(To my previous readers: --- I have diligently tried to use only gentle persuasion in my earlier posts, but apparently to no avail. The gravity of the situation requires that I now use force. You leave me no choice. You have brought it on yourselves!)

Copyright © 2002 Richard J. Hanak

The Case Of The Mysteriously Forgotten Force,
A Cosmic Quiz On The Greatest Balancing Act Of All Time, and
A Farewell to the Expanding Universe

(Hey there weak force, strong force, and electromagnetic force – go back into the wings. The King and Queen will soon make their entrance!) Please excuse the interruption.

Ever since prehistoric times when Chicken Little was hit on the head by an acorn, people have been trying to explain why the sky is not falling down. The ancients cleverly had the sun, planets, and stars supported first by an invisible firmament and later by a transparent, heat-resistant crystal dome which was really not all that much different from a firmament. Much later Isaac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation opened up a Pandora’s Box of falling-sky problems that drove him to infinity.

Albert Einstein could have solved those problems but unfortunately he stepped through Alice’s mirror and got lost in Wonderland’s multi-dimensional continuum. Some say that he stayed there so long because his watch slowed down while having tea with the Red Queen who was wearing a shift (of her own color, of course).

For the better part of a century cosmologists, thinking they could pull that red wool over our eyes, wanted us to believe that the reason the sky is not falling down is because it is falling up! (Hahaha!) That’s what that funny, noisy big-banging is all about. There is, of course, division in the cosmological camp. Some are afraid that the sky, with its downward fall, will eventually crush us all. The others worry that the sky will fall up too high and all stars will die. It is their fear that entropy’s spear will seize us and freeze us. What a misnomer to call that “heat death!” They say which way it will go depends on the average density of all that is. Fee! Fie! Foe! Ahem! Smells like my Uniformity Hypothesis at work again.

By the way, disregard the recent rumor about cosmologists trying to determine the average density of angels standing on the head of a singularity. Cosmologists know that angels are too smart to touch a singularity, even with a ten-foot pole. And nobody else would be dumb enough to go where angels fear to tread, especially this retired court jester, who now is nobody’s fool.

Good old Newton almost had it in his grasp, but he fumbled the ball. A true genius, he figured out why the Moon doesn’t fall. If only he hadn’t been so hung up on that “non fingo” thing and had been willing to make perhaps one or two hypotheses. Mind you now, I’m not criticizing him. Not too long before, it took great effort from Copernicus and Kepler to stop the spinning of the stars. Who could be powerful enough to make them spin again? Had Newton even suggested it, he would have been laughed right out of the Royal Society. Even a hundred years ago (which almost seems like yesterday) they were still being called the “fixed stars.” (Or was that some talk about star population control?)

I confess a great affection for you persevering readers who have had the fortitude to make it to this sentence, and I want to express what is almost love with an offering that is something like a fun game. Here is a simple quiz on things falling down. You can test yourself by covering the answers. Ready? Get set. Enjoy!

We start with a few simple facts and begin with a very tiny problem. An atom consists of a positively charged nucleus and one or more negatively charged electrons. Opposite electric charges forcefully attract each other.

Q: What prevents the electrons from falling into the nucleus of their atom? What opposes and balances that electrostatic attractive force?
A: The centrifugal force of the electron’s orbital motion opposes and exactly balances the electrostatic attractive force.

Q: What balances the force of gravitation and prevents the Moon from falling to the Earth?
A: Centrifugal force. (1 sidereal month or 27 and 1/3 days per revolution)

Q: What balances the force of gravitation and prevents the Earth from falling into the Sun?
A: Centrifugal force. (1 year per revolution)

Q: What balances the force of gravitation and prevents the rest of the solar system from falling into the Sun?
A: Centrifugal force

Q: What balances the force of gravitation and prevents the Sun and other stars from collapsing to the center of the Milky Way galaxy?
A: Centrifugal force. (230 million years per revolution)

Q: What balances the force of gravitation and prevents any galaxy from collapsing to its center?
A: Centrifugal force.

Q: What balances the force of gravitation and prevents a galaxy cluster from collapsing?
A: Select one: 1. Centrifugal force 2. Expanding space 3. Magic

Q: What balances the force of gravitation and prevents a supercluster from collapsing?
A: Select one: 1. Centrifugal force 2. Expanding space 3. Magic

Q: What balances the force of gravitation and prevents the “universe” from collapsing?
A: Select one: 1. Centrifugal force 2. Expanding space 3. Magic

What? You’re worried about the “universe” spinning like a top? Just because we are inside it and can’t see outside doesn’t mean it’s not spinning. Don’t worry. Surely nothing could be outside it to prevent it from spinning like a top or to make that top fall. We all know that if there were nothing outside the Earth not only would we be unaware of its spinning, we wouldn’t even know what day it is!

Everything is spinning in the great cosmic hoedown. You can almost hear the fiddler saying “Spin your partner with a do si do!” Electrons spin as they revolve around the nucleus. The Moon spins during its revolution around the earth. The Earth and other planets spin as they revolve around the sun. The sun spins as the galaxy does a grand pirouette. All the stars spin. Why should clusters, superclusters, and the universe be cut out of all the fun? Every body’s doing it.

And, speaking of spinning, one thing we’re very aware of is that centrifugal force and angular momentum are bonded to each other forevermore. Like the song said “You can’t have one without the other.” Let’s face it; Mother Nature herself made angular momentum worthy of conservation. That way she knew that centrifugal force would always be around to keep her sky in place. And don’t fool around with Mother Nature!

Yes! Yes! You’re right! You got it! Long forgotten centrifugal force keeps the sky from falling down while gravity keeps it from falling up. What teamwork! It’s that simple! At last we know. That is the greatest cosmic balancing act of all time. Thank you, Mother Nature. Thank you, Newton. Welcome back, Centrifugal Force. (Believe me, the Conspiracy Theorists will soon unearth the sinister plot behind the Centrifugal Force cover-up.)

Come now my friends; a principle that works at every level of the cosmic hierarchy from atoms to galaxies wouldn’t roll over and play dead for minuscule galaxy clusters, mere superclusters, or whatever comes next. Now that the sky can’t possibly fall up or down, let’s use Ockham’s razor to cut away those unnecessary props. Let’s say “So long expanding space”, “Bye, bye recession of galaxies,” and “Farewell expanding universe.” Now cross over to my side. It’s only a short step. You’ll really like it here.

The old twentieth century model is starting to show signs of wear and tear and is becoming so passé. Come to my showroom to see the just-released shiny new twenty-first century model. Kick some tires. Get a free test ride and an up-to-date, more balanced view of things at

http://www.theuniverse.andmuchmore.com

P. S. Have you noticed we’re back to Yin and Yang, male and female? Males stand put; they don’t run away. Females try to flee the male, but can’t. So they do a dance together. It’s clear, then, that Gravity is male and Centrifugal Force is female. Angular Momentum must be Centrifugal Force’s twin sister. And they are all descendants of Mother Nature and Father Time.

**Trying my best to remain respectful of someone else's rights to their own beliefs**
Am I correct in interpreting this post to be offering an explanation for universe based upon Eastern religion/philosophy, often mutated in our Western culture as New Age philosophy? Is that where you are coming from? Is that what you are trying to push?

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Very poetic. It's an interesting hypothesis. Of course a rotating universe would have some interesting implications. The first would be that there is some center point around which the universe rotates. Objects near this center point must be rotating around it at a much faster rate than more distant objects (just as the inner planets rotate around the sun much faster than the outer ones). Is there any observational evidence to indicate where this center point is or even to indicate that it exists (I should think it wouldn't be hard to spot)?

All of the orbital systems that we observe tend to form disks (the solar system, galaxies, etc). Is there any evidence to show that matter is distributed in a disk shape in our universe? Also what is the axis of rotation (I should think there would be some observational evidence that would answer this question assuming the hypothesis is true)? Would this rotation not arrange matter in the universe in a spiral (as in spiral galaxies)? It there any evidence to support a spiral distribution of matter in the universe?

From what I've read on this board, all the galaxies in our super cluster are moving towards a point known as the "great attractor" (the center of gravity for our super cluster). Do you dispute the obersvations on which this is based? If not then it appears that no rotation exists within our super cluster (or insufficient)to counter the effect of gravity. If the analogy breaks down at the level of super clusters, then why should it apply at the universe level?

Also, the convservation of angular momentum explanation of the rotation of planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc. assumes this angular momentum came from the coalescing of these objects from larger volumns of matter. If we apply your analogy to the universe then this would imply that the universe has shrunk (in order to generate that angular momentum). This would in turn seem to require that distant objects be blue shifted which is of course the opposite of what is actually observed.

The analogies is nice but unless it is supported by observational evidence, it doesn't really count for much.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: espritch on 2002-06-29 22:06 ]</font>

"Centrigual force" is not a force. It is a manifestation of inertia in a rotating frame of reference.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Richard,

There's one very serious problem with your hypothesis: it doesn't match observation.

If the universe were rotating fast enough for "centrifugal force" to have any significant effect, then there would have to be an axis of rotation and a "cosmic equator". Now, supposing that distant galaxies that are close to the equator are being "thrown out" by this "centrifugal force", therefore producing redshift; then, galaxies further from the equator should experience less force, and (ultimately) none at all if they're near the cosmic pole. In fact, we should see blueshifted galaxies as we look "north" and "south", since with no rotation to keep them "up there", they should be accelerating toward the center. In other words, we should see a very smooth pattern of redshift as we look at distant galaxies, from higher redshifts around the "equator" to no-shifts somewhere in the middle to blueshifts toward the "poles".

But this is not what's observed. The distant galaxies are all redshifted, and that redshift is highly correlated to distance, no matter what direction we look in. This conclusively eliminates the possibility of a cosmic rotation (at least, one of any significant magnitude).

Instead, the observations agree quite nicely with the model of an isotropically-expanding universe.

I'm afraid your idea (and you're not the first to consider it) just doesn't fly.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-06-29 17:13 ]</font>

buzz No, I'm sorry, but thanks for playing. If this were true the electron would radiate away all the energy and spiral into the proton very quickly. The average lifespan of the hydrogen atom would be about a microsecond. You're only about 23 orders of magnitude off.

But the main problem with your hypothesis is, as Kaptain K pointed out, centrifugal force is not a force. It appears you need a refresher on centrifugal force; try here. Have phun.

Richard J. Hanak:

That was fun (elaborately, elegantly, and playfully silly) to read. But science is not a game.

Actually, Kaptain K got to a great part of the problem before I did with the fact that Centrifugal Force is NOT A FORCE but is INERTIA (the LACK OF A FORCE). That just throws everything you have written into the cosmic junk yard. Delightful cosmic junk yard, nevertheless.

In addition, the universe is not only expanding, but is observed as ACCELERATING in its expansion. So, one should match observation with calculation (as has been done by the use of Type 1a Supernovae and Redshift, etc., by the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z Supernova Search Team, et al.).

Science is so much more interesting (and meaningful) than verbal silliness, however, so reading your delightful farce, being wonderful nonsense, was pleasant only for a short while.

The late, great Richard Feynman often spoke and wrote about *the pleasure of finding things out.* It beats verbal fiction every time. One needs to be careful about selecting the proper tools for discovery.

However, I am still laughing. Cosmological silliness can be an art in itself.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

nebularain:Answers: No. No. No. That is just some of the sugar to help the medicine go down.

Espritch & Donnie B.: I was writing about the “universe”, not the universe. The difference between the two is too long a story for a bulletin board. Sample my book THE UNIVERSE ON TRIAL at http://www.theuniverse.andmuchmore.com

Kaptain K & Wiley:
Thanks for the replies that evoked what follows…..

Don't say I didn't warn you about a sinister Centrifugal Force cover-up plot. Here is an exposé of the plotters nefarious methods. Don't listen to their mantra-like chanting. Gird yourself with logic lest lies sufficiently repeated become accepted as truths.

Here is armament given to us more than 2300 years ago by Aristotle.
1) The law of identity: A thing is itself. A is identical to A.
2) The law of excluded middle: A thing either is thus-and-such or it is something else. A or B.
3) The law of non-contradiction: A thing cannot at the same time and in the same context both be and not be thus-and-such. A is not equal to non-A

In one of his barely known works he gave the following as a memory aid for law 1:

Remember this resource
A force is just a force
On that you can rely.
A fundamental fact of logic
Though time goes by.
Look what our children are being taught at http://phun.physics.virginia.edu/top...ntrifugal.html. (Thanks, Wiley!)
Here it is verbatim:

"An object traveling in a circle behaves as if it is experiencing an outward force. This force is known as the centrifugal force. It is important to note that the centrifugal force does not actually exist. Nevertheless, it appears quite real to the object being rotated."

"An object traveling in a circular motion is constantly accelerating and is therefore never in an inertial frame of reference. Since the centrifugal force appears so real, it is often very useful to use as if it were real."

A formula for calculating the magnitude of the 'force that does not actually exist' from things that do actually exist is also presented there.

What a terrible idea that the unreal could appear as if real and affect real things! Think about it! If that were true, we would be living in a nightmare world. What a horrible thing to teach the children we love.

Be careful! If you let one unreal thing into reality, it will open the door for hordes of them, allowing all kinds of havoc and mayhem to prevail. Much blood was spilled pushing them back where they belong. Keep them there!

Let’s focus on the pleasant side of reality. I had a personal and unforgettable experience with the 'force that does not actually exist.' When I was a boy I broke a smooth, rounded quartzite rock so I could tie a rope around it. When it broke, a sharp edge cut the fourth finger of my right hand, which bears the scar to this day. I tied the rope to the rock and swung it around me in a circle on our front lawn. I felt the pull on the rope. I saw that the rope was taut. I knew, probably from tug-of-war games, that a rope was only taut when pulled from both ends. I deduced that the rock was somehow pulling the other end of the rope. Incidentally, I noticed that when I let go of the rope the rock, instead of flying off in the direction pointed to by the taut rope, flew in a quite different direction. I repeated the experiment many times that wonderful summer afternoon.

Many years later I was taught that pulls and pushes were called forces and that the pull of the rock was called centrifugal force. I learned that centrifugal force had many useful applications including washing machines, centrifuges, and speed governors for steam engines. Later still, I learned Newton's laws of motion, the third of which includes the idea that for every force there is an equal and opposite force, whether those forces are static or moving.

Now we know that appearances can be deceptive. But only with respect to creatures capable of perception can the notion of appearance be meaningful. The notion of 'reality' is an abstract concept. Only thinking creatures can form abstract concepts. Rocks, ropes, and even the Moon are not perceptive, thinking creatures. The statement "Nevertheless, it appears quite real to the object being rotated", worse than being poor metaphor, carries no meaning at all; it is meaningless. The author of that sentence erred by mixing universes of discourse. I do not believe the error to be innocent.

I suppose that the author of that first quotation, if he is consistent, would also say that although there is no such thing as centrifugal force, to the rope it appears as if there were such a force, so it stretches itself accordingly. However, that author dares not take the next step. If he says that the non-existent force in the rope only appears to be real to the proprioceptive sensors in muscles and tendons, he commits epistemological suicide. Without a properly operating (i.e., healthy) nervous system (which includes sensors, nerves, and brain) he would have no means for obtaining any knowledge of reality; he would thus have to deny himself, and that is the ultimate self-contradiction.

There is another error in dismissing the very existence of centrifugal force. If centrifugal force does not exist then no force opposes the gravitational force of attraction between the Earth and the Moon and those two are somehow evading both Newton's third law of motion and his law of universal gravitation in one fell swoop.

Let us next investigate the portion of the quoted passages that reads:
"An object traveling in a circular motion is constantly accelerating and is therefore never in an inertial frame of reference."

I believe that the author of that sentence would not object to my including elliptical motion along with circular motion. If rotation precludes being in an inertial frame of reference, then such a frame of reference has no counterpart in reality. I have noted in my original post above that everything is spinning: electrons, planets, stars, galaxies, etc. Space cannot be considered independent of matter. Matter gives space its meaning. All matter is spinning in one way or another. Therefore, no real thing is in an 'inertial' frame of reference. A frame of reference devoid of rotation is a purely imaginary construct. However, the behaviors of stones, ropes, and the Moon are real.

Now let us investigate the validity of the idea that "An object traveling in a circular motion is constantly accelerating." Let us first review the ideas leading to, and implicit in, the notion of 'acceleration.'

Forces can be static and forces can move. Motion is a change of position (ds). Velocity (v) is the time rate of change of position (v=ds/dt). Acceleration (a) is the time rate of change of velocity, or the time rate of change of the time rate of change of position (a=d(ds/dt)/dt). The acceleration of a mass (m) by a force (f) is a=f/m. The change of position (S) of a body having mass (m), initially at rest, and accelerated by a constant force (f) during a time interval (t) is S=½at². The work (w) performed (or energy expended) by the source of force during that acceleration is, w=½ma²t², since work is the product of the force and the distance through which the force moves. If a force does not move, no work is done, and no acceleration is produced.

All of us who drive automobiles know that to accelerate we depress the gas pedal. That allows more fuel and air to be drawn into the engine, which accelerates the rotational motion of the wheels. More fuel (a.k.a energy) is consumed per second when accelerating than when moving at the newly achieved higher speed, when only frictional losses must be overcome. By the way, don't turn sharp corners at high speed or you will enter a ‘non-inertial’ frame of reference (the Twilight Zone?) and the force that doesn't exist will flip your car over.

Let us now consider an object in circular motion with a constant angular velocity. The object's velocity in its circular path is constant. There is no acceleration in that respect. Its distance from the center of rotation remains constant. It moves neither closer toward that center nor farther from it. It neither accelerates nor decelerates along the line through it and the center of rotation. So far all is well, and in a loss-free environment it would spin forever.

However, the author of the quote claims that the object is "constantly accelerating." As noted above, any real acceleration implies both motion in the direction of the acceleration and transfer of energy to (or from) the rotating object. Both are absent in the case we are considering. Only a moving force produces acceleration. In the case we are considering there is no moving force.

The author has things in reverse. It seems that centrifugal force is real and that the acceleration of which he writes is imaginary. If I remember correctly, here is how that mistake was born.

There once was a man who tried to understand why the moon doesn't fall down. He said to himself "If I turn off the force of gravity when the Moon is exactly overhead, it will move in a straight line tangent to, and away from, its orbit. If I next stop the motion of the moon and at the same time turn on gravity, the moon will fall down. Its motion will accelerate while it falls. As soon as it falls to its proper orbit position, I will start its motion again and immediately begin to repeat this process. Then I will speed up that process until it is effectively a continuous process. Aha! I just got a great idea! If the process is continuous it means that the Moon is continuously falling toward the Earth and, therefore, it is constantly accelerating.”

Chicken Little overheard that man and ran around the barnyard cackling “See! I was right! It is falling down after all, and even worse, it is constantly accelerating! Oh! Oh!” Soon everyone was following C. L. saying, “It is constantly accelerating.”

That man made the mistake of incautiously entering the Land of Zero. Strange things can happen in that land. For example, when volumes, areas, and lines enter that land they lose all identity; they all become points. You can no longer tell which is which. In that land geometry and many other things and their identities disappear. It can swallow up things better than any black hole. But I digress.

What really happened was that as that man speeded up the process the Moon fell less and less. Its Earthward acceleration became smaller and smaller. Finally, when the process was continuous, the Moon fell not at all and the earthward velocity and acceleration vanished into the Land of Zero. Goodbye, Constantly Accelerating.

Yes Virginia(.edu), there is a Centrifugal Force, and she is so strong and so real that she doesn’t even need to say, “I think I can. I think I can.” Don’t be afraid that the moon will fall on your head. All that talk about the moon continuously falling is just pretend stuff some mean grown-ups say to scare children.

Some of the confusion in the present subject arises from an incomplete understanding of the nature of inertia. Ernst Mach (remembered in the Mach number) ascribed inertia of a local object to its interaction with all the matter in the ‘universe.’ If that were so we would expect the inertia of a local object to be affected more strongly by much closer objects. But here on Earth we do not find inertial effects to be stronger in line with the Moon or Sun. We find them to be quite independent of direction. Mach's approach covertly assumes the highly questionable uniformity hypothesis.

In my book A JOURNEY BEYOND THE UNIVERSE I disclose an unheard of source of inertia. That source of inertia allows inertial reference frames to rotate. It also ensures that rotating, self-gravitating mass spheroids will be oblate. It de-claws all kinds of hither-to thorny problems.

NASA thinks centrifugal force is real, and so do I. I suggest the issue is linguistic, not physical.

http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/spa...trifugal5.html

"The object's velocity in its circular path is constant. There is no acceleration in that respect."
Isn`t acceleration defined as the rate of change of velocity. Velocity has direction as well as magnitude so a change of direction is a change of velocity which has an associated acceleration.
Your experiment with the rock shows that centifugal force is not the reason the moon doesn`t crash into the earth. If the force you describe in the earth moon example worked the way you claim it, would need to act in exactly the opposite direction to the gravitational force. Since the gravitational force is equivalent to the rope in your example that fact the rock did not fly away from you in the direction the rope was pointing in surely invalides the idea of a real centrifugal force.I bet the rock flew of at a tangent to the circle it was being whipped around in. The moon is in freefall around the earth as described in your post. It is constantly accelerating but it is the direction not nescecarily the magnitude of the velocity that is changing. Unless the object speeds up or slows down or moves through some lines of equipotential there isn`t any transfer of energy. The accelerating car is different because you are speeding the vehicle up (increasing the magnitude of the velocity) thus adding energy.

Q: What balances the force of gravitation and prevents the Sun and other stars from collapsing to the center of the Milky Way galaxy?
A: Centrifugal force. (230 million years per revolution)

The relationship between the size of the super massive black hole at the center of the galaxy and the size of the galaxy seems to be related. The implication is that the speed of the matter circling the SMBH eventually increases to a point where matter quits falling into the hole.

http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/01/PR.html

BZZZZZZT
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
How many strikes before you're out?????????

_________________
When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-07-06 06:37 ]</font>

<a name="20020706.4"> page 20020706.4 aka Electron's
I see no reason for me NOT TO `poise
that {especially in S2 orbitals} of C atoms
that Electrons can be thought of as some
sort of Shuttle Craft transporting [something]
eithor from the surface of the Proton/neutron
Neculas into upper orbit or even out into space
Sure it could be from the necular atmosphere?
it furthor occurs to me that it may be light
and as incomming light accumulates [on the surface]
{or in the necular atmosphere} its the electrons job to
shuttle the excess back out into space.. or into a higher orbit?

About the einstein quote:
Is this saying if you pick a rotating reference frame (the earth moon system say) ,then you consider it to be stationary and have everything else in the universe rotating then you have the appearance of the centrifugal force? If you pick a frame where the earth-moon system is rotating this force vanishes and is replaced by another force(the centripetal force). Essentially the change in how the force appears with respect to the frame is just due to the change in coordinate systems isn`t it? Both views are acceptable then within their own frame of reference. Or am i just confusing myself again...

Just wanted to add: How does this get rid of expanding space and redshifts etc? Dont they still manifest themselves but just in a manner consistant with the newly chosen coordinate system?

For instance, energy cannot be matter. A photon can not be both a wave and a particle. Oh wait - they can. Dear me! I guess that Aristotle guy may not have been an expert on 20'th century physics after all.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Espritch on 2002-07-06 23:15 ]</font>