Undergrad Unraveling the Confusion: Coriolis Effect on a Frictionless Air-Hockey Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter peanutaxis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confusion Coriolis
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Coriolis effect in a hypothetical frictionless air-hockey Earth scenario. Participants debate whether an air hockey puck, when shoved northward from New York, would trace a sinusoidal path similar to that of satellites or small circles as depicted in Wikipedia articles on the Coriolis effect. Key points include the distinction between Coriolis and centrifugal forces, with participants asserting that the puck would follow a great circle path due to gravity, contradicting the small circle representation. The conversation highlights the complexities of motion in rotating reference frames.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Coriolis effect
  • Familiarity with centrifugal force concepts
  • Knowledge of reference frames in physics
  • Basic principles of projectile motion
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical formulation of the Coriolis effect
  • Study the relationship between centrifugal force and Coriolis force
  • Explore the dynamics of motion in rotating reference frames
  • Investigate the behavior of projectiles in varying gravitational fields
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of motion in rotating systems and the implications of the Coriolis effect on trajectory analysis.

peanutaxis
Messages
26
Reaction score
3
If Earth was turned into an air-hockey planet, with no friction (or air friction), and I was in New York and I shoved an air hockey puck North, would the hockey puck trace out the same sinusoidal-type path that a satellite/space station does (spending an equal amount of time in the northern and southern hemispheres), or would it trace out one of the little circles in the picture on the right of this section of this article on the Coriolis Effect?

Something doesn't add up. If the puck would just do a small circle, then why don't space stations do small circles? For they are only 400km up? And if it would do space-station sinusoidal circles, then what the hell is with the Wiki article on Coriolis?!?

Thanks.

EDIT: "The coriolis force has no effect on the motion of an object when viewed from a non-rotating reference frame."
There is no way those small circles in the Wikipedia article are correct, because if they are, then what the hell is keeping my frictionless puck above the equator? There are no forces except gravity acting on my puck, so it is tracing a great circle which must dip below the equator.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
peanutaxis said:
There is no way those small circles in the Wikipedia article are correct
I think it considers only Coriolis, not centrifugal force. Also wind speed of 70 m/s, much less than a low orbit satellite.
 
Last edited:
A.T. said:
I think it considers only Coriolis, not centrifugal force. Also wind speed of 70 m/s, much less than a low orbit satellite.

My understanding is that the centrifugal force IS the Coriolis force. If you fire a frictionless bullet North from NY then it will curve to the West because the ground beneath it is moving slower than the latitude from which it was fired, and that this is the same as saying it will move in a Great Circle, and that this is the same as saying "The Coriolis force has no effect on the motion of an object when viewed from a non-rotating reference frame."
 
peanutaxis said:
My understanding is that the centrifugal force IS the Coriolis force.
No

peanutaxis said:
"The Coriolis force has no effect on the motion of an object when viewed from a non-rotating reference frame."
Yes, but the circles are paths in the rotating frame.
 
A.T. said:
No

Yes, but the circles are paths in the rotating frame.

Ah, okay. Thanks. Looks like I have more thinking to do. :)
 
peanutaxis said:
Ah, okay. Thanks. Looks like I have more thinking to do. :)

This might help:

 

Thread 'Does acceleration affect impact energy vs constant velocity?'

I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...
View full post »

Similar threads

Undergrad How Does the Coriolis Effect Influence Great Circle Motion on Earth?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Coriolis Effect for a level surface on Earth
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Coriolis Force and the Earth's Rotation,
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Trying to Understand the Coriolis Effect: Why West-to-East Air Parcels Go South
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
Unraveling the Mysteries of Air Deflection & Angular Momentum
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Undergrad On whether the motion of a Foucault pendulum bob is comparable to ballistics
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Coriolis forces, rotating coordinate systems
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Coriolis effect - polarised gravity?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
7K
Confusion spinning falling objects vs spinning objects
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Earth Day - My Contact Experience
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K