Jump to content

Swinging the Lead - Debunking Centrifugal Force

Recommended Posts

A photon is produced whenever an electron in a higher-than-normal orbit falls back to its normal orbit. During the fall from high energy to normal energy, the electron emits a photon -- a packet of energy




Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This post comes with no guarantees but this is what I remember of this subject.     I haven't yet looked this up and I am more than happy to be contradicted     If we have a ball on a p

You're a little bit fixated, aren't you OME? I'm tempted to slip the word "centrifugal" into more posts... 😈

OME is dissecting the semantics of a generally accepted simplified term for an observable effect. It's a lot more confusing to say 'accelerating sideways whilst travelling along an arc, without c

Posted Images

We got on to photons and light when OME posited "Does the sun rise in the east and set in the west?".

Which prompted another question related to sunset. "Where does the light go when it goes out?"


I'm surprised to hear our OME speak in such obviously scientifically incorrect terms. So I commented on the sun's obvious transit across the sky, and connected that thought back to circling mass and centrifugal force.


Thread drift is just so simple!

Edited by nomadpete
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nomadpete said:


I'm surprised to hear our OME speak in such obviously scientifically incorrect terms.

What terms are you talking about? I can hardly follow you because you don't define what you are talking about.


If you are talking about "sunrise" and "sunset" I was going to say that we now accept that the appearance of the sun in the east, and disappearance in the west is due to the rotation of the Earth on it's axis, and that the Sun isn't the body doing the moving. 


However, and this is the point I am making, for eons humans have thought that the Sun was doing the moving, and in their many languages have created words to describe the apparent movement and those words were useful for conveying information, and in the lives of the average human remain useful. 


In Physics we have two words relating to constant velocity circular motion. One word describes a phenomenon that is measurable, and able to be fully described by the basic laws of motion. The other describes a phenomenon that cannot meet those criteria. 


My argument has always been that centripetal force is the measurable phenomenon that can be described by the basic laws of motion. Centrifugal force is not measurable, nor describable by the same laws. Therefore it is wrong to attribute a phenomenon to it when the discussion in general is within the field of the Science of Physics.


Further, I have been at pains throughout this discussion to provide mathematical proofs  and illustrations of my claims. No one else has bothered to seek out support for either rebutting what I have said, nor proving their assertion that there is such a thing as "centrifugal force" to the scientific standard. Until that rebuttal or proof is posted here, there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The pressure at the outlet of a centrifugal pump is a measure of the FORCE the liquid exerts on the case when the impeller spins it. Pressure is force per unit of area..

  For where does the light go? Entropy tells how the energy degrades to a lower energy level, with a longer wavelength. The light becomes heat but can never become visible again . It's a one way trip .   Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...