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?

Reasons for having MCU pin-states default to pull-up/down out of reset

Air travel with refrigerated insulin

What's the meaning of "what it means for something to be something"?

Exposing a company lying about themselves in a tightly knit industry (videogames) : Is my career at risk on the long run?

Friend wants my recommendation but I don't want to give it to him

What properties make a magic weapon befit a Rogue more than a DEX-based Fighter?

New Order #2: Turn My Way

Is divisi notation needed for brass or woodwind in an orchestra?

Derivative of an interpolated function

Why doesn't Gödel's incompleteness theorem apply to false statements?

How can a new country break out from a developed country without war?

Why do Radio Buttons not fill the entire outer circle?

Extract substring according to regexp with sed or grep

Has the laser at Magurele, Romania reached the tenth of the Sun power?

What should be the ideal length of sentences in a blog post for ease of reading?

Sort with assumptions

Weird lines in Microsoft Word

Toggle window scroll bar

Comic-book: Kids find a dead female superhero in the woods

How to get directions in deep space?

How would a solely written language work mechanically

Did I make a mistake by ccing email to boss to others?

How to test the sharpness of a knife?

Is there a distance limit for minecart tracks?



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();

);
);
);
4 hours 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
    21 hours 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
    13 hours ago











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










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






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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
    8 hours 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();

);
);
);
4 hours 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
    21 hours 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
    13 hours ago











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










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






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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
    8 hours 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 18 hours ago









Qmechanic

106k121961223




106k121961223






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 22 hours 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();

);
);
);
4 hours 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();

);
);
);
4 hours 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
    21 hours 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
    13 hours ago











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










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






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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
    8 hours 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
    21 hours 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
    13 hours ago











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










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






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @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
    8 hours 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
21 hours 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
21 hours 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
13 hours 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
13 hours ago













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




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












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




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




1




1




$begingroup$
@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
8 hours 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
8 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















9












$begingroup$

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
      21 hours 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
      20 hours 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
      13 hours ago










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

















    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    9












    $begingroup$

    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









    $endgroup$

















      9












      $begingroup$

      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









      $endgroup$















        9












        9








        9





        $begingroup$

        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 12 hours ago









        Ilmari KaronenIlmari Karonen

        10.7k32633




        10.7k32633





















            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
              21 hours 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
              20 hours 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
              13 hours ago










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










            • $begingroup$
              @alphazero I usually try to stay in the framework specified by the tags. But that is a good point.
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              13 hours 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 20 hours ago

























            answered 22 hours ago









            Aaron StevensAaron Stevens

            13.2k42249




            13.2k42249







            • 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
              21 hours 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
              20 hours 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
              13 hours ago










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










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












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




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



            Popular posts from this blog

            Bulk add to cart function issuecart vs. mini cart issue … rwd themeRedirect Add to cart button to cart pageAdd to cart issue - Magento 2.1The requested Payment Method is not available When creating an orderM2: reason add-to-cart might not function in production modeAdd to cart issue in some android devicesMagento 2 - custom price can not add to subtotal and grand total after add to cartAdd to cart codeIssue with my cart module on pdp and cart pages, just keeps spinningBulk price and quantity update using rest api

            Magento2 - How to hide price filter only in specific categories?Multiselect price filter attribute in layered navigationhide only some categories from layered navigation in magentoRemove Price Filter on certain categoriescustomize layered price filter?Hide Price for a particular customer groupPrice filter in layered navigation not working correctly with price including tax in magento 2.2.3Magento 2 how to hide attribute at Layered navigation?Magento 2. how to hide price only for specific categoriesMagento 2 How can I hide the price and total from cart and checkout summary?Magento2: Can we add navigation layered filter like price filter for other attribute?