In article ,
says...
Ned Simmons wrote:

I did take at least 3 semesters of classical physics and engineering
mechanics in the early 70s and all my texts and all the engineering
references on my bookshelf that deal with the subject mention
centrifugal force, most with some mention of the frame of reference
issue. Perhaps this is a consequence of a bias towards engineering
references, but then I haven't been culling books based on the presence
of the word centrifugal in the index.
Ned Simmons

Ned I took my physics classes in the 50s and no centrifugal force.
So I wonder if it all started with the "education" that included
"New Math" ? Wasent that about that time. ?
...lew...


If anything, it seems like the push to purge centrifugal force is a
relatively recent thing in physics education. The texts and handbooks
dealing with centrifugal force I cited earlier date from 1936 to 1986. A
few websites I mentioned in an earlier post also gave me that
impression.

One page had the tone of a rant so I only skimmed it, but was struck by
the quote below because it implied that the tendency to drop centrifugal
force occurred during the author's lifetime -- or maybe he's just a
kook...
http://www.physicsnews1.com/question_5.html

"In the meantime, Modern Physics scientists will continue telling the
rest of us, for decades to come, that centrifugal force is imaginary
even as the truth to the contrary becomes widely known."


Were your courses taken in a physics or an engineering department? It'd
be interesting to see whether the the antis/pros tend to divide along
physics/engineering lines. The materials I looked at make me think this
would be the case. In general, physics references limited the definition
of force to the basic forces of nature (nuclear, electromagnetic,
gravitational), while engineering references based the definition on
F=ma. So to find a difference in the perception of centrifugal force
between engineers and physicists would not be surprising.

Ned Simmons