It is descending into ridiculous semantics. Semantics, popular usage
notwithstanding, concerns itself with the notion that words have
specific meanings. So for example, when educated professors go to the
trouble of burdening something with the moniker of "fictitious
centrifugal force" they do so in the hopes that people will not in fact
mistake it for a real force. Reactive and fictitious centrifugal forces
are just a convenience for doing the math, and fictitious or not, the
phenomena is a result of inertia, not the cause of inertia.

Charles

Gordon Arnaut wrote:
Charles,

Actually there is more than one reality when it comes to centrifugal force,
namely the reactive centrifugal force and the fictitious centrifugal
force -- depending on what you want to use as your reference frame.

But this is quickly descending into ridiculous semantics. My original point
was that if you have a flywheel with enough inertia, it will be an effective
restraining force to act against excitations that would otherwise produce
vibration. Naturally, higher moment of inertia in a rotating object must
necessitate a higher centrifugal force. Saying that one causes the other is
quite meaningless, in a chicken and egg kind of way.

Regards,

Gordon.