What happens when the centripetal force is equal and opposite to the centrifugal force? [duplicate]Do centripetal and reactive centrifugal forces cancel each other out?Would you feel Centrifugal Force without Friction?What provides the centrifugal force for planets orbiting a star?Intuitive understanding of centripetal vs. centrifugal forceDo centripetal and reactive centrifugal forces cancel each other out?What is the cause of centripetal/centrifugal force?Why is centrifugal 'force' perpendicular to line of inertiaReference frame and centrifugal forceIs centrifugal force equal in magnitude to the centripetal force in the frame of a body undergoing circular motion?Centripetal and centrifugal forceThe athlete feels a centrifugal force when whirling the hammer - is there always a centrifugal force associated with a centripetal force?Why is centrifugal force considered fictitious, when it's the one that feels real to us when we are moving in a circle?

How would you translate "more" for use as an interface button?

What (the heck) is a Super Worm Equinox Moon?

What features enable the Su-25 Frogfoot to operate with such a wide variety of fuels?

A variation to the phrase "hanging over my shoulders"

How to preserve electronics (computers, iPads and phones) for hundreds of years

Does "he squandered his car on drink" sound natural?

Why does Carol not get rid of the Kree symbol on her suit when she changes its colours?

Is there a RAID 0 Equivalent for RAM?

Why should universal income be universal?

Is this toilet slogan correct usage of the English language?

Do we have to expect a queue for the shuttle from Watford Junction to Harry Potter Studio?

Find the next value of this number series

How to draw a matrix with arrows in limited space

What does Apple's new App Store requirement mean

How to make money from a browser who sees 5 seconds into the future of any web page?

How does electrical safety system work on ISS?

How to explain what's wrong with this application of the chain rule?

The Digit Triangles

How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?

Review your own paper in Mathematics

Is it allowed to activate the ability of multiple planeswalkers in a single turn?

How to convince somebody that he is fit for something else, but not this job?

Non-trope happy ending?

Pre-mixing cryogenic fuels and using only one fuel tank



What happens when the centripetal force is equal and opposite to the centrifugal force? [duplicate]


Do centripetal and reactive centrifugal forces cancel each other out?Would you feel Centrifugal Force without Friction?What provides the centrifugal force for planets orbiting a star?Intuitive understanding of centripetal vs. centrifugal forceDo centripetal and reactive centrifugal forces cancel each other out?What is the cause of centripetal/centrifugal force?Why is centrifugal 'force' perpendicular to line of inertiaReference frame and centrifugal forceIs centrifugal force equal in magnitude to the centripetal force in the frame of a body undergoing circular motion?Centripetal and centrifugal forceThe athlete feels a centrifugal force when whirling the hammer - is there always a centrifugal force associated with a centripetal force?Why is centrifugal force considered fictitious, when it's the one that feels real to us when we are moving in a circle?













4












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:



  • Do centripetal and reactive centrifugal forces cancel each other out?

    8 answers



We say that centrifugal force is fictitious, yet we still use it in some problems. If the centrifugal force is equal and opposite to the centripetal force wouldn't that make the net force zero?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Carl Witthoft, John Rennie newtonian-mechanics
Users with the  newtonian-mechanics badge can single-handedly close newtonian-mechanics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.













  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The title of the question should serve as a title to the whole question and one should probably avoid writing the text of the question in literal continuation of the phrase/sentence in the title. In other words, the body of the question should be such that it can convey some meaning on its own and need not be read in literal continuation of the title.
    $endgroup$
    – Dvij Mankad
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    @DmitryGrigoryev While the titles are similar, I would say that question is somewhat different and is asking about the misconception of the centrifugal force as a reaction force to the centripetal force and starting with the assumption that the forces do not cancel out. I think it's a related question rather than a duplicate. I should also note that the OP of this question didn't choose the title it currently has.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    I am really sorry for title.I keep in mind for next time
    $endgroup$
    – Santosh Khatri
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    You can't simultaneously have a real and a fictitious force, so the concept of "cancelling" cannot apply.
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @CarlWitthoft Yes you can. In fact the object does exactly what expect it to do. Remain motionless (within the rotation frame of reference where the Centrifugal force appears).
    $endgroup$
    – Aron
    2 days ago















4












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:



  • Do centripetal and reactive centrifugal forces cancel each other out?

    8 answers



We say that centrifugal force is fictitious, yet we still use it in some problems. If the centrifugal force is equal and opposite to the centripetal force wouldn't that make the net force zero?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Carl Witthoft, John Rennie newtonian-mechanics
Users with the  newtonian-mechanics badge can single-handedly close newtonian-mechanics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.













  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The title of the question should serve as a title to the whole question and one should probably avoid writing the text of the question in literal continuation of the phrase/sentence in the title. In other words, the body of the question should be such that it can convey some meaning on its own and need not be read in literal continuation of the title.
    $endgroup$
    – Dvij Mankad
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    @DmitryGrigoryev While the titles are similar, I would say that question is somewhat different and is asking about the misconception of the centrifugal force as a reaction force to the centripetal force and starting with the assumption that the forces do not cancel out. I think it's a related question rather than a duplicate. I should also note that the OP of this question didn't choose the title it currently has.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    I am really sorry for title.I keep in mind for next time
    $endgroup$
    – Santosh Khatri
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    You can't simultaneously have a real and a fictitious force, so the concept of "cancelling" cannot apply.
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @CarlWitthoft Yes you can. In fact the object does exactly what expect it to do. Remain motionless (within the rotation frame of reference where the Centrifugal force appears).
    $endgroup$
    – Aron
    2 days ago













4












4








4





$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:



  • Do centripetal and reactive centrifugal forces cancel each other out?

    8 answers



We say that centrifugal force is fictitious, yet we still use it in some problems. If the centrifugal force is equal and opposite to the centripetal force wouldn't that make the net force zero?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$





This question already has an answer here:



  • Do centripetal and reactive centrifugal forces cancel each other out?

    8 answers



We say that centrifugal force is fictitious, yet we still use it in some problems. If the centrifugal force is equal and opposite to the centripetal force wouldn't that make the net force zero?





This question already has an answer here:



  • Do centripetal and reactive centrifugal forces cancel each other out?

    8 answers







newtonian-mechanics rotational-dynamics reference-frames centripetal-force centrifugal-force






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Qmechanic

106k121961224




106k121961224






New contributor




Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 days ago









Santosh KhatriSantosh Khatri

323




323




New contributor




Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Santosh Khatri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




marked as duplicate by Carl Witthoft, John Rennie newtonian-mechanics
Users with the  newtonian-mechanics badge can single-handedly close newtonian-mechanics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









marked as duplicate by Carl Witthoft, John Rennie newtonian-mechanics
Users with the  newtonian-mechanics badge can single-handedly close newtonian-mechanics questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The title of the question should serve as a title to the whole question and one should probably avoid writing the text of the question in literal continuation of the phrase/sentence in the title. In other words, the body of the question should be such that it can convey some meaning on its own and need not be read in literal continuation of the title.
    $endgroup$
    – Dvij Mankad
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    @DmitryGrigoryev While the titles are similar, I would say that question is somewhat different and is asking about the misconception of the centrifugal force as a reaction force to the centripetal force and starting with the assumption that the forces do not cancel out. I think it's a related question rather than a duplicate. I should also note that the OP of this question didn't choose the title it currently has.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    I am really sorry for title.I keep in mind for next time
    $endgroup$
    – Santosh Khatri
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    You can't simultaneously have a real and a fictitious force, so the concept of "cancelling" cannot apply.
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @CarlWitthoft Yes you can. In fact the object does exactly what expect it to do. Remain motionless (within the rotation frame of reference where the Centrifugal force appears).
    $endgroup$
    – Aron
    2 days ago












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The title of the question should serve as a title to the whole question and one should probably avoid writing the text of the question in literal continuation of the phrase/sentence in the title. In other words, the body of the question should be such that it can convey some meaning on its own and need not be read in literal continuation of the title.
    $endgroup$
    – Dvij Mankad
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    @DmitryGrigoryev While the titles are similar, I would say that question is somewhat different and is asking about the misconception of the centrifugal force as a reaction force to the centripetal force and starting with the assumption that the forces do not cancel out. I think it's a related question rather than a duplicate. I should also note that the OP of this question didn't choose the title it currently has.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    2 days ago











  • $begingroup$
    I am really sorry for title.I keep in mind for next time
    $endgroup$
    – Santosh Khatri
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    You can't simultaneously have a real and a fictitious force, so the concept of "cancelling" cannot apply.
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @CarlWitthoft Yes you can. In fact the object does exactly what expect it to do. Remain motionless (within the rotation frame of reference where the Centrifugal force appears).
    $endgroup$
    – Aron
    2 days ago







2




2




$begingroup$
The title of the question should serve as a title to the whole question and one should probably avoid writing the text of the question in literal continuation of the phrase/sentence in the title. In other words, the body of the question should be such that it can convey some meaning on its own and need not be read in literal continuation of the title.
$endgroup$
– Dvij Mankad
2 days ago





$begingroup$
The title of the question should serve as a title to the whole question and one should probably avoid writing the text of the question in literal continuation of the phrase/sentence in the title. In other words, the body of the question should be such that it can convey some meaning on its own and need not be read in literal continuation of the title.
$endgroup$
– Dvij Mankad
2 days ago













$begingroup$
@DmitryGrigoryev While the titles are similar, I would say that question is somewhat different and is asking about the misconception of the centrifugal force as a reaction force to the centripetal force and starting with the assumption that the forces do not cancel out. I think it's a related question rather than a duplicate. I should also note that the OP of this question didn't choose the title it currently has.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
2 days ago





$begingroup$
@DmitryGrigoryev While the titles are similar, I would say that question is somewhat different and is asking about the misconception of the centrifugal force as a reaction force to the centripetal force and starting with the assumption that the forces do not cancel out. I think it's a related question rather than a duplicate. I should also note that the OP of this question didn't choose the title it currently has.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
2 days ago













$begingroup$
I am really sorry for title.I keep in mind for next time
$endgroup$
– Santosh Khatri
2 days ago




$begingroup$
I am really sorry for title.I keep in mind for next time
$endgroup$
– Santosh Khatri
2 days ago












$begingroup$
You can't simultaneously have a real and a fictitious force, so the concept of "cancelling" cannot apply.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago




$begingroup$
You can't simultaneously have a real and a fictitious force, so the concept of "cancelling" cannot apply.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
2 days ago




2




2




$begingroup$
@CarlWitthoft Yes you can. In fact the object does exactly what expect it to do. Remain motionless (within the rotation frame of reference where the Centrifugal force appears).
$endgroup$
– Aron
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@CarlWitthoft Yes you can. In fact the object does exactly what expect it to do. Remain motionless (within the rotation frame of reference where the Centrifugal force appears).
$endgroup$
– Aron
2 days ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















10












$begingroup$

The centrifugal force is a "fictitious force" that appears when working in a rotating coordinate system. Basically (together with the Coriolis force) it's the imaginary force that would, if real, make objects move with respect to a fixed, non-rotating coordinate system in the same way that they actually move (due to inertia) with respect to the rotating coordinates that we're using.



If all that sounds really confusing, please see the second half of this earlier answer I wrote, where I try to explain this in more detail (and with pictures!).



Anyway, the point of these fictitious forces is that they let us apply the same laws and formulas of Newtonian physics in a rotating frame of reference as we would in a non-rotating one, and still get physically correct results, as long as we remember to also include the effect of those imaginary forces on all objects.



For example, in a normal non-rotating coordinate system, a stationary object will remain stationary if (and only if) all the forces acting upon it cancel out, so that the net force acting on the object is zero. In a rotating coordinate system, an object which is stationary with respect to the coordinates (i.e. rotating along with them around the same axis at the same speed) will remain so if (and only if) all the real and imaginary forces acting on it cancel out, leaving an (apparent) net force of zero.




Here's a simple example, taken from the answer I linked above. Imagine two spheres floating in space near each other. If you do nothing, they'll just keep floating there. If you push each of them in different directions, then they'll each float in the direction you pushed them, away from each other. But if the spheres have been tied together with a string, then the tension of the string will exert a centripetal force that will curve their trajectories into circles:
Illustration of circular motion due to a centripetal force



Now, if we look at the same system of two spheres and a string in a coordinate system which is rotating along with them, then the spheres will look as it they were motionless. But clearly something is still pulling the string taut (and, if it's elastic, stretching it), counteracting the tension force that is pulling the spheres together. We call this apparent force (which is really just inertia, hidden by the fact that our coordinate system is rotating) the "centrifugal force":
Illustration of centripetal and centrifugal forces in a rotating coordinate system



In this example, since the spheres are motionless with respect to the rotating coordinate system, and since the centripetal and centrifugal forces balance out, they will remain motionless with respect to the rotating coordinates — i.e. they will continue to rotate around the same axis at the same speed.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    11












    $begingroup$

    First, it must be stated that Newton's laws only hold in inertial frames. What this means is that accelerations must arise from forces (Second Law), and these forces arise from interactions (Third Law). The issue with rotating frames is that accelerations arise when forces of interactions are not present, so Newton's laws do not hold in rotating frames.



    However, the second law ($mathbf F=mmathbf a$) is nice to use since it tells us how to determine the position and velocity of a body given initial conditions. Therefore, we define "fictitious" centrifugal and Coriolis forces in order to keep this framework. They are "fictitious" because they are an artifact of the rotating reference frame rather than interactions, but they are not fake (for example, they are very real for anyone going around a sharp turn in a car). Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law.



    Now, onto your specific inquiry: If you are in a rotating frame, and there is a force equally opposing the centrifugal force, then yes the net force is zero (assuming no Coriolis force either). Therefore in the rotating frame there is no acceleration of the object in question.



    Of course, if you looked at the scenario from an inertial frame you would have a non-zero acceleration of the object as there is now a non-zero net force that is the centripetal force.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 5




      $begingroup$
      You should emphasize that Newton's laws are defined for inertial frames and that the treatment of non-inertial frame by applying inertial pseudo-forces is a lash-up to lets us apply the machinery of Newtonian mechanics to situations other than those for which in which the subject finds its natural expression. Otherwise you invite misunderstanding.
      $endgroup$
      – dmckee
      2 days ago











    • $begingroup$
      @dmckee I agree those are good points to make. I have added information pertaining to this. Thanks for the suggestion.
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      "Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law" That's one way of thinking about it, but you could equally well argue that we invented "gravity" to avoid abandoning the third law and keep the second law (and also keep Euclidean geometry) in the real world we live in, and inventing other so-called "fictitious forces" in non-inertial reference frames isn't really much different.
      $endgroup$
      – alephzero
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @alphazero I usually try to stay in the framework specified by the tags. But that is a good point.
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      2 days ago

















    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    10












    $begingroup$

    The centrifugal force is a "fictitious force" that appears when working in a rotating coordinate system. Basically (together with the Coriolis force) it's the imaginary force that would, if real, make objects move with respect to a fixed, non-rotating coordinate system in the same way that they actually move (due to inertia) with respect to the rotating coordinates that we're using.



    If all that sounds really confusing, please see the second half of this earlier answer I wrote, where I try to explain this in more detail (and with pictures!).



    Anyway, the point of these fictitious forces is that they let us apply the same laws and formulas of Newtonian physics in a rotating frame of reference as we would in a non-rotating one, and still get physically correct results, as long as we remember to also include the effect of those imaginary forces on all objects.



    For example, in a normal non-rotating coordinate system, a stationary object will remain stationary if (and only if) all the forces acting upon it cancel out, so that the net force acting on the object is zero. In a rotating coordinate system, an object which is stationary with respect to the coordinates (i.e. rotating along with them around the same axis at the same speed) will remain so if (and only if) all the real and imaginary forces acting on it cancel out, leaving an (apparent) net force of zero.




    Here's a simple example, taken from the answer I linked above. Imagine two spheres floating in space near each other. If you do nothing, they'll just keep floating there. If you push each of them in different directions, then they'll each float in the direction you pushed them, away from each other. But if the spheres have been tied together with a string, then the tension of the string will exert a centripetal force that will curve their trajectories into circles:
    Illustration of circular motion due to a centripetal force



    Now, if we look at the same system of two spheres and a string in a coordinate system which is rotating along with them, then the spheres will look as it they were motionless. But clearly something is still pulling the string taut (and, if it's elastic, stretching it), counteracting the tension force that is pulling the spheres together. We call this apparent force (which is really just inertia, hidden by the fact that our coordinate system is rotating) the "centrifugal force":
    Illustration of centripetal and centrifugal forces in a rotating coordinate system



    In this example, since the spheres are motionless with respect to the rotating coordinate system, and since the centripetal and centrifugal forces balance out, they will remain motionless with respect to the rotating coordinates — i.e. they will continue to rotate around the same axis at the same speed.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      10












      $begingroup$

      The centrifugal force is a "fictitious force" that appears when working in a rotating coordinate system. Basically (together with the Coriolis force) it's the imaginary force that would, if real, make objects move with respect to a fixed, non-rotating coordinate system in the same way that they actually move (due to inertia) with respect to the rotating coordinates that we're using.



      If all that sounds really confusing, please see the second half of this earlier answer I wrote, where I try to explain this in more detail (and with pictures!).



      Anyway, the point of these fictitious forces is that they let us apply the same laws and formulas of Newtonian physics in a rotating frame of reference as we would in a non-rotating one, and still get physically correct results, as long as we remember to also include the effect of those imaginary forces on all objects.



      For example, in a normal non-rotating coordinate system, a stationary object will remain stationary if (and only if) all the forces acting upon it cancel out, so that the net force acting on the object is zero. In a rotating coordinate system, an object which is stationary with respect to the coordinates (i.e. rotating along with them around the same axis at the same speed) will remain so if (and only if) all the real and imaginary forces acting on it cancel out, leaving an (apparent) net force of zero.




      Here's a simple example, taken from the answer I linked above. Imagine two spheres floating in space near each other. If you do nothing, they'll just keep floating there. If you push each of them in different directions, then they'll each float in the direction you pushed them, away from each other. But if the spheres have been tied together with a string, then the tension of the string will exert a centripetal force that will curve their trajectories into circles:
      Illustration of circular motion due to a centripetal force



      Now, if we look at the same system of two spheres and a string in a coordinate system which is rotating along with them, then the spheres will look as it they were motionless. But clearly something is still pulling the string taut (and, if it's elastic, stretching it), counteracting the tension force that is pulling the spheres together. We call this apparent force (which is really just inertia, hidden by the fact that our coordinate system is rotating) the "centrifugal force":
      Illustration of centripetal and centrifugal forces in a rotating coordinate system



      In this example, since the spheres are motionless with respect to the rotating coordinate system, and since the centripetal and centrifugal forces balance out, they will remain motionless with respect to the rotating coordinates — i.e. they will continue to rotate around the same axis at the same speed.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        10












        10








        10





        $begingroup$

        The centrifugal force is a "fictitious force" that appears when working in a rotating coordinate system. Basically (together with the Coriolis force) it's the imaginary force that would, if real, make objects move with respect to a fixed, non-rotating coordinate system in the same way that they actually move (due to inertia) with respect to the rotating coordinates that we're using.



        If all that sounds really confusing, please see the second half of this earlier answer I wrote, where I try to explain this in more detail (and with pictures!).



        Anyway, the point of these fictitious forces is that they let us apply the same laws and formulas of Newtonian physics in a rotating frame of reference as we would in a non-rotating one, and still get physically correct results, as long as we remember to also include the effect of those imaginary forces on all objects.



        For example, in a normal non-rotating coordinate system, a stationary object will remain stationary if (and only if) all the forces acting upon it cancel out, so that the net force acting on the object is zero. In a rotating coordinate system, an object which is stationary with respect to the coordinates (i.e. rotating along with them around the same axis at the same speed) will remain so if (and only if) all the real and imaginary forces acting on it cancel out, leaving an (apparent) net force of zero.




        Here's a simple example, taken from the answer I linked above. Imagine two spheres floating in space near each other. If you do nothing, they'll just keep floating there. If you push each of them in different directions, then they'll each float in the direction you pushed them, away from each other. But if the spheres have been tied together with a string, then the tension of the string will exert a centripetal force that will curve their trajectories into circles:
        Illustration of circular motion due to a centripetal force



        Now, if we look at the same system of two spheres and a string in a coordinate system which is rotating along with them, then the spheres will look as it they were motionless. But clearly something is still pulling the string taut (and, if it's elastic, stretching it), counteracting the tension force that is pulling the spheres together. We call this apparent force (which is really just inertia, hidden by the fact that our coordinate system is rotating) the "centrifugal force":
        Illustration of centripetal and centrifugal forces in a rotating coordinate system



        In this example, since the spheres are motionless with respect to the rotating coordinate system, and since the centripetal and centrifugal forces balance out, they will remain motionless with respect to the rotating coordinates — i.e. they will continue to rotate around the same axis at the same speed.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        The centrifugal force is a "fictitious force" that appears when working in a rotating coordinate system. Basically (together with the Coriolis force) it's the imaginary force that would, if real, make objects move with respect to a fixed, non-rotating coordinate system in the same way that they actually move (due to inertia) with respect to the rotating coordinates that we're using.



        If all that sounds really confusing, please see the second half of this earlier answer I wrote, where I try to explain this in more detail (and with pictures!).



        Anyway, the point of these fictitious forces is that they let us apply the same laws and formulas of Newtonian physics in a rotating frame of reference as we would in a non-rotating one, and still get physically correct results, as long as we remember to also include the effect of those imaginary forces on all objects.



        For example, in a normal non-rotating coordinate system, a stationary object will remain stationary if (and only if) all the forces acting upon it cancel out, so that the net force acting on the object is zero. In a rotating coordinate system, an object which is stationary with respect to the coordinates (i.e. rotating along with them around the same axis at the same speed) will remain so if (and only if) all the real and imaginary forces acting on it cancel out, leaving an (apparent) net force of zero.




        Here's a simple example, taken from the answer I linked above. Imagine two spheres floating in space near each other. If you do nothing, they'll just keep floating there. If you push each of them in different directions, then they'll each float in the direction you pushed them, away from each other. But if the spheres have been tied together with a string, then the tension of the string will exert a centripetal force that will curve their trajectories into circles:
        Illustration of circular motion due to a centripetal force



        Now, if we look at the same system of two spheres and a string in a coordinate system which is rotating along with them, then the spheres will look as it they were motionless. But clearly something is still pulling the string taut (and, if it's elastic, stretching it), counteracting the tension force that is pulling the spheres together. We call this apparent force (which is really just inertia, hidden by the fact that our coordinate system is rotating) the "centrifugal force":
        Illustration of centripetal and centrifugal forces in a rotating coordinate system



        In this example, since the spheres are motionless with respect to the rotating coordinate system, and since the centripetal and centrifugal forces balance out, they will remain motionless with respect to the rotating coordinates — i.e. they will continue to rotate around the same axis at the same speed.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 2 days ago









        Ilmari KaronenIlmari Karonen

        10.7k32634




        10.7k32634





















            11












            $begingroup$

            First, it must be stated that Newton's laws only hold in inertial frames. What this means is that accelerations must arise from forces (Second Law), and these forces arise from interactions (Third Law). The issue with rotating frames is that accelerations arise when forces of interactions are not present, so Newton's laws do not hold in rotating frames.



            However, the second law ($mathbf F=mmathbf a$) is nice to use since it tells us how to determine the position and velocity of a body given initial conditions. Therefore, we define "fictitious" centrifugal and Coriolis forces in order to keep this framework. They are "fictitious" because they are an artifact of the rotating reference frame rather than interactions, but they are not fake (for example, they are very real for anyone going around a sharp turn in a car). Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law.



            Now, onto your specific inquiry: If you are in a rotating frame, and there is a force equally opposing the centrifugal force, then yes the net force is zero (assuming no Coriolis force either). Therefore in the rotating frame there is no acceleration of the object in question.



            Of course, if you looked at the scenario from an inertial frame you would have a non-zero acceleration of the object as there is now a non-zero net force that is the centripetal force.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$








            • 5




              $begingroup$
              You should emphasize that Newton's laws are defined for inertial frames and that the treatment of non-inertial frame by applying inertial pseudo-forces is a lash-up to lets us apply the machinery of Newtonian mechanics to situations other than those for which in which the subject finds its natural expression. Otherwise you invite misunderstanding.
              $endgroup$
              – dmckee
              2 days ago











            • $begingroup$
              @dmckee I agree those are good points to make. I have added information pertaining to this. Thanks for the suggestion.
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              "Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law" That's one way of thinking about it, but you could equally well argue that we invented "gravity" to avoid abandoning the third law and keep the second law (and also keep Euclidean geometry) in the real world we live in, and inventing other so-called "fictitious forces" in non-inertial reference frames isn't really much different.
              $endgroup$
              – alephzero
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              @alphazero I usually try to stay in the framework specified by the tags. But that is a good point.
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              2 days ago















            11












            $begingroup$

            First, it must be stated that Newton's laws only hold in inertial frames. What this means is that accelerations must arise from forces (Second Law), and these forces arise from interactions (Third Law). The issue with rotating frames is that accelerations arise when forces of interactions are not present, so Newton's laws do not hold in rotating frames.



            However, the second law ($mathbf F=mmathbf a$) is nice to use since it tells us how to determine the position and velocity of a body given initial conditions. Therefore, we define "fictitious" centrifugal and Coriolis forces in order to keep this framework. They are "fictitious" because they are an artifact of the rotating reference frame rather than interactions, but they are not fake (for example, they are very real for anyone going around a sharp turn in a car). Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law.



            Now, onto your specific inquiry: If you are in a rotating frame, and there is a force equally opposing the centrifugal force, then yes the net force is zero (assuming no Coriolis force either). Therefore in the rotating frame there is no acceleration of the object in question.



            Of course, if you looked at the scenario from an inertial frame you would have a non-zero acceleration of the object as there is now a non-zero net force that is the centripetal force.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$








            • 5




              $begingroup$
              You should emphasize that Newton's laws are defined for inertial frames and that the treatment of non-inertial frame by applying inertial pseudo-forces is a lash-up to lets us apply the machinery of Newtonian mechanics to situations other than those for which in which the subject finds its natural expression. Otherwise you invite misunderstanding.
              $endgroup$
              – dmckee
              2 days ago











            • $begingroup$
              @dmckee I agree those are good points to make. I have added information pertaining to this. Thanks for the suggestion.
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              "Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law" That's one way of thinking about it, but you could equally well argue that we invented "gravity" to avoid abandoning the third law and keep the second law (and also keep Euclidean geometry) in the real world we live in, and inventing other so-called "fictitious forces" in non-inertial reference frames isn't really much different.
              $endgroup$
              – alephzero
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              @alphazero I usually try to stay in the framework specified by the tags. But that is a good point.
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              2 days ago













            11












            11








            11





            $begingroup$

            First, it must be stated that Newton's laws only hold in inertial frames. What this means is that accelerations must arise from forces (Second Law), and these forces arise from interactions (Third Law). The issue with rotating frames is that accelerations arise when forces of interactions are not present, so Newton's laws do not hold in rotating frames.



            However, the second law ($mathbf F=mmathbf a$) is nice to use since it tells us how to determine the position and velocity of a body given initial conditions. Therefore, we define "fictitious" centrifugal and Coriolis forces in order to keep this framework. They are "fictitious" because they are an artifact of the rotating reference frame rather than interactions, but they are not fake (for example, they are very real for anyone going around a sharp turn in a car). Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law.



            Now, onto your specific inquiry: If you are in a rotating frame, and there is a force equally opposing the centrifugal force, then yes the net force is zero (assuming no Coriolis force either). Therefore in the rotating frame there is no acceleration of the object in question.



            Of course, if you looked at the scenario from an inertial frame you would have a non-zero acceleration of the object as there is now a non-zero net force that is the centripetal force.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            First, it must be stated that Newton's laws only hold in inertial frames. What this means is that accelerations must arise from forces (Second Law), and these forces arise from interactions (Third Law). The issue with rotating frames is that accelerations arise when forces of interactions are not present, so Newton's laws do not hold in rotating frames.



            However, the second law ($mathbf F=mmathbf a$) is nice to use since it tells us how to determine the position and velocity of a body given initial conditions. Therefore, we define "fictitious" centrifugal and Coriolis forces in order to keep this framework. They are "fictitious" because they are an artifact of the rotating reference frame rather than interactions, but they are not fake (for example, they are very real for anyone going around a sharp turn in a car). Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law.



            Now, onto your specific inquiry: If you are in a rotating frame, and there is a force equally opposing the centrifugal force, then yes the net force is zero (assuming no Coriolis force either). Therefore in the rotating frame there is no acceleration of the object in question.



            Of course, if you looked at the scenario from an inertial frame you would have a non-zero acceleration of the object as there is now a non-zero net force that is the centripetal force.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 2 days ago

























            answered 2 days ago









            Aaron StevensAaron Stevens

            13.3k42250




            13.3k42250







            • 5




              $begingroup$
              You should emphasize that Newton's laws are defined for inertial frames and that the treatment of non-inertial frame by applying inertial pseudo-forces is a lash-up to lets us apply the machinery of Newtonian mechanics to situations other than those for which in which the subject finds its natural expression. Otherwise you invite misunderstanding.
              $endgroup$
              – dmckee
              2 days ago











            • $begingroup$
              @dmckee I agree those are good points to make. I have added information pertaining to this. Thanks for the suggestion.
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              "Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law" That's one way of thinking about it, but you could equally well argue that we invented "gravity" to avoid abandoning the third law and keep the second law (and also keep Euclidean geometry) in the real world we live in, and inventing other so-called "fictitious forces" in non-inertial reference frames isn't really much different.
              $endgroup$
              – alephzero
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              @alphazero I usually try to stay in the framework specified by the tags. But that is a good point.
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              2 days ago












            • 5




              $begingroup$
              You should emphasize that Newton's laws are defined for inertial frames and that the treatment of non-inertial frame by applying inertial pseudo-forces is a lash-up to lets us apply the machinery of Newtonian mechanics to situations other than those for which in which the subject finds its natural expression. Otherwise you invite misunderstanding.
              $endgroup$
              – dmckee
              2 days ago











            • $begingroup$
              @dmckee I agree those are good points to make. I have added information pertaining to this. Thanks for the suggestion.
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              "Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law" That's one way of thinking about it, but you could equally well argue that we invented "gravity" to avoid abandoning the third law and keep the second law (and also keep Euclidean geometry) in the real world we live in, and inventing other so-called "fictitious forces" in non-inertial reference frames isn't really much different.
              $endgroup$
              – alephzero
              2 days ago










            • $begingroup$
              @alphazero I usually try to stay in the framework specified by the tags. But that is a good point.
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              2 days ago







            5




            5




            $begingroup$
            You should emphasize that Newton's laws are defined for inertial frames and that the treatment of non-inertial frame by applying inertial pseudo-forces is a lash-up to lets us apply the machinery of Newtonian mechanics to situations other than those for which in which the subject finds its natural expression. Otherwise you invite misunderstanding.
            $endgroup$
            – dmckee
            2 days ago





            $begingroup$
            You should emphasize that Newton's laws are defined for inertial frames and that the treatment of non-inertial frame by applying inertial pseudo-forces is a lash-up to lets us apply the machinery of Newtonian mechanics to situations other than those for which in which the subject finds its natural expression. Otherwise you invite misunderstanding.
            $endgroup$
            – dmckee
            2 days ago













            $begingroup$
            @dmckee I agree those are good points to make. I have added information pertaining to this. Thanks for the suggestion.
            $endgroup$
            – Aaron Stevens
            2 days ago




            $begingroup$
            @dmckee I agree those are good points to make. I have added information pertaining to this. Thanks for the suggestion.
            $endgroup$
            – Aaron Stevens
            2 days ago












            $begingroup$
            "Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law" That's one way of thinking about it, but you could equally well argue that we invented "gravity" to avoid abandoning the third law and keep the second law (and also keep Euclidean geometry) in the real world we live in, and inventing other so-called "fictitious forces" in non-inertial reference frames isn't really much different.
            $endgroup$
            – alephzero
            2 days ago




            $begingroup$
            "Essentially we have opted to abandon the third law in order to keep the second law" That's one way of thinking about it, but you could equally well argue that we invented "gravity" to avoid abandoning the third law and keep the second law (and also keep Euclidean geometry) in the real world we live in, and inventing other so-called "fictitious forces" in non-inertial reference frames isn't really much different.
            $endgroup$
            – alephzero
            2 days ago












            $begingroup$
            @alphazero I usually try to stay in the framework specified by the tags. But that is a good point.
            $endgroup$
            – Aaron Stevens
            2 days ago




            $begingroup$
            @alphazero I usually try to stay in the framework specified by the tags. But that is a good point.
            $endgroup$
            – Aaron Stevens
            2 days ago



            Popular posts from this blog

            Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

            Tähtien Talli Jäsenet | Lähteet | NavigointivalikkoSuomen Hippos – Tähtien Talli

            Do these cracks on my tires look bad? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDry rot tire should I replace?Having to replace tiresFishtailed so easily? Bad tires? ABS?Filling the tires with something other than air, to avoid puncture hassles?Used Michelin tires safe to install?Do these tyre cracks necessitate replacement?Rumbling noise: tires or mechanicalIs it possible to fix noisy feathered tires?Are bad winter tires still better than summer tires in winter?Torque converter failure - Related to replacing only 2 tires?Why use snow tires on all 4 wheels on 2-wheel-drive cars?