Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-48,: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: linux kernel hackers discover new theory of

# Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: linux kernel hackers discover new theory of

Peter Svensson (petersv@psv.nu)
Fri, 4 Dec 1998 11:06:34 +0100 (CET)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Neil Conway: "Re: Problem with 1G RAM"
- Previous message: Kurt Garloff: "960MB limitation for 2.2 ?"

On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Jonas Munsin wrote:

> No it's not. Your "centrifugal force" is something you invent when you (quite
> wrongly) treat an accelerating reference frame as an inertial one. I strongly
> suggest you go look up centripetal and centrifugal force in any first-year
> university book on physics (University Physics - Benson, page 105 in the
> revisited edition is one place to start) before continuing this arguement.

Actually, there is nothing wrong with using a rotating reference frame.
There are some differences from an inertial one (e.g. the apperance of a
centrifugal force) but both are valid and workable. Rotating (semi)rigid
objects can often be treated more easily in a rotating reference frame.

This is way off topic btw. :)

Peter

    --
    Peter Svensson      ! Pgp key available by finger, fingerprint:
    <petersv@psv.nu>    ! 8A E9 20 98 C1 FF 43 E3  07 FD B9 0A 80 72 70 AF
    <petersv@df.lth.se> !
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Remember, Luke, your source will be with you... always...

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Neil Conway: "Re: Problem with 1G RAM"
- Previous message: Kurt Garloff: "960MB limitation for 2.2 ?"