Newtonian Physics tabletop demo

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around creating a tabletop demonstration of Newtonian physics, specifically addressing the concept of centrifugal force and its perception as imaginary. Participants explore various mechanisms to illustrate the principles of circular motion and inertia, aiming to convince skeptics of the nature of centrifugal force.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests a mechanism involving a swing-arm with a marble that rolls out of a dimple when centrifugal force increases, questioning the need for a frictionless setup.
  • Another proposes using a tennis ball on a string, emphasizing the simplicity and effectiveness of demonstrating the ball's trajectory when released.
  • A different idea involves an arm attached to a torsion spring, where a marble is released after the arm hits a stop, aiming to show the marble's path.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the existence of centrifugal force, arguing that if it were real, objects would not follow a circular path.
  • Others provide anecdotal evidence and reasoning about inertia, suggesting that the sensation of being pushed outward is due to inertia rather than a real force.
  • One participant discusses the dual nature of accelerations in circular motion, mentioning tangential and centripetal accelerations and their implications for understanding centrifugal force.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of centrifugal force, with some arguing for its reality and others asserting it is an illusion. Multiple competing views remain regarding the best demonstration method and the interpretation of the forces involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of understanding about the definitions and implications of centrifugal force, inertia, and the mechanics of circular motion. There are unresolved assumptions about the effectiveness of proposed demonstrations and the conditions under which they would be convincing.

  • #31
Werg22 said:
Now I hope you understand. I made a picture so you can see what i mean visually:

http://www.xtendspin.ca/autres/explanation.jpg

You see the string stays the same, but the radius increases at each cycle due to inirtia. When repeating same thing but with a different initial radius and speed, but same period, you will see that A1=A2, B1=B2 and so on, of course ignoring air friction.

While I suspect that your experiment will demonstrate the phenomenon, it does not do so in a way that is so concise and clear as to wipe away any doubts in the minds of non-believers who are not scientifically minded.

The ruler experiment OTOH demonstrates it in the simplest possible way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
gerben said:
How about just having something like a ruler with a hole in one end over a pin so that you can rotate it, and then you put a small disk like a piece from a game of checkers on the outside. You start to rotate the ruler slowly and once it is rotating fast enough you suddenly stop it, the disk will slide a small distance over the table and you can draw a line from the disk to the point where it originally sat on the ruler.

Yah. you know what? You're right. I'm thinking too big, with my bicycle wheel.

The ruler idea will work, with a few mods
- I can't have the ruler stop, because they'll naturally claim that, by stopping the ruler, I've eliminated the force. What I have to do is knock the poker chip off the rotating ruler.
- I have to make sure I eliminate any user involvment in the demo (i.e. I can't be manually spinning the ruler, it must spin freely.) or the demonstration of - what forces, how strong they are, and when they are acting - will be muddied.
 
  • #33
DaveC426913 said:
While I suspect that your experiment will demonstrate the phenomenon, it does not do so in a way that is so concise and clear as to wipe away any doubts in the minds of non-believers who are not scientifically minded.

The ruler experiment OTOH demonstrates it in the simplest possible way.

I admit that my experiment is too complicated to produce. But it can't be denied, it is a mathematical argument. The bucket experiment is the simpler that comes to my mind now...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
8K
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
9K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K