Replacing "inertial" with "elastoid-inertial" in rotating systems

Click For Summary

SUMMARY

The discussion establishes that the term "elastoid-inertial" was originally used in 1959 to describe oscillations in rotating systems, accurately capturing the physics behind the Coriolis-only mode. This terminology was replaced by "inertial" following Greenspan's 1968 work on rotating fluids, despite earlier recognition by Bjerknes and Fultz. The Coriolis force in rotating systems directly signals an elastoid-inertial mode, a concept reaffirmed by Phillips in 2000. The conclusion advocates reinstating "elastoid-inertial" to better reflect the underlying physics in rotating system analyses.

PREREQUISITES

  • Understanding of Coriolis force in rotating fluid dynamics
  • Familiarity with Greenspan's 1968 "The Theory of Rotating Fluids"
  • Knowledge of elastoid-inertial oscillation theory as presented in 1959 atmospheric science literature
  • Awareness of Phillips' 2000 analysis of elastoid-inertial modes in geophysical fluid dynamics

NEXT STEPS

  • Review Greenspan's 1968 "The Theory of Rotating Fluids" for terminology evolution
  • Analyze the 1959 Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences paper on elastoid-inertial oscillations
  • Study Phillips' 2000 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society article on elastoid-inertial modes
  • Investigate the historical usage of elastoid-inertial terminology by Bjerknes and Fultz pre-1968

USEFUL FOR

Researchers and professionals in geophysical fluid dynamics, atmospheric scientists studying rotating systems, and historians of physics terminology in fluid mechanics will benefit from this discussion. It is essential for those analyzing Coriolis force effects and oscillation modes in rotating fluids.

Simon F
Messages
20
Reaction score
2
In 1959, rotating systems were still studied through "elastoid-inertial" oscillations.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/16/2/1520-0469_1959_016_0199_anooat_2_0_co_2.pdf

This expression was clever and profoundly meaningful because it exactly describes what physics lies behind the Coriolis-only mode. Each time you see the Coriolis force in physically rotating systems, it is a signal of an elastoid-inertial mode.

It happens that from the 60s, notably with 1968 Greenspan's influential book on rotating fluids, "elastoid-inertial" was changed for "inertial".

I thought that only recent scientists like Phillips (2000) discovered the real physics of the elastoid-inertial mode.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/81/2/1520-0477_2000_081_0299_aeotce_2_3_co_2.xml
but correct words were already there in the words of Bjerknes and Fultz before 1968.

I think it would be again clever and profoundly meaningful to go back to the origins and replace back "inertial" with "elastoid-inertial" about physics of the rotating systems.
 
Reply
  • Sad
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
Science news on Phys.org
I thought that such things were studied in the first year of mathematics and physics departments at universities, rather than in research articles. I mean the paper by Norman A. Phillips (2000)
 
Simon F said:
Each time you see the Coriolis force in physically rotating systems, it is a signal of an elastoid-inertial mode.
...
I think it would be again clever and profoundly meaningful to go back to the origins and replace back "inertial" with "elastoid-inertial" about physics of the rotating systems.
I took a look at your two references and several other papers cited therein. All of them represent discussions of the Coriolis force in the context of meteorology and atmospheric/oceanic studies, i.e., they study rotating fluids. Why should the broader analysis of physical systems (i.e., particles and fields) in arbitrary rotating frames adopt fluid-specific adjectives like "elastoid-inertial" instead of the more general "inertial"? Or do you mean to confine this idiosyncratic terminology strictly to fluid dynamics?
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bystander, berkeman and weirdoguy
renormalize said:
All of them represent discussions of the Coriolis force in the context of meteorology and atmospheric/oceanic studies, i.e., they study rotating fluids.

Yes, and based on that and ALL your posts and threads @Simon F , I don't really think you understand what they are talking about. You have some weird obsession about Coriolis, but nothing you cite agrees with what you are trying to say (or at least I think you are trying to say): that physicists are doing something wrong regarding Coriolis. What is wrong is your understanding of how things are done.
 
Reply
  • Agree
Likes   Reactions: Bystander