<i>Comment on</i>: Curling rock dynamics - The motion of a curling rock: inertial vs. noninertial reference frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the approach used and the results presented in a recent publication(Can. J. Phys. 76, 295 (1998))in which (i) a noninertial reference frame is used to examine the motion ofa curling rock, and (ii) the lateral motion of a curling rock isattributed to left-right asymmetry in the force acting on the rock.We point out the important differences between describing the motionin an inertial frame as opposed to a noninertial frame.We show that a force exhibiting left-right asymmetryin an inertial frame cannot explain the lateral motion of a curlingrock. We also examine, as was apparently done in the recent publication,an effective force that has left-right asymmetry in a noninertial, rotating frame. We show that such a force is not left-right asymmetric in an inertial frame, and that anylateral motion of a curling rock attributed to the effective forcein the noninertial frame is actually due to a real force, in aninertial frame, which has a net nonzero component transverse to the velocityof the center of mass. We inquire as to the physical basis for thetransverse component of this real force. We also examine the motion ofa rotating cylinder sliding over a smooth surface for which there isno melting: we show that the motion is easily analyzed in an inertialframe and that there is little to be gained by considering a rotating frame.We relate the results for this simple case to the more involved problemof the motion of a curling rock: we find that the motion of curling rocksis best studied in inertial frames. Perhaps most importantly, we showthat the approach taken and the results presented in the recent publicationlead to predicted motions of curling rocks that are indisagreement with observed motions of real curling rocks.PACS Nos.: 46.00, 01.80+b
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".