On 08/11/09 20:39, Tim Cook wrote:
> *thinks about it* Seems to me like six of one, half-dozen of another,
> but then again, centrifugal force is a nonexistent force conjured up to
> describe motion in a particular frame of reference, too...from an
> outside point of view, the math is easier/makes more sense when you
> reduce everything to a single set of common elements with no overlap.

	Oh sure. If your goal was just to have simple models, then your 
interpretation is fine (and even more accurate than centrifugal force).

	Note that I didn't say there _isn't_ a force on your part. Pulling down 
that diaphragm requires force - about the same amount of force that the 
atmospheric pressure applies to push the air in.

	Same as a vacuum cleaner. The mechanism requires a force/energy to 
*push* air out from the back. This causes a vacuum and atmospheric 
pressure then pushes the air into the tube from the other end - taking 
the mess along with it.

> But having a word for 'suck' is handy for us lay-people--lets us

	Well, I didn't imply you don't suck (no pun intended).

	Just think of the process of moving that diaphragm down as sucking 
(which it is).


-- 
If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all those Acme goods, why 
didn't he just buy dinner?

Post a reply to this message