3 ms·
The "Kepler force" is not really a force. It's an expression of inertia in (as I mentioned) a limited, non-inertial reference frame. It's fine to conceptualiz
by dabluecaboose 3y ago
The "Kepler force" is not really a force. It's an expression of inertia in (as I mentioned) a limited, non-inertial reference frame. It's fine to conceptualize but IMO misleading especially when explaining the fundamentals to novices.
As for the ubiquity of using a rotating frame, I'm not saying it's not done. I'm just saying it's not necessarily typical for orbits to de facto be considered in such a frame.
- SonicScrub 3y agoOk, but you made a comment stating that what I said is inaccurate. It's not. It's just a different philosophy for analyzing rotating systems. And importantly, it's how Karman conceptualized his dynamic model for an aerodynamic space-plane that led to the derivation of the Karman Line in the first place. Describing the Karman Line through such a rotational reference is perfectly acceptable. There's no reason at all to keep our thinking about free-body diagrams and physical models to strictly inertial frames. Doing so in no way makes a conceptual framework more accurate than any other. I really hate this way thinking about centrifugal force and rotational frames. It's a breeding ground for pointless internet arguments like this one instigated by the most frustrating of pedantry. Spreading this idea that using centrifugal force is somehow wrong only acts to restrict understanding of physics. It also handicaps you from solving problems in ways that could be better served by changing frames.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dabluecaboose 3y agoIt is inaccurate for any reference frame you should expect the laymen you were addressing to understand. I stand by my statement. You can invent a reference frame that will make anything "technically correct" Edit to address your edit: And a hearty "fuck you" to you as well, you smug, pedantic arse