Centrifugal force means that as things spin, there is a pull outwards from the center.
I read that the earth spins 460 meters per second.
That is very fast.
Why doesn’t it fling all the surface into the air?
There is something strange about the earth’s movement.
The centrifugal force on your body at the equator is 0.034 m/s2 times the mass of your body. The centrifugal force at the poles is zero.
However the force of gravity anywhere on the earth’s surface is about 9.8m/s2.
This means that whilst you are accelerating away from the earth at the rate of 3.4 centimetres every second, you are being dragged towards the earth’s centre at 980 cm per second.
Every wondered why it is so difficult to get up out of bed in the morning?
Yes we are going round at a 1000mph, but because the distance from the centre of rotation is so vast the centrifugal force is only a few cm every second.
I think what he means is that centrifugal force has an immediately comprehensible dynamic, but gravity doesn’t.
Like why doesn’t everything just go flying off? Even at 3.whatever cm per second?
As I understood it, that is the question.
For centrigugal force, the closer you are to the center, the slower you are travelling and the easier it is to constantly cut your inertia which would have you going straight to bend your movement curvewise. The farther you are from the center, the faster you are travelling and the stronger your inertia is, so the likelier you are to simply be propelled like a thrown rock along your straight line.
But gravity seems to have no immediate reason for being.
Maybe because there is nothing in our daily experience that can compete with the earth’s gravitational force, so it’s harder for us to abstract it and wrap our heads around it.
Sometimes we can witness the tides and consider the Moon’s gravity. Maybe that can help. Then it’s easier to think about it the same way it is possible to think about a magnet. A magnet doesn’t seem counterintuitive.
…are you alluding to a flat Earth/no spin?
Fake News
Are you saying that you don’t understand why mass seems to attract mass?
It wasn’t fake, it just didn’t establish quantum gravity.
Anyway. The same hole/privation that leaves a negative charge for electrons to fill/share on a valence is the kind of hole that nature abhors and causes matter to attract (on a geodesic…grand valence). It’s not a nothing, though. There was never nothing.
Fake news?
Fake because it claims things have been proven that haven’t been - and additionally I don’t believe are true.
Are you saying that mass particles are like holes that fall into each other or - that there is some kind of hole between the masses or - what? Where is the “hole that nature abhors”?
The real question is “why does nature abhor any such holes”.
That last reply quotes me out of context. I wasn’t referring to gravity, but your calling the article fake news.
“holes”/privations in valence (so, negative charge) explained here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 4#p2881434
In the article I linked you to that you called fake news, did it mention what replaced dirac’s sea (paradigmatically)?
The rest of the questions you asked were already answered.
My misunderstanding - sorry mate.
My understanding is that valence isn’t about “negative charges” but merely a relative lack of charge - a void of the same potential - so relatively positive charge field to the electron cloud - causing an electron to slip into the cloud - “sharing electrons”.
My comment concerned the following statements -
“the electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces — are known to be quantum in nature.”
“By demonstrating that particles display the Aharonov-Bohm effect for gravitational forces, previously only seen with electromagnetic ones, we might have our first clue to gravity’s quantum nature”
The first being a false claim - conflating statistical normalities with physical structure (“average male has a bad attitude = males are bad attitudes incarnate”). And the second being a precursor for the same mistake - illegitimate rationale - conflating math terms with physical reality.
I think that is another topic - just clarifying.
I don’t think valence has anything to do with gravitation phenomena or centrifugal force (and certainly not quanta).
Centrifugal force is about momentum and mass inertia. Gravitation is about mass migration. The Earth’s mass and size are so large they overwhelm the momentum concerns of 460 m/s surface orbiting (as perfectly explained by sculptor).
What I’m hearing you say is matter is attracted to a black hole because of the mass of its matter rather than the privation of its charge.
Black holes are not actual holes - just the opposite. Black holes were named because of how they first appeared to astronomers before they realized that they were actually extremely large mass particles - with extremely large gravitational effect.
As it relates to centrifugal force - even light passing by a black hole too close will be overwhelmed by the gravitational effect and fall into the huge particle rather than flit away.
That’s a theory. Is it confirmed?
Define a hole as a valence/geodesic privation so we can communicate, please.
Everything is a theory. I didn’t think there was any remaining question concerning black holes -
The “bending of spacetime” is a language issue. In the maths - time and space can be presumed to be what is changing from mass rather than the mass changing from space and time. Those are two different ontologies (same results). It is just how you want to look at it or talk about it. Both concepts are equally true and demonstrated.
From what I understand - there is a cloud of electrons orbiting every atomic nucleus. The nucleus is positive and the electrons are negative (interesting why they don’t collide and annihilate). Because the electrons are in the form of particles - the cloud formed by them buzzing about is not uniform - it has relative “holes” or “deprivation” areas.
Those areas are less negative than where the fast moving electrons exist (and shifting around very quickly). A near by atom with a similar cloud of electrons can inadvertently push one of its own electrons into one of those less negative areas associated with the first atom (due to electrons strongly avoiding each other). Then that electron becomes a part of the first atom’s cloud of electrons (temporarily). At that time one of the first atom’s electrons generally gets pushed into the second atom’s cloud to become a part of that atom. That is “valence electron sharing”.
That sharing process becomes a mild bond between the atoms because - in effect - due to those electron deprived areas - the nucleus of each atom slightly attracts the electrons of the other atom.
I see it like political parties sending such confused positive and negative messaging that members of each party sometimes get attracted to the other party - temporarily. Together they end up forming a confused and mildly stable political congress bonded in battle.
scan for centripital quora.com/Does-an-electron- … s=90409232
just look w volume off youtu.be/6pORq8H9bp0
I expanded my post (didn’t see your second question).
Keep in mind -
De-weaponizing, de-strengthening, de-incentivizing, de-educating, and misinforming the underclass of the “New Liberal (communist) World Order” is actively paramount and ongoing.
