Talk:Fictitious force

Notational suggestion

Einstein notation and Newton's notation for derivatives could be used to make the mathematical derivation section more concise. For example:

$\mathbf {F} _{\mbox{fictitious}}=-m(\mathbf {a} _{\mathrm {AB} }+2v_{j}{\dot {\mathbf {u} }}^{j}+x_{j}{\ddot {\mathbf {u} }}^{j}).$

compared to

$\mathbf {F} _{\mbox{fictitious}}=-m\mathbf {a} _{\mathrm {AB} }-2m\sum _{j=1}^{3}v_{j}{\frac {d\mathbf {u} _{j}}{dt}}-m\sum _{j=1}^{3}x_{j}{\frac {d^{2}\mathbf {u} _{j}}{dt^{2}}}.$

The rest of the section could be edited in a consistent manner. Or is the original one better? What do you guys think?

666th root of unity (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The original is much more accessible for general readers. —DIV (120.17.231.4 (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

disagree. the original is easily comprehended by general readers. 41.121.0.149 (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fictitious force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060511131009/http://mensch.org/physlets/merry.html to http://mensch.org/physlets/merry.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060321094211/http://www.mensch.org/physlets/inosc.html to http://mensch.org/physlets/inosc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That is wrong, because of conservation of the angular momentum

"The rotating observer sees the walker travel a straight line from the center of the carousel to the periphery,"

the angular speed is, $\omega (r)=L/(m*r^{2})$ - a non linear function of radius, because the angular momentum L=const

Therefore the traveled path is not a straight line

Link request

The section "Orbiting and rotating" does not give a full solution to the problem it addresses. The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clohessy-Wiltshire_equations is the proper and academically accepted solution to the problem. Can we please place a link there? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I have placed “See also: Clohessy-Wiltshire equations” immediately below the sub-heading Orbiting and rotating. Dolphin (t) 23:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

"Not a contact force"

A wrong remark in the introduction, in my opinion. And what about the electromagnetic force? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki (talk • contribs) 21:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The remark is correct. The example given in the first paragraph is a good illustration; the passengers experience a contact force from the backs of their seats pushing them in the forward direction, but that is not the fictitious force. The fictitious force is perceived to be pushing the passengers backwards. The passengers can’t identify what it is that is pushing them backwards, or the point of contact. Any fictitious force has no point of contact - it looks like a body force.

Electromagnetic forces are not fictitious. They are body forces because they act on the whole of the body, including acting internally. Electromagnetic forces do not rely on contact at a point or over an area - see Action at a distance. Dolphin (t) 01:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Mystery of the Missing Link

The section "Crossing a carousel" links to "Coriolis effect § Cannon on turntable" but this section does not exist in the Coriolis Effect article. Has that section been deleted due to new research or something ? Please would someone knowledgeable sort this out ? Darkman101 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for alerting us to this problem. I have removed mention of "Cannon on turntable". See my diff. Dolphin (t) 12:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Fictitious

A fictitious force (also called a pseudo force,[1] d'Alembert force,[2][3] or inertial force[4][5]) is a force that appears to act on a mass whose motion is described using a non-inertial frame of reference, such as an accelerating or rotating reference frame. An example is seen in a passenger vehicle that is accelerating in the forward direction – passengers perceive that they are acted upon by a force in the rearward direction pushing them back into their seats. An example in a rotating reference frame is the force that appears to push objects 2409:4056:21B:F555:0:0:24A5:18A5 (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Is “fictitious force” really the most common

snd modern term for these? In my experience “inertial force” or “pseudo-force” is far more common. These other terms are also more ventral where “fictitious” implies a level of fiction that isn’t appropriate. They are apparent forces actually observed in non- inertial frames.

Could/should the article be renamed? 2A00:23EE:1040:1081:8C21:B9FE:D83B:E4AB (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• neutral

2A00:23EE:1040:1081:8C21:B9FE:D83B:E4AB (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Animation

I have a question about the map frame/spin frame animation which is under the "circular motion" paragraph.... I think it is brilliant and it shows the "fictional centrifugal force" beautifully.....but the text under it ? 'From the map frame perspective, what is dangerous on losing centripetal acceleration may be speed. From the spin frame perspective, the danger instead may lie with the geometric acceleration which gives rise to that fictitious force.' What danger ??? I have studied it and find it incomprehensible. Anyone care to explain ? Sjoerd22 (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)