Submitted by life-long learner (not verified) on September 12, 2007 - 15:36.
Can you be more explicit? I'm intrigued by your statement that a ficticious force "is not a force at all."
From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force):
"A fictitious force, also called a pseudo force[1] or d'Alembert force[2], is an apparent force that acts on all masses in a non-inertial frame of reference such as a rotating reference frame. The force F does not arise from any physical interaction, but rather from the acceleration a of the non-inertial reference frame itself. Due to Newton's second law F = ma, fictitious forces are always proportional to the mass m being acted upon."
Can you be more explicit?
Submitted by life-long learner (not verified) on September 12, 2007 - 15:36.
Can you be more explicit? I'm intrigued by your statement that a ficticious force "is not a force at all."
From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force):
"A fictitious force, also called a pseudo force[1] or d'Alembert force[2], is an apparent force that acts on all masses in a non-inertial frame of reference such as a rotating reference frame. The force F does not arise from any physical interaction, but rather from the acceleration a of the non-inertial reference frame itself. Due to Newton's second law F = ma, fictitious forces are always proportional to the mass m being acted upon."
What misconception is being perpetuated?