What Are Fictitious Forces and How Do They Affect Falling Objects?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of fictitious forces in non-inertial reference frames, particularly the Coriolis force affecting a dropped object. When an object is dropped from a height, it retains an eastward velocity due to the Earth's rotation, resulting in a perceived eastward deflection relative to the ground. The top of a building moves faster eastward than the bottom because of its greater distance from the Earth's center, leading to this effect. Participants clarify that fictitious forces arise when analyzing motion from non-inertial frames, emphasizing that all reference frames are valid for observation. Understanding these concepts is essential for grasping classical mechanics and the behavior of objects in rotating systems.
electricspit
Messages
66
Reaction score
4
Hey!

I was wondering about the concept of fictitious forces. I'm studying classical mechanics right now and we've made our way to non-inertial reference frames.

One major problem I have is trying to understand the Coriolis force for an object falling. I understand that if an object is traveling North it will be deflected East and that if it is traveling South it will be deflected West because of the differences in speeds as it crosses across the Earth. The major problem is when you drop an object say from a very high structure (with no wind resistance, etc) it will be deflected to the East! This doesn't make any sense at all physically, unless I'm missing some major linking point.

Could anyone clarify what is actually happening? Or is this some weird thing about observing this happening from an inertial reference frame. I'm still not quite clear on that concept either.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
electricspit said:
The major problem is when you drop an object say from a very high structure (with no wind resistance, etc) it will be deflected to the East! This doesn't make any sense at all physically, unless I'm missing some major linking point.

The Earth has a radius of 6200 kilometers, and it turns on its axis once every 24 hours.

Therefore, a point on the ground at the equator moves ##2\pi{R} = 38955## km in 24 hours, for a speed of .4508 km/sec. Now consider the top of a building 1 kilometer high at the equator; the top of the building is one km further away from the center of the Earth so ##R = 6201## km and it moves 38961 km in 24 hours, or about .4509 km/sec. So an object dropped from the top of the tower will be have an eastwards speed of .4509 while the point on the ground underneath it is moving eastwards at only .4508 km/sec.

Net, the dropped object is moving east relative to the ground underneath it.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
electricspit said:
The major problem is when you drop an object say from a very high structure (with no wind resistance, etc) it will be deflected to the East! This doesn't make any sense at all physically, unless I'm missing some major linking point.

Could anyone clarify what is actually happening? Or is this some weird thing about observing this happening from an inertial reference frame. I'm still not quite clear on that concept either.

The building from which you drop the object is rotating once every 23 hours and 56 minutes because it is solidly attached to the rotating earth. As judged from an inertial frame, the top of the building is moving toward the east faster than the bottom of the building. So naturally an object dropped from the top of the building will be traveling to the east when referenced against the bottom of the building.

Fictitious forces appear when trying to explain an objects apparent motion referenced against a non-inertial frame. The rotating building defines a non-inertial frame.

[Drat, Nugatory beat me to it]
 
Last edited:
This clears everything up thank you. It makes sense now looking back on the derivation for a rotating coordinate system that a force will be apparent due to the particle moving in the rotating system just based on the change in angular momentum.

Edit: It's okay, you're both helpful. All this reference frame stuff is a fairly new concept for me so I'm just trying to get an idea of how things work. I'm still confused about observing frames vs. the actual frame the object is moving in.
 
electricspit said:
Edit: It's okay, you're both helpful. All this reference frame stuff is a fairly new concept for me so I'm just trying to get an idea of how things work. I'm still confused about observing frames vs. the actual frame the object is moving in.

There is no such thing as the "actual frame the object is moving in". The choice of coordinate system is arbitrary. To use your terminology, they're all "observing" frames.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top