Is Weight Force an Apparent Force on a Rotating Plate?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether weight force is considered an apparent force on a rotating plate. It is established that in classical mechanics, weight is treated as a real force, while centrifugal force is an apparent force experienced by someone on the rotating plate. The conversation also touches on the concept of approximately inertial systems, clarifying that the Earth is considered approximately inertial due to its low rotation rate rather than the effects of gravity. Additionally, the impact of centrifugal force on the calibration of scales used for weighing is highlighted, emphasizing its significance in commerce. Overall, the participants reach a consensus on the treatment of forces in these contexts.
nebbione
Messages
131
Reaction score
0
Is the weight force an apparent force ? Sorry but on the web i can't find anything.
For example if i should think about a man that is on a rotating plate,what are the apparent force ?
I think surely the centrifugal force but should i consider even the wight force of the man ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nebbione said:
Is the weight force an apparent force ?
In General Relativity it is, in classical mechanics it is not.

For example if i should think about a man that is on a rotating plate,what are the apparent force ?
I think surely the centrifugal force but should i consider even the wight force of the man ?
As this is classical mechanics, you can (and should) treat gravitation as a real force.
 
Ok thank you very much!
Another question: so when we talk about approximately inertial systems like the earth, the Earth is said to be approximately inertial because it is rotating around the sun right ? and not because we feel the gravity, right =
 
Last edited:
nebbione said:
Ok thank you very much!
Another question: so when we talk about approximately inertial systems like the earth, the Earth is said to be approximately inertial because it is rotating around the sun right ? and not because we feel the gravity, right =

It is approximately inertial because the rotation rate of the Earth on its own axis is low. The centripetal acceleration associated with the rotation rate of the Earth (at the equator) is approximately 0.03 meters/sec^2.

If you are only quoting the acceleration of gravity to one or two significant figures, this deviation is insignificant.

If you are selling pork barbecue by the pound, this acceleration is significant. In order to be legal for use in commerce, a scale must accurately report the mass of the object being "weighed". Since a spring-based scale responds to apparent weight, this means that the calibration of the spring-based scale must reflect the centrifugal force resulting from the rotation of the Earth on its axis.
 
Thank you very much! Now i have no doubts!
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Inclined treadmills and Galilean Invariance'

This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Static friction needed for rolling without slipping
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Remark on centrifugal force in Heino Falcke's black hole book
Replies
22
Views
3K
I Torque required from powered roller to rotate cylinder
Replies
19
Views
2K
I Why does a free rigid body rotate only about its COM when F(ext) is applied?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Rotating frames - Apparent gravity
Replies
19
Views
2K
Motional EMF for loops of wire vs conducting plates
Replies
9
Views
2K
I Precession of a gyroscope in freefall
Replies
10
Views
3K
Having problem with centripetal and centrifugal force
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Translational force of a pulley
Replies
27
Views
2K
I Earth's angular velocity when axis is aligned with apparent gravity
Replies
1
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top