LONDON Reuters - Rising support for nationalist and single-issue parties is threatening to plunge Britain into unaccustomed political instability after national elections five months from now. Formerly fringe groups, they are now challenging the already declining power of the traditional two-party system, attracting Britons who feel betrayed and ignored by what they regard as a remote political class.
The driving forces for this reconfiguration of British politics are a clamour for less centralised power and anxiety about immigration.
They are surfacing while the British economy is growing faster than most in the developed world, attracting large numbers of migrants from the troubled euro zone and poorer eastern EU states. One or even two smaller parties could find themselves kingmakers, wielding outsized influence as the Conservatives or Labour seek coalition partners or less formal support to prop up a minority government.
When it does, politicians from all parties will find the old ways of doing things will simply work no longer. Privately, they have put out feelers to understand what their options are if they fail. Since then, traditional social and ideological loyalties have waned; at the last election in their combined share of the vote was only Even then Cameron agreed with the Liberal Democrats on the first post-war coalition in just five days, compared with the months needed to form many continental European governments.
The combined Conservative and Labour vote has changed little since then - they are neck and neck in opinion polls with just over 30 percent support each. But backing for the Liberal Democrats has dived from 23 percent to 6 or 7 percent.
That means the major parties may have to turn to the likes of UKIP and the Scottish Nationalists who would make demands that are hard to satisfy. Cameron is promising a referendum in on whether to stay in the EU or leave, while Labour under leader Ed Miliband says it would call one only if Britain handed more power to Brussels.
Some pundits say Britain could suffer turbulence similar to the s when power changed hands three times via four national elections and four prime ministers. In two elections were needed before Labour won a parliamentary majority.
If the vote is inconclusive and no one can form a stable government, another might also soon follow. Labour is hoping to hoover up disenchanted Liberal Democrat supporters, but is likely to lose many of its own seats in Scotland to the SNP. The SNP has also cast itself, with some success, as the only force capable of delivering the additional autonomy that Scots want from the UK.
Although UKIP has attracted some disenchanted Labour voters, it has inflicted more damage on the Conservatives, drawing those who feel the governing party has become too socially liberal and are angry it failed to keep a pledge to cut immigration. Cameron promised to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. Instead, it is currently running atper year. Discover Thomson Reuters. Directory of sites. United Kingdom. David Cameron. Andrew Osborn.When an object moves in a circle at a constant speedits direction constantly changes.
A change in direction causes a change in velocity. This is because velocity is a vector quantity — it has an associated direction as well as a magnitude. A change in velocity results in accelerationso an object moving in a circle is accelerating even though its speed may be constant. An object will only accelerate if a resultant force acts on it.
For an object moving in a circle, this resultant force is the centripetal force that acts towards the middle of the circle. Gravitational attraction provides the centripetal force needed to keep planets and all types of satellite in orbit.
Artificial satellites travel in one of two different orbits:. Polar orbits take the satellites over the Earth's poles. Geostationary satellites take 24 hours to orbit the Earth, so the satellite appears to remain in the same part of the sky when viewed from the ground. Circular motion — Higher When an object moves in a circle at a constant speedits direction constantly changes. Example Force provided by Conker on a string Tension in the string on the conker Car on a roundabout Friction from the road on the tyres Satellite Gravitational pull of the Earth on the satellite Artificial satellites travel in one of two different orbits: polar orbits geostationary orbits Polar orbits take the satellites over the Earth's poles.
Conker on a string. Tension in the string on the conker. Car on a roundabout. Friction from the road on the tyres. Gravitational pull of the Earth on the satellite.Centripetal force is defined as the force acting on a body that is moving in a circular path that is directed toward the center around which the body moves.
The term comes from the Latin words centrum for "center" and peteremeaning "to seek. Centripetal force may be considered the center-seeking force. Its direction is orthogonal at a right angle to the motion of the body in the direction toward the center of curvature of the body's path.
Centripetal force alters the direction of an object's motion without changing its speed. While centripetal force acts to draw a body toward the center of the point of rotation, the centrifugal force "center-fleeing" force pushes away from the center.
The centripetal force allows a body to follow a circular path without flying off at a tangent by continuously acting at a right angle to its path.
In this way, it is acting upon the object as one of the forces in Newton's First Law, thus keeping the object's inertia. Newton's Second Law also applies in the case of the centripetal force requirement, which says that if an object is to move in a circle, the net force acting upon it must be inward.
Newton's Second Law says that an object being accelerated undergoes a net force, with the direction of the net force the same as the direction of the acceleration. For an object moving in a circle, the centripetal force the net force must be present to counter the centrifugal force. From the standpoint of a stationary object on the rotating frame of reference e.
The centripetal force acts on the body in motion, while the centrifugal force does not. For this reason, centrifugal force is sometimes called a "virtual" force. The mathematical representation of centripetal force was derived by Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens in For a body following a circular path at constant speed, the radius of the circle r equals the mass of the body m times the square of the velocity v divided by the centripetal force F :.
An important point you should note from the equation is that centripetal force is proportional to the square of velocity. This means doubling the speed of an object needs four times the centripetal force to keep the object moving in a circle. A practical example of this is seen when taking a sharp curve with an automobile. Here, friction is the only force keeping the vehicle's tires on the road. Increasing speed greatly increases force, so a skid becomes more likely. Also note the centripetal force calculation assumes no additional forces are acting on the object.The language of science is filled with words that are mysterious to everyday English users.
Yet, scientific literature relies on concision and careful word choice as much, if not more, than other kinds of writing. If you are writing about scientific topics, you will need to be able to keep track of the meanings of many confusing words.
Some of these words are superficially quite similar, like centrifugal force and centripetal force. Despite their appearance, these words actually mean opposite things.
To write one when you meant the other could be a serious and embarrassing mistake. In this post, I will compare centrifugal vs. I will use each of these words in at least one example sentence. Plus, I will explain a memory tool that you can use to help you choose centrifugal or centripetal when you need one of these words. What does centrifugal mean? Centrifugal is an adjective that describes a force that repels objects away from a center. Centrifugal is sometimes used figuratively, to describe something or someone that causes others to avoid it.
See the example below. What does centripetal mean? Centripetalon the other hand, is an adjective that describes a force that attracts objects toward a center.
Like centrifugalcentripetal can be used figuratively, like in the example below. Here is a helpful trick to remember centripetal vs. The word centrifugal is spelled with an F. Remember that centrifugal forces push objects far away.
Centrifugal vs. Centripetal – What’s the Difference?
Centripetal forces, spelled with a Ppull objects closer. In everyday English, centrifugal is more familiar than centripetal. Is it centrifugal or centrifugal?A centripetal force from Latin centrum"center" and petere"to seek"  is a force that makes a body follow a curved path.
Its direction is always orthogonal to the motion of the body and towards the fixed point of the instantaneous center of curvature of the path. Isaac Newton described it as "a force by which bodies are drawn or impelled, or in any way tend, towards a point as to a centre". One common example involving centripetal force is the case in which a body moves with uniform speed along a circular path. The centripetal force is directed at right angles to the motion and also along the radius towards the centre of the circular path.
The magnitude of the centripetal force on an object of mass m moving at tangential speed v along a path with radius of curvature r is: . The direction of the force is toward the center of the circle in which the object is moving, or the osculating circle the circle that best fits the local path of the object, if the path is not circular. The inverse relationship with the radius of curvature shows that half the radial distance requires twice the force. Expressed using the orbital period T for one revolution of the circle.
In particle accelerators, velocity can be very high close to the speed of light in vacuum so the same rest mass now exerts greater inertia relativistic mass thereby requiring greater force for the same centripetal acceleration, so the equation becomes:.
In the case of an object that is swinging around on the end of a rope in a horizontal plane, the centripetal force on the object is supplied by the tension of the rope.
The rope example is an example involving a 'pull' force. The centripetal force can also be supplied as a 'push' force, such as in the case where the normal reaction of a wall supplies the centripetal force for a wall of death rider. Newton 's idea of a centripetal force corresponds to what is nowadays referred to as a central force.
When a satellite is in orbit around a planetgravity is considered to be a centripetal force even though in the case of eccentric orbits, the gravitational force is directed towards the focus, and not towards the instantaneous center of curvature. Another example of centripetal force arises in the helix that is traced out when a charged particle moves in a uniform magnetic field in the absence of other external forces.
In this case, the magnetic force is the centripetal force that acts towards the helix axis. Below are three examples of increasing complexity, with derivations of the formulas governing velocity and acceleration. Uniform circular motion refers to the case of constant rate of rotation. Here are two approaches to describing this case. Assume uniform circular motionwhich requires three things. While objects naturally follow a straight path due to inertiathis centripetal acceleration describes the circular motion path caused by a centripetal force.
The image at right shows the vector relationships for uniform circular motion. Lagrange's formula states:.
In words, the acceleration is pointing directly opposite to the radial displacement r at all times, and has a magnitude:. This result agrees with the previous section, though the notation is slightly different.
When the rate of rotation is made constant in the analysis of nonuniform circular motionthat analysis agrees with this one. The upper panel in the image at right shows a ball in circular motion on a banked curve. The objective is to find what angle the bank must have so the ball does not slide off the road. Apart from any acceleration that might occur in the direction of the path, the lower panel of the image above indicates the forces on the ball. There are two forces; one is the force of gravity vertically downward through the center of mass of the ball m gwhere m is the mass of the ball and g is the gravitational acceleration ; the second is the upward normal force exerted by the road at a right angle to the road surface m a n.Introduction to centripetal force - AP Physics 1 - Khan Academy
The centripetal force demanded by the curved motion is also shown above. This centripetal force is not a third force applied to the ball, but rather must be provided by the net force on the ball resulting from vector addition of the normal force and the force of gravity. The resultant or net force on the ball found by vector addition of the normal force exerted by the road and vertical force due to gravity must equal the centripetal force dictated by the need to travel a circular path.
The curved motion is maintained so long as this net force provides the centripetal force requisite to the motion. Substituting into the above formula for F h yields a horizontal force to be:. On the other hand, at velocity v on a circular path of radius rkinematics says that the force needed to turn the ball continuously into the turn is the radially inward centripetal force F c of magnitude:.
Consequently, the ball is in a stable path when the angle of the road is set to satisfy the condition:. If friction cannot do this that is, the coefficient of friction is exceededthe ball slides to a different radius where the balance can be realized.To browse Academia.
Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. Tommaso M. Bethan Davies. John Benjamins Publishing Company This electronic file may not be altered in any way. For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center for USA: www. Please contact rights benjamins. With the help of the notions of language ideology and the analytical tools of multimodal critical discourse analysis, the paper shows how representa- tions of languages on the website are a discursive terrain on which negotiations of national identities are played out.
Essentially, the argument is that there is a constant tension between centripetal unifying and centrifugal particularis- ing forces which strive for the production of different, concomitant and often conflicting national identities.
Whereas the BBC seeks to represent the UK as a happy and unified multilingual nation, the many postings on the website show how multilingualism is not always perceived by speakers as a happy and unproblematic phenomenon, but is a politically-fraught issue that creates strong disagreements about the values of different languages in British society as well as their functions as markers of different national identities. Keywords: Critical Discourse Analysis, language ideology, multimodality, national identity, new media 1.
That the largest media provider in the UK embarked on an extensive project about language is perhaps not an extraordinary phenomenon per se. In our view, howev- er, there are two interrelated elements that single out the Voices project: 1 its openly celebratory aim of representing ethno-linguistic diversity in a time when multilingualism and multiculturalism have become deeply imbued with negative connotations in British public discourse BlackledgeBlackledge and Creese ; and 2 the reliance on old as well as new media technologies as tools with a nationally unifying function.
It is precisely the intersections between language representation and national identity in a new-media environment that will be brought under scrutiny in the present paper.
How to Find Centripetal Force
In particular, we have been moved by two main research questions: How is ethno-linguistic diversity represented both verbally and visually on the Voices website? And how is such diversity mobilised in the imagining Anderson of the nation? Before delving into this analysis, however, we want first to offer a brief historical back- ground to the Voices project, followed by a few reflections on the main theoretical and methodological premises that inform our arguments.
They recorded interviews with participants in different geographical ar- eas of the UK. Secondly, the website which accompanied the Voices programming did not act just as an electronic platform through which to publicise the project and showcase its findings.
Rather, this too was a strategic instrument for further data collection. Website users were encouraged to actively participate in a range of different online activities such as audio-based accent recognition tests or the sub- mission of regional dialect words and British Sign Language BSL signs through an electronic questionnaire.
This encompassed 19 sections, each of which was dedicated to a sociolinguistic topic and invited participation via an online discussion tool. Our main focus in this chapter will be on one of these sections, Multilingual Nation. All in all, material from the Voices project accounted for over hours of BBC radio airtime and minutes of television output with an estimated reach of Finally, the discussion forum on the website generated over 8, electronic sub- missions.As the more historically perceptive among you may have guessed, any article which involves comparing a state the Austro-Hungarian Empire is not going to end with a positive conclusion for that state.
In the case of Austria-Hungary, the centripetal forces included the army, the Church and — most importantly — the Emperor. The Empire defined itself by the acronym K. This served to create an identity which could overcome nationalisms, binding the Empire together through loyalty to a single institution. In turn, the centrifugal forces included local nationalisms and turmoil: Hungarian demands for further autonomy within the Empire; Bohemian rumblings for independence; Balkan banditry.
To look at the UK, we can trace similar centripetal institutions. The monarchy, for one, and a common parliament in Westminster. The sense, prevalent in quarters of the country, that the past eight years have consisted of a government throwing society onto the scrapheap for ideological reasons, and then seeking a scapegoat. Put simply, the idea that Britain has ceased to work for its inhabitants.
Britain sometimes appears as a pragmatic compromise — Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England have their own identities and institutions, but they work together through a sense that it is better to remain within a union than leave, and that a bit of shared institutional loyalty will help. The idea of Britain is quite weak.
As a result, Britain is held together by a sense of institutional competence and stability. The past few days have potentially done much to strengthen the centripetal forces. If the UK leaves the single market, but Northern Ireland remains under the backstop, then there will be a border in the Irish Sea so the centrifugal force increases. Additionally, if Northern Ireland is granted a single market backstop, then it will lead to a decline in investment in Scotland, fueling the pro-independence cause.
If the UK leaves with no backstop and a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, then the resulting instability in Northern Ireland will, again, increase the centrifugal forces.
And this is to say nothing of the impact the economic shocks of Brexit could have. But this discussion of the backstop and broader, slightly more abstract phenomenon — instability, economic shocks, etc. I said earlier that a competent government is the core of the British project; if there is a sense that the government is functional, competent, and treating the UK as a whole, rather than preferring a particular part, then the centripetal forces are strong.
When it is dysfunctional, incompetent, and seen to be ignoring a particular part or parts of the UK, then it can only weaken the project. Some governments are dysfunctional the Callaghan government, for example. Others are incompetent Eden, perhaps. Others still are perceived to prefer a particular part of the UK Thatcher, maybe. The current government is all three at once.
She is in a political mess: she has bricks flying at her from an incapable opposition, and seemingly half of her party angling for her job. As a side note, can we just sit back and consider the emotional vileness and childishness of that? Telling someone to metaphorically ready themselves for their execution?
If Theresa May was in the Premiership because she enjoyed it, she would have left long ago. She is surrounded by opponents, under fire from both extremes, and yet she continues to crack on.
For her, governing is not a game. Some of her Cabinet Ministers, on the other hand, have treated the whole business like some sort of House of Cards roleplay. They have spent months treating one of the great Offices of State like an insult comedy show with an expense account, before bailing on a summit with UK allies to have a resignation photoshoot and retiring to snipe in preparation for a leadership bid. They have spent the summer negotiating a plan, before resigning in a huff at the contents of that plan.
They have sniffed the breeze when colleagues resigned and smelt blood, before resigning in turn for a head-start in a future leadership contest. The actions of some former Cabinet ministers — Johnson, Raab, and McVey, for example — have demonstrated a singular disregard for the requirements of their offices and the demands of political duty.