Because, if the body were in the same place but not rotating, it would still accelerate.Heater wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:21 pmdavidcoton,
We were discussing rotation and acceleration, and which causes which. Your statement was that "The rotation does not cause acceleration. Acceleration causes rotation."
Well, let's see. According to our hero Newton we have a formula for that. The magnitude of the centripetal acceleration is related to the tangential speed and angular velocity as follows:
a = v^2 / r = ω^2 r
Written that way it looks like the rotation ω is causing the acceleration. Increase ω and a increases.
But we can quite validly rewrite that equation as:
ω = root(a / r)
Now it looks like the acceleration is causing the rotation. Increase a and ω increases.
Hmmm...this looks like a chicken and egg problem. Which causes which?
I'm not sure why you insist that one is the cause and the other is the effect.
How so? Two stationary masses attached to the ends of a solid rod, not rotating or subject to external forces, do not accelerate any were. They just sit there.Because, if the body were in the same place but not rotating, it would still accelerate.
What is involved in that? No less or more than applying a force, thus accelerating the mass into a rotational path. Resolve the applied force and you will end up with the centripetal component.Heater wrote:Give that rod and mass system a spin
Stick around and Ill show you just how far this rabbit hole goes.
It's not a rabbit hole, it's a freak wormhole in the fabric of the space-time continuum.
The thread has not strayed far at all. We are discussing The Matrix. Some people see it one way, others see it another way.The only thing rotating here is my head, this discussion has strayed so far from the title its not even clear how we got here.