A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Atmospheric stability and lapse rate



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 8th 05, 01:31 PM
Joe Morris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Peter Duniho" writes:

"jim rosinski" wrote:
[...]
You're right about the ****-poor nature of FAA texts though. Not just
the bad meteorological explanations, even their basic physics is wrong.
They blather on about "centrifugal force", which doesn't even exist!


Well, except that unlike the whole lapse rate confusion, the idea of
"centrifugal force" is perfectly valid, depending only on one's frame of
reference, and complained about only by overly pedantic engineers and
laymen.


And physics instructors while grading test answers.

Joe Morris
  #2  
Old February 8th 05, 01:51 PM
Gary Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Joe Morris" wrote in message
...
"Peter Duniho" writes:

"jim rosinski" wrote:
[...]
You're right about the ****-poor nature of FAA texts though. Not just
the bad meteorological explanations, even their basic physics is wrong.
They blather on about "centrifugal force", which doesn't even exist!


Well, except that unlike the whole lapse rate confusion, the idea of
"centrifugal force" is perfectly valid, depending only on one's frame of
reference, and complained about only by overly pedantic engineers and
laymen.


And physics instructors while grading test answers.


I'd hope that physics instructors would realize that centrifugal force does
exist from the turning object's accelerated reference frame. It's just from
an inertial reference frame that centrifugal force is "fictitious". Either
reference frame is valid; you just have to be careful to specify which one
you're using.

Similarly, from the standpoint of curved spacetime, gravity is a
"fictitious" force. When you cruise near a planet, you just follow a
straight line (through curved spacetime), without being diverted by (or
feeling the influence of) any force. The pressure you feel on the seat of
your pants is analogous to centripetal force--it's the "real" force that
*opposes* the "fictitious" gravitational force.

Still, from our more familiar frame of reference, the force of gravity is
quite real, and we shouldn't object to the FAA's invocation of gravity, or
of centrifugal force.

--Gary


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How high is that cloud? Tim Hogard Instrument Flight Rules 26 November 29th 04 01:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.