Coriolis Effect--Science or Superstition?

[Pyrotex]

...What exactly does "inertial frame" mean?

I am SO glad you asked!

 

I will give you the simple explanation. Newton gave us three "laws" of motion. For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. Force = mass times acceleration. Force of gravity = mass1 * mass2 / distance squared.

 

Now, we normally calculate these things against a "frame" or a coordinate system, XYZ for example. I'm at location x1y1z1 and YOU are at location x2y2z2. But this coordinate system, this "frame of reference" -- what is it doing? How is it moving relative to, say, the backdrop of distant galaxies?

 

If it is rotating about its Y axis, then Newton's Laws do NOT compute!! Kryckers!! If the frame of reference is moving at a uniform velocity in a constant direction, the Laws DO compute. But if the frame of reference is being accelerated in some direction, the Laws DON'T coompute!!

 

WTF is going on here? :hihi: The coordinate system you must use to have Newton's Laws compute properly must not be rotating or undergoing any acceleration. If this is the case, then Newton's Laws WORK, and we call the coordinate system, an "inertial frame".

[Pyrotex]

...Controversy? Yeah, well, today we "know" that Earth is rotating and we take it for granted, otherwise things would be less obvious. Actually, the matter is quite subtle. ...

The Earth is rotating. Therefore any coordinate system "fixed" to any point on the Earth's surface CANNOT be an inertial frame.

 

However...the Earth rotates sloooooooowly. So if you're measuring a physical experiment that only takes a couple of minutes or less, the DIFFERENCE between calculations made relative to Earth's surface AND calculations made relative to a TRUE inertial frame will be SMALL.

 

The shorter your experiment, the smaller this difference will be. You can make the difference vanishingly small if you choose your experiment well. That is why experiments that DO measure/reveal/expose the Coriolis force (like the Foucalt Pendulum -- and hurricanes) do so only over extended periods of time. Like, several hours at least.

[TheBigDog]

Maybe this would be a good physics experiment for Amber. She can write it up and settle this for us all.

 

Bill

[Qfwfq]

Newton gave us three "laws" of motion. For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. Force = mass times acceleration. Force of gravity = mass1 * mass2 / distance squared.

Have you ever given Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica a read? Those are not exactly the three axioms.

[Pyrotex]

Have you ever given Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica a read? Those are not exactly the three axioms.

I tried. The PM is a tough and brutal read. Especially following all the hand-drawn geometrical diagrams. I wish he had used algebra.

 

And you are right, I'm sure. So pray tell, what ARE the "3 laws of motion" in their proper order?

[Erasmus00]

I tried. The PM is a tough and brutal read. Especially following all the hand-drawn geometrical diagrams. I wish he had used algebra.

 

Yea, I'm pretty sure one big reason that the continent made so many important scientific advances ahead of England was England's deep attachment to Newton's method. I think it takes quite the genius to develop things that way. Any fool such as myself can manipulate Leibniz symbolic notation. Although going back and reading Newton helped me to develop more of an appreciation for the fact that calculus really is just a short hand way of doing geometry.

-Will

[Qfwfq]

The PM is a tough and brutal read.

Tough and brutal? :cup:

 

So pray tell, what ARE the "3 laws of motion" in their proper order?

The first is that a body, without application of exernal force, will maintain its state, either rest or a given velocity.

 

Basically, I was last minute posting so I justed poked fun at your teaching effort. :)

 

It would take time to dwell upon the subtley of the matter of the principle of relativity and inertial frames and the differences between the epistemological views of now and back then, as well as what could be reasonably claimed in those days when "the fixed stars" were as mysterious as the Big Bang is today.

 

I can understand if TheBigDog can't see what all the controversy is about. It is more surprising that CNG, today, can't get the difference but then, we are accustomed to taking for granted our understanding of physics.

 

However, try reading the discussion between Galileo's characters, leading up to the historic statement of the principle of relativity and Newton's discussions leading up to it. You might realize it's a bit on the subtle side. By the time of Mach, the principle came to be accepted, and radicated, in its strongest sense i. e. "there is no such thing as absolute rest". In the days of Galileo and Newton, quite aside from the different epistemological views and the old habit of conception, how boldly and assertively could they have stated the strongest form of the principle, based on known tangible evidence? Even today, for somebody without the right grounding, arguments about inertial frames may seem somewhat circular.

[TheBigDog]

It can happen to all of us Pyrotex. Cheers. :singer:

 

Another classic test is to drop a lead weight off a very high tower on a widless day. Actually the tower would need to be very, very tall but the effect can be discerned if things are done properly. Try thinking about what will happen.

 

Controversy? Yeah, well, today we "know" that Earth is rotating and we take it for granted, otherwise things would be less obvious. Actually, the matter is quite subtle. What exactly does "inertial frame" mean?

OK Q, I have given this a bit of thought... I hope enough thought. VERY tall tower, lead ball... hmmm...

 

The ball would be travelling at the speed of the top of the tower when it was released, this means that it is travelling faster than the ground at the base of the tower. As the ball accellerates toward the ground it would drift away from the tower in the direction of the rotation of the earth. Because of the relativly small differences in velocity between the top and bottom of a typical tower and the other difficult to control forces this would be very difficult to create, but it is true in theory.

 

Is that right Qfwfq?

 

Bill

[Pyrotex]

...The ball would be travelling at the speed of the top of the tower when it was released, this means that it is travelling faster than the ground at the base of the tower. As the ball accellerates toward the ground it would drift away from the tower in the direction of the rotation of the earth.

You are correct.

Think of it this way. Tower. BIG tower. Lead ball. Lead ball is traveling at some tangential velocity greater than Earth surface velocity directly under ball. Now imagine that the Tower... disappears! Lead ball falls in an ELLIPSE with one 'focus' being the Earth's center.

 

This means that the tangential velocity decreases to zero at some point in its fall, and eventually acquires a REVERSE tangential velocity at the other extreme end of the ellipse. Probably a greater velocity, as it would be damn close to the Earth's center. This would all play out in reverse as the ball climbed back to its "original" point.

 

As seen from the base of the tower, the ball would appear to go "forward" in the sky (same direction as Earth's rotation), at least for a time, before impacting Earth at some remove from the tower. If the tower was tall enough (say, equal to 1 Earth radii), the ball MAY appear to "stop" in the sky and start going "backward" in the sky before impact. But that is a tough problem to solve, IMHO, GAAPMW.

 

*Go Ahead And Prove Me Wrong :Waldo:

[cnewtongifford]

OK The ball would be travelling at the speed of the top of the tower when it was released, Is that right Qfwfq?

Bill

 

Pardon me, please. That is NOT right-- which is the point I have been trying to provoke thought about from day one.

 

Unfortunately, pedants like Erasmus can't get past their own egos--they must be inherently incapable of performing any CRITICAL THINKING about ANY point about which they have already formed an opinion.

 

To get my point about Coriolis you would have to approach the issue with

1) aptitude 2) hellacious determination 3) confidence in your OWN ability to reason things out, & 4) unyielding intellectual integrity. Which, regretably, really narrows the target audience.

 

It seems obvious to me--but I have STUDIED it for ten years. The smarmy pedants who have been poo-pooing this whole issue have not STUDIED the problem for even TEN MINUTES.

 

What is so hard about the difference between MOTION THROUGH SPACE and MOTION THROUGH A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? There is no motion event or experiment which takes place inside Earth's gravitational field which is even comparable, much less analogous, to Earth's MOTION THROUGH SPACE.

 

The only thing comparable in our experience occurs OUTSIDE the gravitational field--shuttles and satellites and space probes launched from here.

 

An object moving through space possesses neither potential nor kinetic energy. It just kind of drifts, consuming no energy. There may be a better term, but I think of the energy which powers a satellite in its orbit as SUSPENDED energy--something totally alien to our Earthly experience, where every geographic shift can be explained in terms of energy, force and work & for every action there IS an equal and opposite reaction.

 

Just because Earth is known to rotate does not mean that that rotation works by the same rules that apply to Earthly motion events.

 

A lead ball dropped from the tallest tower would fall straight down, acted upon solely by G, which works on straight lines inside a G field. If you spend enough time in the library you'll find that this shot tower example--& EVERY single other "proof" of Coriolis--is nakedly hypothetical.

 

Transposing characteristics of intra-Earth motion to intra-Space motion is simply bad science. The SPACE SPEED of any point in Earth's surface is of absolutely NO PHYSICAL RELEVANCE to anything IN Earth.

 

PLEASE, people. It's high time for at least one other thinker to get involved here.

 

Thanks, CNG

[Qfwfq]

You are welcome to hold your unconventional opinions and disagree with the accepted ones but you must not be rude and abrasive when you disagree with others.

 

Please read the rules of this forum.

[TheBigDog]

Transposing characteristics of intra-Earth motion to intra-Space motion is simply bad science. The SPACE SPEED of any point in Earth's surface is of absolutely NO PHYSICAL RELEVANCE to anything IN Earth.

 

PLEASE, people. It's high time for at least one other thinker to get involved here.

 

Thanks, CNG

CGN,

 

You have repeatedly claimed that no qualified professionals would answer your questions, yet on this thread there have been a dozen or more direct answers from people who fit the precise qualifications that you demand. Yet when they answer your questions you simply brush them off as being wrong.

 

As for myself, I am, if nothing else, a highly rational and critical thinker. I would give you the benefit of the doubt on this as well, but you remind me of a creationist on a evolution thread. No evidence is good enough. No argument rational enough. No science valid enough. You have a specific agenda, and nothing is going to prove otherwise.

 

I read this thread from the beginning with very little knowledge of Coriolis effect, and absorbed what I could from the posts, from your own website, and from other on line sources. I must say that you make a strong argument, until the weight of the other side is considered as well. From everything I have read here, I would conclude that Coriolis Effect is real science, and that Newton is still a genius. If you wish to continue to try and persuade me otherwise, please answer these questions for me...

 

• Where would the transition from "IN Earth" to "IN Space" take place?
  
• What are the physical forces that delineate the difference?
  
• Is it a progressive transition, or a sudden transition?
  

 

Bill

[Qfwfq]

The ball would be travelling at the speed of the top of the tower when it was released, this means that it is travelling faster than the ground at the base of the tower. As the ball accellerates toward the ground it would drift away from the tower in the direction of the rotation of the earth. Because of the relativly small differences in velocity between the top and bottom of a typical tower and the other difficult to control forces this would be very difficult to create, but it is true in theory.

 

Is that right Qfwfq?

As Pyro said, that is quite right.

 

It would take a kilometre high tower at the equator to give an eastward drift of 1 metre. To get an eastward centimetre, a height of 45.556 metres suffices, again at the equator. This means that in good conditions you could actually see a small difference by comparing with a plumb line.

[Pyrotex]

...It seems obvious to me--but I have STUDIED it for ten years. The smarmy pedants who have been poo-pooing this whole issue have not STUDIED the problem for even TEN MINUTES.

I had a friend who had studied Astrology for twenty years. I was able to demonstrate in twenty minutes that his entire body of reasoning was bogus. His eyes glazed over and he never spoke to me again. He still believes in it.

What is so hard about the difference between MOTION THROUGH SPACE and MOTION THROUGH A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? There is no motion event or experiment which takes place inside Earth's gravitational field which is even comparable, much less analogous, to Earth's MOTION THROUGH SPACE. The only thing comparable in our experience occurs OUTSIDE the gravitational field--shuttles and satellites and space probes launched from here. An object moving through space possesses neither potential nor kinetic energy. It just kind of drifts, consuming no energy.

It's statements like these that demonstrate clearly that your grasp of physics is so tenuous as to be non-existant. Motion is motion. Distance traveled divided by time elapsed. Period. It's the same in or out of gravitational fields. All it takes is a meter stick and a stopwatch.

 

Satellites are NOT outside the Earth's gravitational field. There is no boundary. Force of gravity varies as the inverse of distance squared. YOU are about 4000 miles from the Earth's center. The satellite is about 4400 miles from the Earth's center. That's 10% further. Therefore the force of gravity is only 1% less for that satellite than it is for YOU.

 

You repeatedly ignore the basic definitions of physics. Kinetic energy is not something that a moving body "consumes". Kinetic energy is simply the potential that that moving body has for doing work. A car coasting down a hill with the engine OFF can do work. It can knock down a telephone pole. That's "work". The car's engine is OFF. How did it accomplish that "work"? By virtue of its velocity. Or velocity times mass = "momentum". Or 1/2 velocity squared times mass = "kinetic energy".

 

... It's high time for at least one other thinker to get involved here.

There are several thinkers here. And even a NASA "rocket scientist". But you fail to grasp even the simplest concepts. You don't comprehend the basic terminology of "energy", "motion", "frame of reference", "force". You can't even repeat back to us what we have offered, so that it is clear you understand what we said, in order to demonstrate that you can intelligently disagree with us.

 

Statements like: "There is no motion event or experiment which takes place inside Earth's gravitational field which is even comparable, much less analogous, to Earth's MOTION THROUGH SPACE" are meaningless. I'm sorry, but it is techno-jibberish. That is why we will not and can not take you seriously.

 

Cgifford, I was really, really tempted to flame you, but I haven't. Nor am I attempting to change your mind or convince you. I see now that it is as impossible as it was to change my friend's mind about Astrology. You have devoted YEARS to this subject, creating your own definitions and your own equations, and your own private fantasy realm of "laws".

 

But they don't work in describing the real world, or real rocket launches, or real hurricanes, or real experiments. I am sorry. I am truly, truly sorry, my friend. But the evidence against you is so vastly, hugely, humongously greater than you realize. I'm gonna leave you alone now. If the others want to continue fencing with you, they are free to do so. But I have better things to do. Bye.

[Pyrotex]

...To get an eastward centimetre, a height of 45.556 metres suffices, again at the equator. This means that in good conditions you could actually see a small difference by comparing with a plumb line.

Great!! But a tiny doubt crept up in my widdle mind.

The plumb line. The plumb is traveling in an "orbit" 45+ meters smaller radius than the top of the tower. So it would "want" to travel a bit faster. Maybe it would tug forward about a centimeter to reach equilibrium. This is all conjecture. What do you think???? :) :) :hihi:

[CraigD]

OK The ball would be travelling at the speed of the top of the tower when it was released, Is that right Qfwfq?

Bill

Pardon me, please. That is NOT right-- which is the point I have been trying to provoke thought about from day one.

As this statement seems to be central to you argument, cnewtongifford, can you explain why the ball would not be traveling at the speed of the top of the tower when it is released? :hihi:

 

For the sake of simplicity, let’s choose units and 3-dimensional coordinate system so that the velocity of the “top of the tower” – more precisely, of the “hand” gripping the ball at the instant of its release – has a velocity vector of (1,0,0) at the instant the ball is released. I’m completely unable, using conventional Newtonian mechanics or common sense, to conceive that the ball has velocity other than (1,0,0) also. The force of gravity and the shape and mass of the Earth, tower, and ball appear irrelevant to the assertion that tower top and ball have the same velocity at the instant the ball is released.

[Pyrotex]

...For the sake of simplicity, let’s choose units and 3-dimensional coordinate system so that the velocity of the “top of the tower” ...

Craig, once you said "units", "coordinate system" and "velocity" you lost him. Have a look at his profile and link to his website. It's a very nice website and he has put a great deal of time and effort into it. He is proud of it and rightly so. Shoot, I wish I had a website that nice. And I sure do admire Cgifford's cat, Wolfgang.

 

But there is no math there. There are no rigorous models or thought experiments. There is no consistent use of physics terminology and concepts. Draw your own conclusions. But it IS a pretty website.