absolutely no physical connection between the two. Otherwise I don't think the wikipedia article should be making such a strong claim. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC))
The discussion of inertial and non-inertial frames above explains why there is no physical connection. There are already citations in the articles that state clearly that centrifugal force is a fictitious force and does not appear in an inertial frame. The polar coordinate acceleration appears in all frames that employ polar coordinates, inertial or non-inertial. Brews ohare (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
That there isn't a connection in the scope of 'classical' classical mechanics (in which global frames have a meaning) does not mean that there is no physical connection, period. There are many examples where a more general theory is necesary to explain the connection between different seemingly different concepts. This is one of them. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Hi Timothy: Well, in the big picture, maybe everything is connected. But within the framework of this corner of mechanics, with the usual definition of inertial frames (Lorentz or Galilean related), there is no basic connection; only an accidental connection in the case of circular motion. (The source of this accident already was described here.) Brews ohare (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is probably better to just mention the clear fact that both are referred as centrifugal force.(TimothyRias (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC))
The fact that the same name is used for both is already in the articles, and the differences are also pointed out. Brews ohare (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
But the better argument may be that there is plethora of textbooks out there that treat them as the same.Mostly without actually explaining the deeper connection between the two. (An example of this is the Marion and Thornton book (again since it is the one that's on my desk) in the chapter on central forces it mentions that the term appearing in the (polar coordinate) formula is called the centrifugal force, but that it is not a force in the usual sense and then defers to the section about fictitious forces for a more detailed treatment.) (TimothyRias (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC))
To treat them as the same is a shocker. However, the context of the central force problem may be the cause of confusion. It may be that in this problem a number of different items are accidentally similar. A more general case would show up differences. The "not a force in the usual sense" phrase sounds like a ducking of clear thought. I do not have access to this text. Can you find a comparable discussion that is available in some detail on googlebooks?? Brews ohare (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I can have a look. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC))
Here are a couple of references accessible online:
"An Introduction to the Coriolis Force" By Henry M. Stommel, Dennis W. Moore, 1989 Columbia University Press. "In this chapter we have faced the fact that there is something of a crisis in intuition that arises from the introduction of the polar coordinate system, even in a non-rotating system or reference frame. When we first use rectilinear coordinates to understand the dynamics of a particle, we commit our minds to the simple expressions x" = F_x, y" = F_y. We think of the accelerations as time rate-of change [per unit mass] of the linear momentum X' and y'. Then we express the same situation in polar coordinates that partly restore the wanted form. In the case of the radial component of the acceleration we move the r(theta')^2 term to the right hand side and call it a "centrifugal force."
"Statistical Mechanics" By Donald Allan McQuarrie, 2000, University Science Books. "Since the force here is radial, it is convenient to use polar coordinates. Taking x = r cos(theta) and y = r sin(theta) [i.e., stationary polar coordinates] then... If we interpret the term [r(theta')^2] as a force, this is the well-known centrifugal force..."Fugal (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This means that a great many users (even those with physics degrees) reading this article are gonna assume they are (more or less) the same thing. Hence it should be discussed in the article. I don't think this would have to be a very lengthy discussion. The current not (with some further tweaking/sourcing) should probably suffice. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC))
I can see that readers of Marion and Thornton could get the wrong idea: after all, I think you did. I don't see how the reader of the Wiki articles could get the wrong idea, however. I hope that you haven't. You do appear to see that there is a different view on Wiki, anyway, but just don't see why. I'd like to see the articles written so that you would see exactly what is going on. So before you lose your initial perception of the articles, please make a note of what could be done to lead a reader by the hand. Brews ohare (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Coming from a more general perspective, I think I've a clearer idea of what's going on than you. So, I'd appreciate a little less condecending tone. As for some suggestions on where to improve the article I'll come back to that later. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Hi Timothy: Sorry for the appearance of condescension. I am just trying to explain things from a certain (apparently limited) viewpoint. However, this narrow perspective is the one commonly adopted for this topic. Brews ohare (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The narrow perspective is probably OK for the article. However there appears to be a non negligible number of prominent sources that take an other perspective, hence the wikipedia article should at least mention it. And when mentioning it, it should probably refrain from making over the top strong statements such that there is no physical connection. A little bit of weaseling tends to be in order when the perspective of an article is limited. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC))

Fictitious vs polar centrifugal forces (Cont'd)

I am assuming that you are not referring to "weaseling" based upon "slices of space-time"? If that is what you mean, then please provide a reference (preferably one that can be read on googlebooks), and a quotation, and a summary of the issues. If instead, what you mean goes back to the confused state of terminology, that subject already has been adequately dealt with in Aside on polar coordinates, short of some inadvisable rant about authors that use a terminology in their topics on use of polar coordinates that is incompatible with their use of the identical terminology for fictitious forces in other sections of their very same book. Brews ohare (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The terminology is incompatible (or rather, seems incompatible) only to readers who insist on imposing a pre-conceived but incomplete notion as to the meaning of "fictitious forces". The confusion is due mainly to the fact that authors of introductory texts sometimes split up the topic of fictitious forces into two parts, thinking that this will make it easier for students to understand if they present the consequences of curved space coordinate axes separately from the consequences of curved time coordinate axes. But unfortunately this pedagogical tactic tends to leave some students with a bifurcated view of what is really just a single concept. There is nothing more (or less) "physical" about the fictitious forces that arise in either case. Both are artifacts of using coordinate systems in terms of which the net applied force (per unit mass) does not equal the second derivative of the space coordinates with respect to the time coordinate. In both cases this coordinate effect can be corrected by the inclusion of additional acceleration terms (recognizing that the true absolute acceleration does not equal the second derivative of the space coordinates with respect to the time coordinate in these systems), or alternatively those extra terms can be negated and brought over to the other side of the equations and treated as if they were forces, hence fictitious forces. Some texts make the unity of this subject explicitly clear, whereas others obscure it, and still others present only the effect of curved time axes and never address the corresponding effect of curved space axes at all. Since Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the views published in reputable sources, I think the article should describe both the obscure disjointed view (which you advocate) and the clear unified view. It would be nice if the article could just be written giving the clear unified view, but since so many published texts present the outmoded and obscure view, I conceed that it needs to be represented as well. It may actually be useful, since it may help people avoid confusion.Fugal (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fugal: In contrast to your viewpoint, I believe the article to provide a correct, well balanced and thoroughly documented viewpoint. That is, that there are multiple uses for the terms, and the one appropriate here applies to fictitious forces. It does not say that other uses are forbidden or "wrong", but that they are different. It does no good to lump them all together, when there are real physical differences between them. The most simple difference is that fictitious forces appear only in non-inertial frames of reference. Would you dispute this point? Consequently, the fictitious centrifugal force is different from the "polar coordinate" centrifugal term, which last appears in all frames, inertial and non-inertial. I find it difficult to debate this point; it is very well documented by the citations in the article. Brews ohare (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Whenever acceleration terms appearing in the equations of motion due to non-linear coordinates are brought over to the other side of the equation and treated as forces, they are called fictitious forces (also known as inertial forces, pseudo forces, etc). This encompasses both accelerating coordinate systems and spatially curved coordinate systems, es explained in the numerous references that have been cited. Consider an isolated particle, free of any external forces (F=0), so it is following an inertial path, and suppose its motion is described in terms of a coordinate system x1,x2,x3,t. In terms of these coordinates we find that the second derivative of the space coordinates with respect to the time coordinate is not zero. In other words, the equation F = m d^xj/dt^2 = 0 is not satisfied. Nevertheless, we know the particle is following an inertial path, because no external forces are being applied, i.e., we know F = 0. One way of explaining this is to say that, in terms of our chosen coordinates, the absolute acceleration of the particle must not equal the second derivative of the space coordinates with respect to the time coordinate. There must be some other terms in the expression for the true absolute acceleration, and these terms must sum to zero. Alternatively we could choose to maintain the (sometimes convenient) fiction that the absolute acceleration equals d^2xj/dt^2 and we can still apply Newton’s law by bringing the extra acceleration terms over to the other side of the equation and pretending they are forces. Thus, as it says in Goodman and Warner’s “Dynamics”, the simple law F = m d^xj/dt^2 can be applied in terms of any system of coordinates, provided we include in F the sum of all fictitious forces, i.e., all acceleration terms (multiplied by mass) representing the difference between the true absolute acceleration and the vector d^xj/dt^2. Thus, fictitious forces arise in any non-linear coordinate system (i.e., any system in which the absolute acceleration does not equal the second time derivative of the space coordinates), and they arise in exactly the same manner, regardless of whether the non-linearity is of the time coordinate or the space coordinates or both.
It would be nice if you were able to understand this, but frankly, whether you understand it or not, the fact remains that this is how fictitious forces are comprehensively defined, as substantiated in the numerous references that have been provided, so there is simply no justification within the rules of Wikipedia editing for mis-representing these facts in the article.Fugal (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course, in doing any mathematical manipulations, "convenient fictions" (your characterization above) may be introduced that suit the investigator's temporary conceits. However, the "fictitious" forces so introduced are not on a par with the much more fundamental issues that relate to the state of motion of the observer, that separate inertial from non-inertial frames, and that are not to be categorized as mere mathematical manipulations.
The choice of coordinate systems doesn't have any effect on actual physical phenomena. Fictitious forces are, by definition, artifacts of a particular choice of coordinate systems. They are all "mere mathematical manipulations". Also, the acceleration terms appearing with certain coordinates do not depend on the presence or state of motion of any observer. An accelerating observer can use inertial coordinates, and an inertially moving obvserver can use accelerating coordinates, and they can both use rectilinear or curved spatial coordinates. The choice of coordinate systems is arbitrary, and even with a given choice of coordinate systems, the choice of whether and which acceleration terms to bring over to the "force side" of the equation and treat as if they were forces is also arbitrary.Fugal (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understand fully the difference between a "coordinate system" (a mathematical concept) and a "state of motion" (a physical reality). It is a perversion of concept to suggest there is no difference between inertial and non-inertial observers. I find that virtually all texts on mechanics make a distinction. And fictitious forces appear only for non-inertial observers. See Frame of reference, Fictitious force and Inertial frame of reference for more detail on this. Brews ohare (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It is you who plainly does not understand the difference between coordinate systems and states of motion. I can't comment on your "perversion of concept" statement, because it bears no relation to anything I've said. Likewise your follow-up statement that all texts distinguish between inertial and non-inertial is not pertinent to anything at issue here. Then you repeat your (thoroughly falsified) mantra that fictitious forces appear only for non-inertial observers. This is self-evidently false, and numerous references have been provided to you. You've read one of them, because you quoted it, when it specifically notes that coordinate systems in terms of which fictitious forces arise are not necessarily rotating. But by some truly bizarre psychiatric phenomena you've apparently convinced yourself that the book said just the opposite of what it actually says, so you continue to repeat your false claim. Weird.
And then to make this even better, you refer me to three Wikipedia articles for enlightenment, and a quick survery of the history of those pages shows that each of them was authored by (wait for it) Brews ohare! The fact that you're proliferating your fundamental misconceptions through multiple Wikipedia articles doesn't make you a reliable source. (See Wikipedia policies.)
Look, I've taken the trouble to provide you with SEVEN reputable published references from academic publishers, and all you've done is pointed me to three Wikipedia articles authored by yourself. Fugal (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your view of my limited abilities for understanding and your lofty validation of your own unsupported opinion. You might try less rhetoric and more communication. The views I have expressed are well-documented. Please, read the Wiki articles and the supporting citations. Brews ohare (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The comments I've made here have not been "unsupported opinions", they have been accompanied with (so far) SIX different reference texts, all of which explicitly include the fictitious forces arising from curvilinear space coordinates. My comments have been honest attempts to convey the idea presented in those references. Undoubtedly it could be expressed better, but I'm doing my best. Having said that, I'm not sure what non-communicative "rhetoric" you are referring to.Fugal (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Please provide me with links to these SIX supporting texts. Brews ohare (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Links? Try reading a book from time to time. Here are the six references sources that have been provided to you (FOUR times now, so I hope you understand why I'm getting a little testy with you for insisting that you be spoon-fed repeatedly), plus a seventh for good measure:
(1) "An Introduction to the Coriolis Force" By Henry M. Stommel, Dennis W. Moore, 1989 Columbia University Press.
(2) "Methods of Applied Mathematics" By Francis B. Hildebrand, 1992, Dover, p 156.
(3) "Statistical Mechanics" By Donald Allan McQuarrie, 2000, University Science Books.
(4) "Essential Mathematical Methods for Physicists" By Hans-Jurgen Weber, George Brown Arfken, Academic Press, 2004, p 843.
(5) Marion and Thornton [ref by Tim Rais, "the term appearing in the (polar coordinate) formula is called the centrifugal force"]
(6) "Dynamics", Goodman and Warner, Wadsworth Publishing, 1965.
(7) "Statics and Dynamics", Beer and Johnston, McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed., p 485, 1972. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugal (talk • contribs) 00:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed the sources that I could access from your list. Those I looked at fall into two groups:
  1. Authors whose main interest is polar coordinates and introduce the centrifugal force as "not real" and therefore "fictitious" in the sense of a mathematical convenience. These authors really are not interested in "fictitious forces" in the sense of classical mechanics, that is, in the relation to inertial and non-inertial states of motion. One cannot deny these authors their choice of terminology, but of course it is a different use of the term fictitious. Their point of view has been summarized in the present article and presented more fully in the article on polar coordinates.
  2. Authors who do consider both the polar coordinate and the "state of motion" uses of the term. An example is Stommel and Moore, quoted at length earlier in these remarks. These authors use the term non-Newtonian instead of non-inertial to describe a rotating frame of reference, and repeatedly stress that rotation is different from simple use of polar coordinates in an inertial reference frame. This difference is exactly the distinction made in the present article.
So, I see no conflict with these references. Brews ohare (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fugal's sources

Stommel and Moore p. 4 "Sometimes the additional terms in the accelerations are transposed to the right side of the equation, leaving only the double-dotted terms on the left. So the acceleration terms on the right look like forces. They even acquire names such as "centrifugal force." As convenient as this may be from an intuitive, practical point of view, this transposition...can lead to confusion. ...So remember that the appearance of this type of unreal force does not necessarily involve a rotating coordinate system. p. 26: "you should be very clear in your mind not to confuse the idea of a plane polar coordinate system fixed in inertial space with the idea of rotation of coordinates. This chapter is entirely tied to one particular reference frame, fixed in inertial space – so don't get mixed up now, or later when we introduce rotating axes." p. 36: This immediately gives the components of acceleration in polar coordinates, [lists equations] Remember once again that all this has nothing to do with rotating coordinate systems. We are in a polar coordinate system that is at rest with respect to the stars....The term r ω2 then looks like a force, and it actually has a name: "the centrifugal force". ... But it is really not a force at all, and so if we want to make use of it in a formal sense, then we could call it a virtual, fake, adventitious force." Following these various cautions, these authors later proceed to a rotating frame (p. 54) where they again introduce polar coordinates, these now are polar coordinates in a rotating frame, and derive what is now the true fictitious force by analogy with the formulas for the polar coordinates in a stationary frame. They rely upon their earlier cautions about confusion, but (in my view) have done things in the way most likely to actually cause confusion. Nonetheless, they are perfectly clear that the two cases are different, and that they are exploiting a mathematical analogy.

I was unable to access the second source: "Statistical Mechanics" By Donald Allan McQuarrie. Brews ohare (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As a correction, the Stommel and Moore reference was not mine, it was provided by Tim (Actually, it wasn't mine either, but the noname ip 63.something. (TimothyRias (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC))). Having said that, it's a fine reference, explicitly refuting your claims and confirming mine. By the way, I enjoyed your statement that when they discuss rotating coordinates they "derive what is now the true fictitious force", presumably as opposed to the false fictitious force that they derived for curved spatial coordinates, and had the nerve to call "centrifugal force". Let me just conclude this comment by repeating from your quotation: "So remember that the appearance of this type of unreal force does not necessarily involve a rotating coordinate system."Fugal (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently we don't interpret these remarks the same way. Brews ohare (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
How about this... since you claim that Stommel and Moore support your position, I assume you have no objections to replacing your "Comment on Polar Coordinates" in the article with a direct repetition of the very words from Stommel and Moore you quoted above. Since you believe that the words "fictitious forces only appear in rotating frames" mean the same thing as "Remember that the appearance of this type of unreal force does not necessarily involve a rotating coordinate system", you should have no objection to this substitution. And for everyone else in the world it reverses the meaning from being false to being true. So it's a win-win situation.Fugal (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I personally make no such claim that fictitious forces only appear in rotating frames- clearly they appear in linearly accelerating frames and polar coordinates as well. The question is what the scope of this article should be. It has been agreed that it should be the radial force that appears in rotating frames, and in that way it forms the sister article to Coriolis effect. We have another article for polar coordinates. I also have no problem with including rotating polar coordinates here either. The question of scope is the most fundamental one, and this is not being addressed in the above discussion- and no reference to books can answer that- it is an editorial decision we have and must continue to make sensibly. I simply don't consider adding the 'centrifugal force' from fixed polar coordinates to be apropos in this article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It might be helpful for you to review Wikipedia policies. When you say the decision of what to put in this article on "centrifugal forces" can't be answered by references to books (or presumably to any other verifiable sources), and instead should be determined by the personal "editorial decisions" of editors such as yourself, you are proposing a flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy. The article on subject X is supposed to accurately and faithfully represent the verifiable information about X to be found in reputable published sources. This is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. You're really not at liberty to impose your personal preference for the article to present only a partial and distorted version of what appears in reputable sources for this subject. The suggestion has been made that those editors who are fixated (for some unknown reason) on one particular aspect of the subject (such as fictitious centrifugal forces in rotating coordinate systems on Wednesdays and Saturdays, because by God there IS a clear distinction between the days of the week, and we've agreed to only consider Wednesdays and Saturday's in this article), then those people can start their own article on the subject "Fictitious Centrifugal Forces in Rotating Coordinate Systems on Wednesdays and Saturdays". I personally think that would be somewhat silly, but I certainly have no objection if you wish to do so. However, the article on centrifugal force needs to accurately represent the verifiable information to be found on this subject in the reputable literature. That is the Wikipedia rule. I trust no one here is advocating violating this basic Wikipedia principle.Fugal (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no policy debate here. The article is about centrifugal force as treated in classical mechanics, and as it appears in common English usage (as in the centrifuge). The alternative (uncommon in everyday usage) use of the term as a catch-all for mathematical convenience in polar coordinates is properly outlined and referred to the appropriate article polar coordinates. The standard usage of "centrifugal force" as a fictitious force that appears in rotating reference frames is extremely well documented in the article using primary sources. Wiki policies have been scrupulously observed. Brews ohare (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Fugal, you're right that I don't get decide alone. Ultimately it comes down to editoral consensus about what is normally meant by the term 'centrifugal force'- and whatever that is, it needs to be at centrifugal force in the same way that coriolis effect is what is meant there. I really don't think that centifugal force is just any force acting outwards, and I don't think that coriolis effect in polar coordinates is what is meant at coriolis effect.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
While you're trying to understand the subtle nuances Fugal of the wikipedias policies you might like to try being less tendentious and offensive, and actually start to assume good faith.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Wolfkeeper. I suggest that you do the same for others. It has been a wikipedia policy to assume bad faith regarding everything that David Tombe does. Here you are acting in the same manner by berating Fugal. I thing that is a bit of a contradiction.72.64.63.178 (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that Fugal understands thoroughly what the core of this topic is and is constructively discussing different ways to present the material, whereas David Tombe showed no signs at all of understanding at any point, and this lead him to waste considerable amounts of both his and other editors time.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely you are joking MR Wolfkeper. I didnt think humor was allowed. Maybe you are simply being dishonest in order to prove that what I said previously is true. You do treat Mr Tombe with disrespect. In any event, I cant see nothing wrong in repeating what has been said by Mr Tombe, concerning which you now seem to be agreeing with Fugal, when he says basically the same thing. "Citations are being ignored when it suits certain editors".

<duplicate of suspended user screed deleted>- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Mr Tombe has been right all along and you simply just ignored and opposed his correct viewpoint, which now you seem to be agreeing with, since it is being advocated by a different editor. I certainly would like to know if you are now agreeing with Fugal and conceeding that he is right so that we can continue to complete this article?71.251.182.49 (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You appear not to be assuming good faith. David Tombe paid lip-service to rotating reference frames, but was unable to explain why coriolis force is a vector quantity that can point in any direction perpendicular to the axis. This is inconsistent with the usage in weather systems, where the center of a cyclone or anticyclone is not aligned with the axis of the Earth. This shows pretty clearly that he didn't really get it, even if he says he did, even if you claim he did. They are similar, but *not* the same.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, here you are attacking Mr Tombe, and that is not the point of this discussion. But if you seek to prove my point, I thank you for it. You have done so. You deliberately assume bad faith on the part of Mr Tombe, and so you have harassed him and unfairly blocked him and smeared his reputation. You continue to do that here by dead horse beating Mr Tombe who is unable to reply to your slanders. I think it is you who is being dishonest. You should frankly admit you have been wrong in this debate, and that Mr Tome and Frugal are correct in what they have said here. You and your supporters can then withdraw and let the article be completed without your blocking its progress towards completion.72.64.46.35 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Scalars and Vectors

On the subject of scalar forces. Please note that "scalar" does not simply mean single dimensional. It also implies being invariant under coordinate transformations. (A scalar is a rank 0 tensor, just as a vector is a rank 1 tensor) (TimothyRias (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
Well, it's invariant under rotation, who cares about translation in polar coordinates? And note that there's more than one definition of scalar anyway.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I weigh in with Timothy on this. "Who cares" is not an answer here. A vector has transformation laws under (for example) rotations, and just because you have a situation that does not explore this fact does not change the fact. Brews ohare (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal effect

Centrifugal effect redirects here. It's not a psychological effect (they're offtopic here anyway), it's an apparent acceleration in rotating reference frames, in the same way that coriolis effect is.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, common usage is vague. In the case of Coriolis effect, it is very commonly used to mean Coriolis effect (perception). That refers to a lot of medical stuff about disorientation and nausea. Brews ohare (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
That's not the most common usage. The most common usage is in things like weather systems.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested move/refactor to Fictitious forces in rotating frames

A radical suggestion: I propose that this article be moved to Fictitious forces in rotating frames, and that Coriolis force and Euler force be merged into it at the same time.

Rationale: the three "rotational" fictitious forces are all generated by the same physical phenomenon, and drop out as individual terms when the frame-transformation equation is differentiated and expanded. A detailed treatment of centrifugal force must necessarily include both of the others, and vice versa, and as a result both the Coriolis and Euler forces are already dealt with in this article.

After the merge we would thus end up with a single long fully-integrated article instead of one long article and two short ones with overlapping topics. Refactoring and copyediting work could then be more effectively applied to that single article, which I believe can be significantly shortened if a more general treatment is used, without treating centrifugal force as a special case that is separable from the other force terms.

At the same time, there are other related phenomena such as centripetal force and reactive centrifugal force and certain "centrifugal" terms in coordinate transformations which are not fictitious forces and not related to rotating frames, but are often confused with the rotational fictitious forces. Renaming this article will also make clear that the only topic being discussed is that of fictitious forces in rotating frames -- The Anome (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You have stated the plusses of merger. However, one downside is that the combined article would be very, very long. That presents some questions of organization: it is tougher to make a clear, long article. Another downside is that "centrifugal force" is a magnet for dissension, and the other topics don't seem to attract so much attention. These debates might prove even more intractable in a longer article where they could spread like a grass fire. Finally, the reader who wants to find out about the individual topics will have to wade through a long, long table of contents to find what they want. My vote would be to leave things alone. Brews ohare (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
As Brews says, size is the big issue and there already is the article Fictitious force anyway.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a good very good idea. As I said before [1]: It is much easier to discuss centrifugal and Coriolis forces together than one at a time, since you rarely have one without the other. However, the existing articles should be kept and reduced to a more condensed and precise form. This would also give more room in the "centrifugal force" article for discussions about the etymology and historical perspective, and different uses of the term. The "fictitious force" article should only briefly state the results for rotating frames, and link to the new article for details. --PeR (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a good suggestion. It would allow those who wish to restrict their attention just to the fictitious forces arising from the use of rotating coordinates to do so in the article devoted to that limited subject, while allowing the more encompassing meaning of "centrifugal force" as found in the literature to be fully represented in this article. I also agree with PeR that the existing article should be made more concise. (It has become nearly unreadable.)Fugal (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the reason the article is so large is that it was expanded greatly during the recent phase of adversarial editing, to include a large number of worked examples. Many of these are very good, but they overlap one another, proving the same points over and over again in different ways. I believe that the article could easily be cut down to perhaps half of its current length by reducing the number of detailed worked examples, whilst retaining sufficient clarity and rigor of exposition. -- The Anome (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User history indicates that you The Anome were actively editing during the adversarial phase in question. Did you make any attempt to control the adversarial expansion of the article? 86.141.250.16 (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if so, I don't think it would be small enough to do much merging. And I completely disagree with the idea of re-merging reactive centrifugal force back here; the amount of usage of that concept is fairly low in the modern world, it gives it undue weight; and anyway it is logically quite distinct, under the wikipedias and general encyclopaedic rules it should not be merged here.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
PeR- wikipedia articles are not about a term, they are about a topic or a concept. That's why reactive centrifugal force is not here- it's completely different, sharing only direction and having something to do with rotation.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The topic or concept in this case would be "force directed away from the center of rotation". It is not uncommon for Wikipedia to have articles on broad topics, optionally linking to more detailed articles on more specific sub-topics. The section on "reactive centrifugal force" would of course be relatively small, in order to avoid undue weight, and the longer discussion can stay in its own article.
The current state of the article will result in a steady influx of editors who want "their" definition of "centrifugal force" to appear in the article. Defending it vigorously against such edits will be counterproductive at best, and at worst scare new editors away from Wikipedia. --PeR (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The notion of making the article noncontroversial is an interesting one. As a strategy, it would seem that what this means is that any article where debate may recur should be structured as a many-part article, with a part devoted to each perspective. That approach makes sense in some cases. Or, should we have centrifugal force (mechanics) and centrifugal force (polar coordinates)? I'd love to write the disambiguation page: For those of mathematical bent who do not see any difference between inertial and non-inertial frames, see centrifugal force (screwballs). To be more serious, it might be advantageous to have two pages for centrifugal force. My guess is that only the contributors to the present centrifugal effect page are really interested in the subject; the rest are interested in debate. So a narrowing (not broadening) of the subject will eliminate the phony dispute, or at least direct it to an insignificant minor topic page where it can go on and on and on and … who cares? Brews ohare (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, centrifugal force (screwballs) would be a WP:POV FORK, and therefore, unfortunately, not allowed. The centrifugal force (polar coordinates) article doesn't need to be started until the section on polar coordinates becomes too large for the main article, and I don't think that's likely to happen. --PeR (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Since wiktionary has 3 different definitions for the term, I've created centrifugal force (disambiguation).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This may be a good step toward straightening things out. Thanks. Brews ohare (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Division of centrifugal effect into multiple pages

As a measure to limit useless debate over the proper content of the present page, I propose that the present centrifugal force page be renamed centrifugal force (classical mechanics) and new pages be started centrifugal force (general relativity), centrifugal force (polar coordinates) that are referred to by a disambiguation page: For the commonly used term centrifugal force and for the term as used in classical mechanics, see centrifugal force (classical mechanics). For the term as used as a mathematical convenience in polar coordinates, see centrifugal force (polar coordinates). For a very general approach useful to those with a background in general relativity see centrifugal force (general relativity).

Personally, I expect the other pages to develop very slowly as the main debaters on these issues have no real interest in contributing pages, and probably cannot bring enough muscle to bear to write these pages themselves. Brews ohare (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This debate here has entirely been over centrifugal force in classical mechanics, so your suggestion doesn't really address the issue. (Also, your repeated reference to "polar coordinates" indicates that you don't have a clear understanding of what the issue.) All of the references that have been provided to you are concerned solely with classical mechanics. Of course, references don't do much good for people who can read a sentence like "Remember that the appearance of this type of unreal force does not necessarily involve a rotating coordinate system" and interpret it as confirmation of their belief that such unreal forces appear only in rotating coordinate systems. I'm honestly not sure how to deal with such people, if we can't even agree on what a simple English sentence means. I think the only viable approach is what I outlined previously, i.e., we have to take the quotations you claim to agree with (like the statement that "the appearance of this type of unreal force does not necessarily involve a rotating coordinate system") and include them in the article verbatim. Then you can interpret them as confirming your beliefs, and all other readers can get an accurate and complete explanation of the subject.Fugal (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, of course, that is an incorrect view of the situation. Within classical mechanics, the whole polar coordinate thing has at best a very subsidiary and limited role as a mathematical device, and no physical importance at all. As witness to the unimportance of polar coordinates, none of the examples presented depend upon polar coordinates, and a formulation entirely in terms of vector notation emphasizes the physics, again with no need for polar coordinates. Inasmuch as polar coordinates are such a source of confusion, it would be a relief to remove them entirely from consideration in this article and put that remote, derivative subtopic elsewhere. Brews ohare (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
No need to fork an article on relativistic effects until that section grows too large for the main article. At present it's about zero bytes, so there's no rush. --PeR (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Per: I am not concerned over the length of the present article, but would like to shunt discussion of the polar coordinate version away from this page, where frankly I don't care what happens to it. Brews ohare (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The change proposed by The Anome, which received supportive comments from PeR and myself, and dissenting comments from Brews and Wolf, was significantly different than what Wolf has now implemented. (The proposal was to create an article called Centrifugal Forces in Rotating Frames, and then the article on simply Centrifugal Force could adopt a more comprehensive approach reflecting the full range of views in the published literature.) I don't think that 3:2 constitutes consensus for the "2" position. As I understand it, Brews & Wolf are adament about excluding any mentions (other than perhaps dismissive and derogatory ones) of the more comprehensive view of the subject of this article taken by numerous reputable reference sources. Would it be possible for Brews and/or Wolf to summarize their reason(s) for taking this position? Unless they can provide some valid justification, it seems to me that their position is prima facie contrary to Wikipedia policy. I think it would help if their answer(s) could be phrased in terms of (for example) why certain references are not actually from reputable sources, and so on, rather than in terms of "well, I think the most sensible definition of fictitious force is such and such", since, as we all know, our own personal POVs are not relevant.Fugal (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
My reasoning has been explained already. Fugal's view that a "more comprehensive" article is necessary is a ploy to include a digression on a specific use of the same term in a mathematical, rather than a physical, context. The use of the same term by the mathematically inclined to mean something else is not a reason to add an extensive discussion of this occurrence to this article, which is about physics, not about polar coordinates. Although I expect Fugal to dispute the ability to divorce this physics-related phenomena from polar coordinates, in fact that has been done in the present article by focusing upon the physics, and not upon polar coordinates. Of course, any physics phenomena can be explained in a manner independent of any specific coordinate system, for example, by the use of vector analysis. That is the approach taken. Reference to the mathematicians' use of the term in connection with polar coordinates has been made for the sake of completeness, but that is all the billing it deserves in this physics article. Brews ohare (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping your justification wouldn't just consist of your own original research concerning what you regard as a distinction between what is "physical" and what is "mathematical". If the basis vectors of a coordinate system change in time, you call the resulting terms appearing in the equations of motion "physical", whereas if the basis vectors of a coordinate system change in space, you call those same terms arising in the equations of motion "mathematical". This is unfortunately an only too familiar attitude among a certain well-recognized kind of individual, who, when pressed to justify his beliefs, falls back on meaningless and misguided assertions of a profoundly important distinction (which, alas, only he can see) between "physical" and "mathematical", e.g., the Lorentz transformation is dismissed as being "only mathematical, not physical", and professional physicists are accused of failing to distinguish between mere math and genuine physics. Experience has shown that it is never productive to engage such individuals in a discussion of their views, so I don't propose to do that here. I will just repeat my request that you present a justification of your position, not in terms of your personal beliefs and Point of View, but in terms that address the existing literature in reputable published sources. Thanks.Fugal (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Fugal: Well you have indeed raised the level of discourse. I cannot improve upon your own rhetoric: " This is unfortunately an only too familiar attitude among a certain well-recognized kind of individual, who, when pressed to justify his beliefs, falls back on meaningless and misguided assertions. Experience has shown that it is never productive to engage such individuals in a discussion of their views. I will just repeat my request that you present a justification of your position, not in terms of your personal beliefs and Point of View, but in terms that address the existing literature in reputable published sources. Thanks." Despite your excellent advice just quoted, I have made another effort below. Brews ohare (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. My position is entirely based on the existing literature in reputable published sources, several of which have been provided, in which is presented a view of the subject of this article that is presently not accurately represented in the article. My position is that this is not an insignificant minority or fringe viewpoint, but is in fact a view represented in a significant fraction of the literature, and hence merits inclusion (accurately) in the article. You, on the other hand, are arguing for the exclusion of this view (or a derisive POV dismissal of it), and your basis for this position is (correct me if I'm wrong here) that you believe one view is "physical" and the other view is "merely mathematical". I don't think your personal philosophical ideas about what is "physical" and what is "mathematical" constitute a valid basis for deciding what qualifies for the article. If you could cite some reputable source explaining that one view of this subject is physical and the other merely mathematical, then your position would be legitimate, but you haven't cited any such source. That's why I call your comments "original research". I don't think the attitude will get us very far. I'm trying to articular a well-reasoned argument here, and what I get in return is "I'm paper and you're glue; everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you!". Sheesh.Fugal (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
3:2 isn't a consensus at all. Look, this isn't merely a question of the editorial opinion, we're supposed to be making an informed decision about what is NPOV, based on evidence. For example, I did a google on 'centrifugal force', ignoring the wikipedia I got:
  • [2] - talks about rotating reference frames
  • [3] rotating reference frames
  • [4] rotating reference frames
  • http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/corf.html[ rotating reference frames/mach principle
  • [5] doesn't exist at all
  • [6] rotating reference frame
  • [7] copy of columbia encyclopedia reactive centrifugal force
  • [8] dunno, vague "inertia"
  • [9] rotating reference frame
  • [10] spam
  • [11] not specified, reactive?
  • [12] fictitious doesn't really exist
  • [13] rotating frames of reference

Feel free to check these to make sure I've classified them correctly, and do your own googles or other kinds of searches.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You say "3:2 isn't a consensus at all." Could you expand on that comment? Your views were in the minority, and yet