Coriolis force, real or just an illusion?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the Coriolis force, particularly in the context of hurricanes and other rotating systems. Participants explore whether the Coriolis effect is a real force or merely an illusion resulting from different frames of reference. The conversation touches on theoretical concepts, practical examples, and the implications of fictitious forces in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether hurricanes truly rotate or if their rotation is an optical illusion due to the observer's frame of reference.
  • There is a suggestion that hurricanes are complex systems influenced by multiple forces, making them unsuitable for simple mechanical explanations.
  • One participant proposes a thought experiment involving a cannonball to illustrate the experience of centrifugal force in a rotating frame.
  • Another participant asserts that hurricanes do rotate, but argues that discussing centrifugal force in this context may not be meaningful.
  • Some participants express that the Coriolis force is a fictitious force that arises in non-inertial frames, while others argue it is a real effect observed in meteorology.
  • There is a discussion about the existence of the Coriolis force at the equator, with references to the Eötvös effect and its implications for objects moving along the same latitude.
  • Participants debate the terminology surrounding fictitious forces, with some suggesting that the term is misleading and advocating for the use of "inertial forces" instead.
  • One participant shares a ballistic calculation example to illustrate the effects of the Earth's rotation on projectile motion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views on the nature of the Coriolis force and its implications. Participants express differing opinions on whether it is a real force or an illusion, and there is no consensus on the terminology used to describe these forces.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of fluid dynamics and the need for careful consideration of reference frames when discussing forces like the Coriolis effect. There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions and interpretations of fictitious forces versus inertial forces.

  • #91
Change in pressure said:
hause high 50km at equator

C(equator)=2r x 3.14 = 2 x 6371km x 3.14 =40 009km / 24h = 1667km/h

C(ball)= 2r x 3.14 = 2 x (6371km+50km) x3.14 =40323km /24h = 1680km/h
1680-1667=13km/h

top of hause travel 13km/h faster then bottom...

so this 13km/h is additional velocity which ball have in east direction


with this information we can calculate how far east will ball hit the ground....
Given the time of fall, yes. Note that the proposed calculation does not depend at all on the radius of the earth. The 6371 cancels out.

But that's the inertial frame calculation. In the rotating frame there is no difference in velocity. The explanation for the deviation in the landing point derives from Coriolis instead.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Change in pressure said:
so this 13km/h is additional velocity which ball have in east direction

with this information we can calculate how far east will ball hit the ground....
Approximately. For a more precise calculation in the inertial frame you would find the intersection of the elliptical orbit with the curved surface.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • · Replies 114 ·
4
Replies
114
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K