How birds fly and defeating the gravity

Variations in the measured force of gravity at different locations on the Earth mean that UA really can't be an answer. Otherwise, the Earth would break into many many pieces in very short order. And even if it were somehow elastic enough not to break, the landscape would look pretty alarming with rapidly growing cliffs in some places.

The variations in the measured force are minuscule.
Also, is there any evidence that  the measured force in any location
is constant over geologic time?

... while they don't react and push the same container back (because action and reaction doesn't apply here).

No, action and reaction do apply here.
The "centrifugal" force on the fluid is pushing it out. The reaction force instead pushes the container out.
They are 2 different forces.

The simple way of showing it is with gravity.
Gravity pulls an object in orbit towards the primary.
The orbiting body only feels that attraction.
There is no magic force pulling it outwards.
But the centrifugal pseudoforce in a rotating reference frame is pulling it out.
The reaction to that is the object pulling the primary towards it.

Notice how the 2 are not the same?

As I said, some people won't like it and will try to limit your wy of thinking to their limits.

Yes, I prefer limiting people to thinking within reality rather than spouting nonsense as if it was fact and conflating fundamentally different thigns.

The variations in the measured force are minuscule.

Not really.

Remember, these are measured in terms of m/s² (at least by most people).
More "appropriate" units when discussing the effects on Earth would be in km (or Mm) per year² or the like, or to examine what the difference actually means.

Anchorage is 9.826 m/s².
Kuala Lumpur is 9.776 m/s².
That is a difference of 0.05 m/s².
Yes, this seems tiny, so small you don't even notice it.
But Earth hasn't just existed for a second.
Each day we get 86400 seconds.
That means it is 373248000 m/day², i.e. ~373 Mm/day².

Does that still seem miniscule?
That means after a day, these 2 regions on Earth would have to be separated by 187 Mm and travelling at a relative smeed of 4.3 km/s.

Also, is there any evidence that  the measured force in any location
is constant over geologic time?

We don't need geologic time.
Having it stay that different over the course of a day would be enough to tear Earth apart.

Birds can defeat gravity because according to Jack, they aren't big enough

Quote from: boydster on April 29, 2018, 11:19:58 AM

Variations in the measured force of gravity at different locations on the Earth mean that UA really can't be an answer. Otherwise, the Earth would break into many many pieces in very short order. And even if it were somehow elastic enough not to break, the landscape would look pretty alarming with rapidly growing cliffs in some places.

The variations in the measured force are minuscule.
Also, is there any evidence that  the measured force in any location
is constant over geologic time?

I’m afraid once more you are incorrect. Take a gravimeter up a mountain and take a measurement. Go down to sea level and repeat. Take a measurement over granite and sandstone and the readings will be very different. Just as it’s lower on the equator. Why do you think most rocket launch sites are near the equator? Ask anyone who has worked in oil and gas exploration about the importance of gravity maps. Gravity is highly variable depending on location, attitude and composition of the ground.

Birds can defeat gravity because according to Jack, they aren't big enough

Not even close to what was said.

Quote from: Shifter on April 30, 2018, 03:34:44 PM

Birds can defeat gravity because according to Jack, they aren't big enough

Not even close to what was said.

This is what he alluded to on another thread. Try and keep up

Sure he did.

Sure he did.

Here is another 1 post wonder clone of rab/Jack to defend the rab/Jack. This one having the moniker as a racist. When will the mods take action against these obvious alts

Gravity pulls an object in orbit towards the primary.
The orbiting body only feels that attraction.
There is no magic force pulling it outwards.
But the centrifugal pseudoforce in a rotating reference frame is pulling it out.
The reaction to that is the object pulling the primary towards it.

Nope. Earth's gravitational force pulls Moon to curved trajectory, and there is no reaction force trying to pull it back to straight one.
If there is no inertia, or if inertia is acting by something else (and not "inertial force"), then why is Earth's "gravitational force" still needed?

Quote from: JackBlack on April 30, 2018, 02:27:52 PM

Gravity pulls an object in orbit towards the primary.
The orbiting body only feels that attraction.
There is no magic force pulling it outwards.
But the centrifugal pseudoforce in a rotating reference frame is pulling it out.
The reaction to that is the object pulling the primary towards it.

Nope. Earth's gravitational force pulls Moon to curved trajectory, and there is no reaction force trying to pull it back to straight one.

reaction force of earth pull on moon is not another force on moon. It is the moon pulli on earth.

This thread shows a complete lack of respect for birds.

Quote from: Macarios on April 30, 2018, 10:51:31 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 30, 2018, 02:27:52 PM

Gravity pulls an object in orbit towards the primary.
The orbiting body only feels that attraction.
There is no magic force pulling it outwards.
But the centrifugal pseudoforce in a rotating reference frame is pulling it out.
The reaction to that is the object pulling the primary towards it.

Nope. Earth's gravitational force pulls Moon to curved trajectory, and there is no reaction force trying to pull it back to straight one.

reaction force of earth pull on moon is not another force on moon. It is the moon pulli on earth.

This thread shows a complete lack of respect for birds.

How do you call "reaction by inertia" that tries to pull Moon back to straight path?

Quote from: tomato on April 30, 2018, 11:13:49 PM

Quote from: Macarios on April 30, 2018, 10:51:31 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 30, 2018, 02:27:52 PM

Gravity pulls an object in orbit towards the primary.
The orbiting body only feels that attraction.
There is no magic force pulling it outwards.
But the centrifugal pseudoforce in a rotating reference frame is pulling it out.
The reaction to that is the object pulling the primary towards it.

Nope. Earth's gravitational force pulls Moon to curved trajectory, and there is no reaction force trying to pull it back to straight one.

reaction force of earth pull on moon is not another force on moon. It is the moon pulli on earth.

This thread shows a complete lack of respect for birds.

How do you call "reaction by inertia" that tries to pull Moon back to straight path?

I think the curved path is just in the mind. We see a curved path because our mind forks patterns and expects gravity. But at every instant it really wants to go straight. If the Earth stops pulling, it would keep going straight. The curving is what shows there's some force, not the wanting to go straight.

Why do you think most rocket launch sites are near the equator?

They launch from near the equator to get a boost from the rotation of Earth.

Quote from: Mikey T. on April 30, 2018, 07:14:15 PM

Quote from: Shifter on April 30, 2018, 03:34:44 PM

Birds can defeat gravity because according to Jack, they aren't big enough

Not even close to what was said.

This is what he alluded to on another thread. Try and keep up

Are you capable of posting about people without blatantly lying about them?
I said nothing of the sort nor did I allude to anything like that.

When will the mods take action against these obvious alts

Perhaps when they actually are obvious alts, such as posting from the same IP (which the mods can see), rather than just people bitching about them with no justification for their claims.

Nope. Earth's gravitational force pulls Moon to curved trajectory, and there is no reaction force trying to pull it back to straight one.

Exactly.
That means the centrifugal force is not a reaction force; as this pseudoforce still pseudoexists for the moon orbiting Earth.

If there is no inertia...

Good thing there is inertia.

How do you call "reaction by inertia" that tries to pull Moon back to straight path?

What "reaction by inertia"?
The inertia is just a measure of how much force you need to impart to make it accelerate.
The reaction is the moon pulling on Earth.
There is nothing trying to pull the moon back to a straight path, it would just continue on a straight path unless a force acted upon it.
A force does act upon it and thus it follows a curved path.

The centrifugal force doesn't exist in reference frames where it follows a curved path.
For uniform circular motion, the centrifugal force pseudoexists in reference frames where the object remains stationary.

Quote from: IsaacN on April 30, 2018, 03:53:49 PM

Why do you think most rocket launch sites are near the equator?

They launch from near the equator to get a boost from the rotation of Earth.

Quote from: Shifter on April 30, 2018, 07:21:44 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on April 30, 2018, 07:14:15 PM

Quote from: Shifter on April 30, 2018, 03:34:44 PM

Birds can defeat gravity because according to Jack, they aren't big enough

Not even close to what was said.

This is what he alluded to on another thread. Try and keep up

Are you capable of posting about people without blatantly lying about them?
I said nothing of the sort nor did I allude to anything like that.

Quote from: Shifter on April 30, 2018, 07:40:22 PM

When will the mods take action against these obvious alts

Perhaps when they actually are obvious alts, such as posting from the same IP (which the mods can see), rather than just people bitching about them with no justification for their claims.

Quote from: Macarios on April 30, 2018, 10:51:31 PM

Nope. Earth's gravitational force pulls Moon to curved trajectory, and there is no reaction force trying to pull it back to straight one.

Exactly.
That means the centrifugal force is not a reaction force; as this pseudoforce still pseudoexists for the moon orbiting Earth.

Quote from: Macarios on April 30, 2018, 10:51:31 PM

If there is no inertia...

Good thing there is inertia.

Quote from: Macarios on April 30, 2018, 11:23:38 PM

How do you call "reaction by inertia" that tries to pull Moon back to straight path?

What "reaction by inertia"?
The inertia is just a measure of how much force you need to impart to make it accelerate.
The reaction is the moon pulling on Earth.
There is nothing trying to pull the moon back to a straight path, it would just continue on a straight path unless a force acted upon it.
A force does act upon it and thus it follows a curved path.

The centrifugal force doesn't exist in reference frames where it follows a curved path.
For uniform circular motion, the centrifugal force pseudoexists in reference frames where the object remains stationary.

With what is inertia pulling Moon back to straight path?
Force or persuasion?

EDIT:
Also, with what is inertia resisting instantaneous acceleration of massive object?
Force, or persuasion?

------------------------------------

ALL forces are mathematical representations.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 01, 2018, 02:03:49 AM

Quote from: IsaacN on April 30, 2018, 03:53:49 PM

Why do you think most rocket launch sites are near the equator?

They launch from near the equator to get a boost from the rotation of Earth.

Quote from: Shifter on April 30, 2018, 07:21:44 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on April 30, 2018, 07:14:15 PM

Quote from: Shifter on April 30, 2018, 03:34:44 PM

Birds can defeat gravity because according to Jack, they aren't big enough

Not even close to what was said.

This is what he alluded to on another thread. Try and keep up

Are you capable of posting about people without blatantly lying about them?
I said nothing of the sort nor did I allude to anything like that.

Quote from: Shifter on April 30, 2018, 07:40:22 PM

When will the mods take action against these obvious alts

Perhaps when they actually are obvious alts, such as posting from the same IP (which the mods can see), rather than just people bitching about them with no justification for their claims.

Quote from: Macarios on April 30, 2018, 10:51:31 PM

Nope. Earth's gravitational force pulls Moon to curved trajectory, and there is no reaction force trying to pull it back to straight one.

Exactly.
That means the centrifugal force is not a reaction force; as this pseudoforce still pseudoexists for the moon orbiting Earth.

Quote from: Macarios on April 30, 2018, 10:51:31 PM

If there is no inertia...

Good thing there is inertia.

Quote from: Macarios on April 30, 2018, 11:23:38 PM

How do you call "reaction by inertia" that tries to pull Moon back to straight path?

What "reaction by inertia"?
The inertia is just a measure of how much force you need to impart to make it accelerate.
The reaction is the moon pulling on Earth.
There is nothing trying to pull the moon back to a straight path, it would just continue on a straight path unless a force acted upon it.
A force does act upon it and thus it follows a curved path.

The centrifugal force doesn't exist in reference frames where it follows a curved path.
For uniform circular motion, the centrifugal force pseudoexists in reference frames where the object remains stationary.

With what is inertia pulling Moon back to straight path?
Force or persuasion?

He said. No force or persuasion required. Straight path is natural. Real forces only needed for curved path. That's why the "force" making it straight is called a "fake force" (pseudoforce). Centrifugal force, it's fake. Doesn't exist. Lost in time, like tears in rain.

Quote from: Macarios on May 01, 2018, 06:07:09 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 01, 2018, 02:03:49 AM

Quote from: IsaacN on April 30, 2018, 03:53:49 PM

Why do you think most rocket launch sites are near the equator?

They launch from near the equator to get a boost from the rotation of Earth.

Quote from: Shifter on April 30, 2018, 07:21:44 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on April 30, 2018, 07:14:15 PM

Quote from: Shifter on April 30, 2018, 03:34:44 PM

Birds can defeat gravity because according to Jack, they aren't big enough

Not even close to what was said.

This is what he alluded to on another thread. Try and keep up

Are you capable of posting about people without blatantly lying about them?
I said nothing of the sort nor did I allude to anything like that.

Quote from: Shifter on April 30, 2018, 07:40:22 PM

When will the mods take action against these obvious alts

Perhaps when they actually are obvious alts, such as posting from the same IP (which the mods can see), rather than just people bitching about them with no justification for their claims.

Quote from: Macarios on April 30, 2018, 10:51:31 PM

Nope. Earth's gravitational force pulls Moon to curved trajectory, and there is no reaction force trying to pull it back to straight one.

Exactly.
That means the centrifugal force is not a reaction force; as this pseudoforce still pseudoexists for the moon orbiting Earth.

Quote from: Macarios on April 30, 2018, 10:51:31 PM

If there is no inertia...

Good thing there is inertia.

Quote from: Macarios on April 30, 2018, 11:23:38 PM

How do you call "reaction by inertia" that tries to pull Moon back to straight path?

What "reaction by inertia"?
The inertia is just a measure of how much force you need to impart to make it accelerate.
The reaction is the moon pulling on Earth.
There is nothing trying to pull the moon back to a straight path, it would just continue on a straight path unless a force acted upon it.
A force does act upon it and thus it follows a curved path.

The centrifugal force doesn't exist in reference frames where it follows a curved path.
For uniform circular motion, the centrifugal force pseudoexists in reference frames where the object remains stationary.

With what is inertia pulling Moon back to straight path?
Force or persuasion?

He said. No force or persuasion required. Straight path is natural. Real forces only needed for curved path. That's why the "force" making it straight is called a "fake force" (pseudoforce). Centrifugal force, it's fake. Doesn't exist. Lost in time, like tears in rain.

Ok, then stop caling gravitational force "real force".
It is also pseudo-force.
There is no gravitational force field, it is deformation of space-time.

Quote from: tomato on May 01, 2018, 06:15:58 AM

Quote from: Macarios on May 01, 2018, 06:07:09 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 01, 2018, 02:03:49 AM

Quote from: IsaacN on April 30, 2018, 03:53:49 PM

Why do you think most rocket launch sites are near the equator?

They launch from near the equator to get a boost from the rotation of Earth.

Quote from: Shifter on April 30, 2018, 07:21:44 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on April 30, 2018, 07:14:15 PM

Quote from: Shifter on April 30, 2018, 03:34:44 PM

Birds can defeat gravity because according to Jack, they aren't big enough

Not even close to what was said.

This is what he alluded to on another thread. Try and keep up

Are you capable of posting about people without blatantly lying about them?
I said nothing of the sort nor did I allude to anything like that.

Quote from: Shifter on April 30, 2018, 07:40:22 PM

When will the mods take action against these obvious alts

Perhaps when they actually are obvious alts, such as posting from the same IP (which the mods can see), rather than just people bitching about them with no justification for their claims.

Quote from: Macarios on April 30, 2018, 10:51:31 PM

Nope. Earth's gravitational force pulls Moon to curved trajectory, and there is no reaction force trying to pull it back to straight one.

Exactly.
That means the centrifugal force is not a reaction force; as this pseudoforce still pseudoexists for the moon orbiting Earth.

Quote from: Macarios on April 30, 2018, 10:51:31 PM

If there is no inertia...

Good thing there is inertia.

Quote from: Macarios on April 30, 2018, 11:23:38 PM

How do you call "reaction by inertia" that tries to pull Moon back to straight path?

What "reaction by inertia"?
The inertia is just a measure of how much force you need to impart to make it accelerate.
The reaction is the moon pulling on Earth.
There is nothing trying to pull the moon back to a straight path, it would just continue on a straight path unless a force acted upon it.
A force does act upon it and thus it follows a curved path.

The centrifugal force doesn't exist in reference frames where it follows a curved path.
For uniform circular motion, the centrifugal force pseudoexists in reference frames where the object remains stationary.

With what is inertia pulling Moon back to straight path?
Force or persuasion?

He said. No force or persuasion required. Straight path is natural. Real forces only needed for curved path. That's why the "force" making it straight is called a "fake force" (pseudoforce). Centrifugal force, it's fake. Doesn't exist. Lost in time, like tears in rain.

Ok, then stop caling gravitational force "real force".
It is also pseudo-force.
There is no gravitational force field, it is deformation of space-time.

Oh lol, I'm tomato but I agree with you there. Gravity is a fake force as far as I can tell. Doesn't mean the theory's bad. But it's not technically a force.

My point was: ALL forces are mathematical representations, developed as tool, for practical use.
And ALL forces "do something", whether we call them "real" or "pseudo".

You can stick to single frame of reference and "sing mainstream song", or you can skip "the song", use "the tool", and sing Jethro Tull.

Have you ever tried to nail something with big wrench (while your buddy was already using the hammer)?
Was that "allowed"?

My point was: ALL forces are mathematical representations, developed as tool, for practical use.
And ALL forces "do something", whether we call them "real" or "pseudo".

That's edging into philosophy but I think I'm still on your side. One thing though is the "unreasonable effectiveness" of math in describing reality.. as Wigner put it. Like, deep things like symmetry in position or in rotation lead to conservation of numbers like momentum that suggest labeling specific things as forces. So believing in the labels isn't so unreasonable.

You can stick to single frame of reference and "sing mainstream song", or you can skip "the song", use "the tool", and sing Jethro Tull.

Have you ever tried to nail something with big wrench (while your buddy was already using the hammer)?
Was that "allowed"?

Nice taste in music.

With what is inertia pulling Moon back to straight path?

NOTHING!
It doesn't pull the moon back to a straight path. It is simply a measure of how much force it takes to change it's velocity. Nothing more.

If it was like you were pretending, inertia would stop any motion.

Quote from: Macarios on May 01, 2018, 06:07:09 AM

With what is inertia pulling Moon back to straight path?

NOTHING!
It doesn't pull the moon back to a straight path. It is simply a measure of how much force it takes to change it's velocity. Nothing more.

If it was like you were pretending, inertia would stop any motion.

"Stop any motion" ? ? ?
No need to twist things to maintain mainstream "superiority".
Now you are doing the same thing like Flat Earthers, only in different direction.

I must repeat: "science is not to 'light candles in front of it', it is tool to use the way you need it".
(Note the word "need", not the word "want".)

"Stop any motion" ? ? ?
No need to twist things to maintain mainstream "superiority".

So going to stop twisting things then?
Let's have it your way.
The moon is currently travelling in some direction, the gravity of Earth then applies a force, real or apparent to curve its path. But inertia provides a counter-force to stop its path curving.
Thus the net force is 0 and it continues on its straight path.

Notice the problem?
I'm not the one twisting things here.

Now you are doing the same thing like Flat Earthers, only in different direction.

Sure, you could say it like that, but it is quite different.
I am pointing out nonsense/false information.

Meanwhile, you are have repeatedly asserted your nonsense like a FEer.
You were wrong and don't seem to want to admit it.

So going to stop twisting things then?
Let's have it your way.
The moon is currently travelling in some direction, the gravity of Earth then applies a force, real or apparent to curve its path. But inertia provides a counter-force to stop its path curving.
Thus the net force is 0 and it continues on its straight path.

Notice the problem?
I'm not the one twisting things here.

Still forcing people on your own frame of reference?

Papa Legba was already using your explanation to show that "satellites without counter-force should fall on the Earth already".

EDIT: "Something" that keeps Moon from falling to Earth is still calculated as X = mv² / R

----------------------------------------------------

When my daughter was doing her "classification test for acceptance" in her high school, one of her questions was to calculate some value.
They were expecting the result to be 2 and 1/5, her answer in her paper was 11/5 and her answer was striked out as wrong.

It was in 2002.
I had to intervene, and they admitted they made a mistake there.

----------------------------------------------------

Before dismissing some Flat Earther's explanation (or "explanation"), make sure you haven't misunderstood their words.

Sometimes we might misinterpret the nature of error, and give wrong correction.

.

Still forcing people on your own frame of reference?

Nope, just pointing out that your claim is BS.
I see you still can't honestly respond.

Papa Legba was already using your explanation to show that "satellites without counter-force should fall on the Earth already".

No he wasn't. He was completely ignoring that it was in motion and thus what the acceleration would actually do.

EDIT: "Something" that keeps Moon from falling to Earth is still calculated as X = mv² / R

Notice how that isn't some magic reaction force?
Instead it is the apparent centrifugal force from a rotating frame of reference?

Instead it is the apparent centrifugal force from a rotating frame of reference?

You were trying to forbid that frame of reference, so you could say "it is not a force".
(While in that frame of reference you still cal it force.)

What else words "forcing people to your own frame of reference" could mean?

Let me remind you: EVERY force is mathematical representation.

You were trying to forbid that frame of reference, so you could say "it is not a force".

No I wasn't.
Try focusing on what I have said.
I was pointing out it isn't a reaction force and has nothing to do with the law of action and reaction.

What else words "forcing people to your own frame of reference" could mean?

A pathetic strawman of my position.

Quote from: Macarios on May 03, 2018, 03:26:56 AM

You were trying to forbid that frame of reference, so you could say "it is not a force".

No I wasn't.
Try focusing on what I have said.
I was pointing out it isn't a reaction force and has nothing to do with the law of action and reaction.

Quote from: Macarios on May 03, 2018, 03:26:56 AM

What else words "forcing people to your own frame of reference" could mean?

A pathetic strawman of my position.

Your position was attack on that first post without reading it in whole.
You were ignoring the very beginning of the post that says "To every process can be assigned more than one frame of reference."
Then you were trying to establish "hierarchy" between frames and between forces, as if there are "real" and "false" ones.
You were insisting on "degrading" centrifugal force as pseudo-force, using gravitational force as a contrast, as if gravitational force is not pseudo-force.

When I said "in other frame of reference it does exist" you answered "you see, it doesn't exist in my frame".

I was also trying to remind you that "EVERY force is...", but you were still trying to "win" something.

We are not here to show how well we remember what we were taught in school.
We are here to try to SIMPLIFY things for "casual spectators" (people who are not scientists and don't plan to be).
Some of them are easy victims of FE scam and showing them same dogmatic, restrictive behavior won't help.

Everyone can find "inertial forces" as existing term, with explanations.
Telling them that "it doesn't exist" will only make them suspicious.
Inertial forces DO EXIST in their own frames, and they have REAL EFFECTS, sometimes dangerous.

------------------------------------------------------

We already mentioned Papa Legba.
You said "he didn't show it".
The question here is "to whom?".
He did show "something".
Even if it was "wrong" (under certain conditions), try to explain that to those "casual spectators" who don't know enough.

------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: Calculating centrifugal force in one frame of reference, or calculation "no such force" in another frame will produce equal tension in material.
There are at least two ways to calculate 2 + 2
->   (1 + 1) + (1 + 1)
->   (2 * 1) + (2 * 1)

Which way is "real way" and which way is "pseaudo way"?
I'd still say BOTH are correct.
If someone else comes up with 2*(2*1) I'd also call it correct.
What do you think?

Your position was attack on that first post without reading it in whole.

No it wasn't.
I was fine with your first post (or prior post) which discussed centrifugal forces.
I stepped in when you claimed they are a reaction force.
Specifically this:

External force will curve that trajectory, and inertia will oppose that force, in accordance to "Law of Action and Reaction", by own, inertial force.

This is not accurately describing any frame of reference.

After that you continued with false claims which I objected to.

You were ignoring the very beginning of the post that says "To every process can be assigned more than one frame of reference."

I did not ignore that at all.

Then you were trying to establish "hierarchy" between frames and between forces, as if there are "real" and "false" ones.

No, no hierarchy, just distinguishing between inertial and non-inertial frames, with corresponding links to real forces, i.e. things which actually exist as part of reality rather than simply as a mathematical construct.

When I said "in other frame of reference it does exist" you answered "you see, it doesn't exist in my frame".

Where?

We are not here to show how well we remember what we were taught in school.
We are here to try to SIMPLIFY things for "casual spectators" (people who are not scientists and don't plan to be).
Some of them are easy victims of FE scam and showing them same dogmatic, restrictive behavior won't help.

I would rather focus on the truth rather than a significant lie for simplicity.

Everyone can find "inertial forces" as existing term, with explanations.

Sure, complete with them also being listed as fictitious forces.

Telling them that "it doesn't exist" will only make them suspicious.

Meanwhile, having things labelled as inertial forces is likely to confuse them with regards to inertia, coming up with crap like RowBoat did, claiming an object should fall straight down after it reaches its peak as its expended its inertial force.

Inertial forces DO EXIST in their own frames, and they have REAL EFFECTS, sometimes dangerous.

In specific reference frames, yes.
In reality, no.

EDIT: Calculating centrifugal force in one frame of reference, or calculation "no such force" in another frame will produce equal tension in material.

Being able to calculate something doesn't make it true.
You can use all sorts of nonsense formulas to calculate things. It is how this relates to physical reality that determines if it is true.

In specific reference frames, yes.
In reality, no.

Pluto and Charon orbiting each other can have one frame in Pluto and another frame in Charon.
Which one of those is "specifice reference frame" and which one is "reality"?
Who is orbiting whom?

Or the only "reaity" is around gallactic core?

Keep insisting on your dogma.
It was nice talking to you.