How Does the Coriolis Effect Influence Falling Objects at the Equator?

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
40 replies · 10K views
TSny said:
Looks good except for a missing factor of R in D=(θ−{θEarth=ωt})D=(θ−{θEarth=ωt})D = \left(\theta - \{\theta_{Earth} = \omega t\} \right). (Note that your final answer for D does not have the dimensions of distance).
Oh, yes.
##\\ \text { Hence , the deflection D} ~ = R \left(\theta - \{\theta_{Earth} = \omega t\} \right) \\ = R\omega \frac g{3\left ( h+R\right) } t^3 = R\omega \frac{2 h }{3\left ( h+R\right) } \sqrt {\frac {2h}g}

D = \frac{2 }{3 } h \omega \sqrt {\frac {2h}g}##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Pushoam said:
##\
\\ \text { Hence , the deflection D} ~ = \left(\theta - \{\theta_{Earth} = \omega t\} \right)
##
You wanted the solution in the Earth's frame of reference. With respect to the rotating Earth, thetaEarth =0. The Earth does not rotate with respect to itself.
 
ehild said:
You wanted the solution in the Earth's frame of reference. With respect to the rotating Earth, thetaEarth =0. The Earth does not rotate with respect to itself.
No, it is wrt an inertial frame. Please look at post #{4,22,25,28,29,30,31}
 
ehild said:
You wanted the solution in the Earth's frame of reference. With respect to the rotating Earth, thetaEarth =0. The Earth does not rotate with respect to itself.
Pushoam wanted to work the problem two ways: one way using an inertial frame and one way using the Earth frame. The various posts for the two methods got interlaced. Sorry for the confusion.
 
Pushoam said:
Oh, yes.
##\\ \text { Hence , the deflection D} ~ = R \left(\theta - \{\theta_{Earth} = \omega t\} \right) \\ = R\omega \frac g{3\left ( h+R\right) } t^3 = R\omega \frac{2 h }{3\left ( h+R\right) } \sqrt {\frac {2h}g}

D = \frac{2 }{3 } h \omega \sqrt {\frac {2h}g}##
That's it.
 
Pushoam said:
No, it is wrt an inertial frame. Please look at post #{4,22,25,28,29,30,31}
See your post #20.
Now I am trying to solve it wrt the Earth's frame.
. You have the solution in the inertial frame of reference in Post #16. How would you solve in the Earth's frame of reference, using the pseudo forces?
 
ehild said:
See your post #20. . You have the solution in the inertial frame of reference in Post #16. How would you solve in the Earth's frame of reference, using the pseudo forces?
Pushoam's solution in #16 is for the inertial frame using Cartesian coordinates. At the end of that post, she asks if using Cartesian coordinates simplified the problem compared to using cylindrical coordinates (as first attempted in post #4). So, posts {4,22,25,28,29,30,31} develop the solution in the inertial frame using cylindrical coordinates.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Pushoam
Continuing from the post #{20 ,21,23,24}
Pushoam said:
Now I am trying to solve it wrt the Earth's frame.

The sub-script n implies that the corresponding quantity is measured wrt the Earth's frame.

Now, Considering cylindrical co. system with its origin coinciding with the center of the Earth,

in which I started solving the problem wrt. the Earth's frame,
##\vec F_n = \vec F_{ph} + \vec F_{pseudo} = m\vec g + m \omega ^2 r~\hat r - 2m \vec \omega \times\vec v_n

\\\vec a_n = \{g- \omega ^2 r\} \left (- \hat r \right ) - 2 \vec \omega \times\vec v_n
\\ \text {ignoring }~\omega^2 r,
\\ \vec a_n = g \left (- \hat r \right ) - 2 \vec \omega \times\vec v_n
\\ \text{Now , how to relate } \vec a_n~ and ~\vec v_n \text{ with their unit vectors? }##

##\\ \text {Initially, the mass has no angular velocity.}

\\ \text{ I assume that the mass gets angular velocity as time of motion increases.
Then,}
\\ \vec v_n = \dot r \hat r + r \dot \Theta \hat \Theta
\\ \text{ I am using }\Theta \text { for the angular displacement wrt the Earth's frame }
\\ \vec a_n =\{ \ddot r - r {\dot \Theta}^2 \} \left( - \hat r \right) + \{2\dot r \dot \Theta + r \ddot \Theta\}\hat \Theta

\\ \text {
Is this correct so far?}

##
 
Pushoam said:
##\\ \text {ignoring }~\omega^2 r,
\\ \vec a_n = g \left (- \hat r \right ) - 2 \vec \omega \times\vec v_n##
##\\ \vec v_n = \dot r \hat r + r \dot \Theta \hat \Theta

\\ \vec a_n =\{ \ddot r - r {\dot \Theta}^2 \} \left( - \hat r \right) + \{2\dot r \dot \Theta + r \ddot \Theta\}\hat \Theta

\\ \text {
Is this correct so far?}

##
Yes. ehild has outlined the solution in #15 using Cartesian coordinates in the Earth frame.
 
Pushoam said:
##\\ \vec a_n =\{ \ddot r - r {\dot \Theta}^2 \} \left( - \hat r \right) + \{2\dot r \dot \Theta + r \ddot \Theta\}\hat \Theta

\\ \text {
Is this correct so far? }##

There is a sign mistake there ## - \hat r##. The correct one is
##\\ \vec a_n =\{ \ddot r - r {\dot \Theta}^2 \} \hat r + \{2\dot r \dot \Theta + r \ddot \Theta\}\hat \Theta ##

## \{ \ddot r - r {\dot \Theta}^2 \} \hat r + \{2\dot r \dot \Theta + r \ddot \Theta\}\hat \Theta = g\left(-\hat r\right ) - 2\omega\dot r \hat \Theta + 2\omega r \dot \Theta \hat r
##

##\{ \ddot r - r {\dot \Theta}^2 \} = -g + 2\omega r \dot \Theta ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \text{ eqn 1}
\\ \{2\dot r \dot \Theta + r \ddot \Theta\}= - 2\omega\dot r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \text{ eqn 2}

\\ \text { considering eqn. 1,}##
##\\
\\ \text{ ignoring } r {\dot \Theta}^2 ~and~ 2\omega r \dot \Theta ,##
##\\ \text { Here, I understand that since ω is very small,we can ignore } 2\omega r \dot \Theta \text{ but what does allow us to ignore } r {\dot \Theta}^2 ##
## \\
\\ \ddot r =-g ~gives ~r = C - ½ gt^2, \text{where C is an appropriate constant }##
##\\
\\ \text { considering eqn. 2,}
\\
\\ \text{ ignoring } - 2\omega\dot r , ~ we ~have,
\\
2\dot r \dot \Theta =- r \ddot \Theta
\\ \frac {gt} { C-½ gt^2 } dt = \frac {d \dot \Theta}{\dot \Theta}

\\ \text{ Is this correct so far?}
##
 
Last edited:
Pushoam said:
There is a sign mistake there ## - \hat r##. The correct one is
##\\ \vec a_n =\{ \ddot r - r {\dot \Theta}^2 \} \hat r + \{2\dot r \dot \Theta + r \ddot \Theta\}\hat \Theta ##
Yes. Good.