Talk:Eötvös effect

message: The opening section of this article has been copied from the article that is refererenced I have corresponded with Anders Persson via email, and I have his permission to use text of him that is publicly accessable for Wikipedia. --Cleonis | Talk 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The standard approach as I learned, is not to use centripetal force, but centripetal acceleration. The weight depends on the difference g-a. 
Harald88 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, and I have edited the article accordingly. The mass drops out of the equations. The Eötvös effect is the change of gravimetric readings. --Cleonis | Talk 10:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The standard approach 

message: An even simpler case than the mercury mirror is two balls connected by a spring. The common center of mass of the two balls is in free-motion, let's say the circling balls are onboard a space-station. The motion of the two balls can be accounted for with a single force: a centripetal force that is exerted by the spring on the balls. --Cleonis | Talk 13:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A single centripetal force 

message: I copy and paste from above:
:But I like your racecar track illustration, I think that is really appropriate and helpful. Harald88 20:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some arithmatic with the accelerations 

message: I copy and paste from above:
:But I like your racecar track illustration, I think that is really appropriate and helpful. Harald88 20:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angular mechanics visualisations 

message: Let there be a mercury mirror dish, with a layer of mercury. A small gravito-meter is placed on the rotating mercury. (The gravito-meter is a vacuum tube, in which a test mass is dropped.) The small gravito-meter is floating on the mercury.
As the the gravito-meter is co-rotating with the dish and mercury, it will measure an acceleration perpendicular to the local mercury surface. 
Let the dish slow down. Then the gravito-meter will slow down together with the mercury. The mercury will sag to the middle of the dish. In latitudinal direction, the gravito-meter will measure a deceleration. (If the test mass does not fall exactly parallel to the tube, then a sideways  acceleration/deceleration is inferred.) In longitudinal direction the measured acceleration will remain perpendicular to the top surface of the mercury. --Cleonis | Talk 09:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A gravito-meter on a mercury mirror dish 

message: This article currently reads like an essay, not an encyclopedia article. I propose that the text be considerably shortened, removing all the numbers relating to velocities and masses of example vessels. In addition, the mathematical deduction is unnecessary. In my opinion, it is sufficient to link to the articles on Coriolis effect and centrifugal force respectively. --PeR 15:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I copy and paste from above: 
: You can't sincerily claim that you don't understand what I mean by "Eötvös force" In the introduction that you copied from Persson you clearly state that the Eötvös effect accounts for apparent changes in gravity. Also, in the original version of the diagram below (p. 8) the arrows are labeled as "forces." --PeR 13:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No original research but compliance with modern standards 

message: I am no physicist but I find most articles concerning newtonian physics especially with regards to circular motion and gravity oddly contorted , It seems "invoking" a centrifugal force is now a cardinal sin which requires ungodly (in the newtonian sense of the word ) rhetorical contraptions to somehow retrieve a centripetal force from an homo-directional  gravitational force as if modern physics had made everyone even less comfortable with the concept of a fictitious force . I'd contend that dear Issac considered both the centrifugal and gravitational forces as fictitious and would be rather flabbergasted that in light of Einstein's  contributions  such semantical  confusion  should still prosper .
Such strenuous efforts seem also to have for consequence poorly worded assertions such as "the weight of a given object is reduced by x % on the equator " relative to what absolute weight exactly? (I'd haveto guess that would be relative to "polar" weight with zero "fictitious" centrifugal force )  but given all the additional  parameters at play here such as the varying r value (oblate spheroid ) and the irregular mass distribution which might be to a point  be reciprocally  cancelling  I find those physics rather confusing  and not quite up to "modern" standards .88.190.24.84 (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: no original research  but taking issue with modern standards =

message: According to the text in the section, by increasing the eastward speed the downward force should increase. However the graph shows the opposite of this, with greater eastward speed the downward force decreases. Something doesn't add up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.200.212 (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the graph in "Motion along the equator" section