Talk:Centrifugal railway

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Centrifugal Railway → Centrifugal railway — There's no evidence that this is a proper name, so it should be downcased, as it often is in books (see this one and this one and this one and this one. --Dicklyon (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Well presented case and borderline on being uncontroversial IMO. Andrewa (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge proposal
Someone has proposed merging the new stub Centrifugal Railway into Centrifugal railway.


 * Support – I'll go ahead and do it if nobody objects. It makes sense to mention the specific one in the article on such things.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Centrifugal force
The lede was modified to read "...passing through the central loop with enough speed and centrifugal force to remain on the track at the top of the loop." What centrifugal force is this? Should it say instead "with enough inertial to remain on the track"? Previously it talked about the reactive centrifugal force, which is the only outward force working here, but that's a force on the track; the force on the train is centripetal. How can the car be said to have a centrifugal force holding it to the track? The scream machine source says the car "... is maintained on the rails only by centrifugal force," which I agree is a common way to look at it. From the car's point of reference, in its rotating non-inertial system, it is being pushed outward against the track by a centrifugal force. But this is not a real force, just a fiction to make Newton's law look right in the rotating frame. How should we be saying this that is clear and correct? 2620:0:1000:157D:6C79:ACA1:948E:E5BE (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)