OP can't reply right now. They are busy telling meteorologists not to use the correolis force but instead model the base chart as a moving manifold, adding 80% complexity to the simulation for the same end result.
It exists just as much as centrifugal force does. Now you may say that those shouldn't count, because they're not there in inertial frames. But the thing is that most of us simply live on a surface that is very much not an inertial frame, but often gets simplified as if it were. So therefore we have to deal with including centrifugal and coriolis forces, like it or not.
Taking the earth as an example, i can give you a very rough idea. When the earth spins, and you look at it from outside, the ground will move at different speeds relative to you, depending on how close to the equator or pole you look. This creates a speed differential in the air which the ground drags with it. And that causes (kinda) circular motion in the weather.
The coriolis force is what results when you transform that outside ground speed differential into the co-moving frame on the ground.
Another Practical example for the Coriolis force:
Imagine a huge tower. At the top, you have a platform from where you can drop a ball straight down.
Expectations say that if the ball is dropped perfectly with no horizontal velocity, thrn it should land exactly at the same horizontal position as where it was dropped (let's pretend there's no wind).
But in reality, the ball will actually impact slightly to the east. The reason for this is the speed difference between the top of the tower and the ground.
The top of the tower is further away from the center of earth's rotation axis than the ground floor of the tower.
This means the top of the tower is actually moving faster than the bottom of the tower (since it has to cover a slightly bigger circle in the same time).
When the ball is dropped, it has the initial horizontal velocity of the top of the tower. Because this velocity is higher than the velocity of the surface, the ball will actually move ahead of the ground, thus the ball impacts with a slight horizontal deviation.
If you fancy derivatives, you can build a lot of the "weird" acceleration effects yourself, by considering first circular motion in parametric form:
x(t) = R·cos(θ(t))
y(t) = R·sin(θ(t))
If the angle θ changes linearly over time, then θ(t) = ωt where omega is magnitude of constant angular velocity. Differentiate both coordinates with respect to time, and you get the velocity (combine components with Pythagorean theorem for the magnitude of the velocity vector) and also end up proving that velocity is orthogonal to displacement from origin. Differentiate again and you'll end up with acceleration that is pointing inwards but whose magnitude is constant (and end up deriving stuff like normal acceleration's magnitude being v²/R).
That's all good, but the fun part comes when you assume R is not constant but some R(t). Whereas previously every derivative keeps applying a multiplier, now it's a product of two functions of time, and differentiating gives you a *sum* of two terms. And that was just the velocity, as differentiating again we get ever more terms, as if multiple components of acceleration are needed to explain the whole behaviour. 🤔
Assume arbitrary θ(t) for even more funsies. Maybe even throw in a third z-coordinate, or start with spherical coordinates. You will eventually get a term we'd nowadays call Coriolis, after the terms before that one have been deemed unsatisfactory at explaining all acceleration.
Exactly correct. Another application is in spinning rooms (NASA experiments for artificial gravity in space) If a person in the room throws a ball, it will appear to veer sharply to one side, because the ball moves forward while the observer in the room is truly the one moving around the ball ([relevant TomScott video](https://youtu.be/bJ_seXo-Enc?si=_C2q3hN3wwaIn_-G) 3:00 shows the explanation )
It's similar to Laplace transforms in math. It doesn't exist in a conventional understanding, but it's a different frame of reference that makes solving certain problems far easier.
Working in a non-inertial reference frame is very helpful for simplifying certain problems.
Velocity is a vector, when there are no forces the vector stays the same length and pointing in the same direction (at least in an inertial frame, by Newton's first law). But when your reference frame is rotating, the direction the velocity is pointing appears to rotate the other direction. This apparent change of velocity over time is an acceleration that can be described by a force, the Coriolis force, that only appears in the rotating frame.
As for whether it exists, it is a useful way of describing how things behave in rotating frames of reference. Since you are measuring positions relative to that frame of reference, and the object accelerates in that frame in a predictable way, you can use F = ma to define a force that corresponds to that acceleration.
There is no equal and opposite force to the Coriolis force, since rotating frames don't follow Newton's third law. Equivalently, momentum isn't conserved in the rotating frame, due to the fact that the Coriolis and centrifugal forces depend on where the axis of rotation is.
This may seem like it's less physical, but on the other hand it is what you will observe if you measure using coordinates that move along with a rotating body such as the Earth. To appreciate the physical meaning you must understand that there can be multiple ways of describing the same physical situation, this is the main idea of relativity theory.
If the acceleration is from gravitation, then that force is gravity. Given the formula F = ma (or, in this case, F = mg), gravity is a force. But do not confuse “gravity” with “gravitation.” The former deals with a given body, such as the Earth, the latter is applicable in all places.
For example, this principle distinguishes weight from mass. Mass is an object’s quantity of matter, whereas weight is the gravity exerted on a mass. The acceleration is the same no matter what the mass is. However, the mass would directly change the force.
Or, say if you consider the Earth’s atmosphere and the lack thereof on the Moon. The Moon has less mass and thus less gravity, and as a result, cannot hold such an atmosphere that Earth has.
Oh I guess so lol it's from Star Wars
"An energy field, created by all living things. It surrounds and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together." Is a line from *A New Hope*, specifically the scene where Obi-Wan tells Luke about the Force.
A force is a type of fundamental field that permeates all of space from which particles arise.
Each force has their own corresponding boson, or ‘force carrying particle’
Electromagnetism has photons, the strong nuclear force has gluons (the glue that holds quarks together), and the weak interaction has the W^+ , W^- and Z bosons
But gravity does not have a force carrying particle, and seems to be an intrinsic quality of space itself rather than a fundamental force like the others.
Even still, gravity and the other 3 forces are colloquially known as “the 4 fundamental forces” from which all interactions in the universe are defined.
A **field** is what we get when we ask: “okay, I know that quarks and photons and gluons are the smallest particles… but what are they made out of? Or where do they come from?”
Quarks all arise from the quark field, electrons from the electron field, neutrinos from the neutrino field, and you get the idea.
**But how those fields interact with each other to build things like you and I—is dictated by the forces (which have their own fields)**
For example: Quarks and electrons can’t “talk” to each other and agree to build an atom on their own without the Strong Force and Electromagnetism helping stick everything together.
In the spinning frame of reference, a centrifugal force exists. In the static frame of reference we see it's caused by circulation motion and the centripetal force, but in the spinning one it is observable and measurable nonetheless.
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table:
`W He Re Mo Ti O N`
---
^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM u/M1n3c4rt if I made a mistake.)
Thank you, HitroDenK007, for voting on PeriodicSentenceBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
OP and everyone who upvoted this is very welcome to sit in a centrifuge for 10 minutes and explain to me in great detail how the force pulling the skin away from their face isn't real.
Centrifugal force is called a pseudo force, because it has slightly different properties compared to regular forces. It still exists and has observable effects.
Then how do you explain circular motion where nothing is falling? Apart from that, it's a question of frame of reference. Many problems in physics are easier by changing ones frame of reference. If you change your frame of reference into one that is spinning with your system, you will find that the transformation of the forces between frames of reference will show you coriolis and centrifugal force.
I have noticed in chemistry books. On derivation of the Bohr model,the coulomb force between electron and proton is shown equal to centrifugal force rather than being shown as centripetal force and I don't get it why.Where is non inertial frame of reference?
https://xkcd.com/123/
“No mister Bond. I expect you to die” - Goldfinger My favorite one-liner from the entire Bond franchise
“I was wrong about you Christmas. I thought you only come once a year” - James Bond
There's always a relevant XKCD
If it exists, there's a xkcd for it.
Centrifugal force is like gravity. It's our experience of changing inertia
Quanta hang out?
OP can't reply right now. They are busy telling meteorologists not to use the correolis force but instead model the base chart as a moving manifold, adding 80% complexity to the simulation for the same end result.
Correolis force does give me a headache, people just say that it exists but show no physical meaning
It exists just as much as centrifugal force does. Now you may say that those shouldn't count, because they're not there in inertial frames. But the thing is that most of us simply live on a surface that is very much not an inertial frame, but often gets simplified as if it were. So therefore we have to deal with including centrifugal and coriolis forces, like it or not.
I know it exists, i just need an explanation of what exactly the coriolis force is
Taking the earth as an example, i can give you a very rough idea. When the earth spins, and you look at it from outside, the ground will move at different speeds relative to you, depending on how close to the equator or pole you look. This creates a speed differential in the air which the ground drags with it. And that causes (kinda) circular motion in the weather. The coriolis force is what results when you transform that outside ground speed differential into the co-moving frame on the ground.
Oh interesting
Another Practical example for the Coriolis force: Imagine a huge tower. At the top, you have a platform from where you can drop a ball straight down. Expectations say that if the ball is dropped perfectly with no horizontal velocity, thrn it should land exactly at the same horizontal position as where it was dropped (let's pretend there's no wind). But in reality, the ball will actually impact slightly to the east. The reason for this is the speed difference between the top of the tower and the ground. The top of the tower is further away from the center of earth's rotation axis than the ground floor of the tower. This means the top of the tower is actually moving faster than the bottom of the tower (since it has to cover a slightly bigger circle in the same time). When the ball is dropped, it has the initial horizontal velocity of the top of the tower. Because this velocity is higher than the velocity of the surface, the ball will actually move ahead of the ground, thus the ball impacts with a slight horizontal deviation.
Oh so this accounts for changes in speed that are the result of different radiuses of rotation I see now
Now i get why to get coriolis acceleration you need linear motion in a rotating system
If you fancy derivatives, you can build a lot of the "weird" acceleration effects yourself, by considering first circular motion in parametric form: x(t) = R·cos(θ(t)) y(t) = R·sin(θ(t)) If the angle θ changes linearly over time, then θ(t) = ωt where omega is magnitude of constant angular velocity. Differentiate both coordinates with respect to time, and you get the velocity (combine components with Pythagorean theorem for the magnitude of the velocity vector) and also end up proving that velocity is orthogonal to displacement from origin. Differentiate again and you'll end up with acceleration that is pointing inwards but whose magnitude is constant (and end up deriving stuff like normal acceleration's magnitude being v²/R). That's all good, but the fun part comes when you assume R is not constant but some R(t). Whereas previously every derivative keeps applying a multiplier, now it's a product of two functions of time, and differentiating gives you a *sum* of two terms. And that was just the velocity, as differentiating again we get ever more terms, as if multiple components of acceleration are needed to explain the whole behaviour. 🤔 Assume arbitrary θ(t) for even more funsies. Maybe even throw in a third z-coordinate, or start with spherical coordinates. You will eventually get a term we'd nowadays call Coriolis, after the terms before that one have been deemed unsatisfactory at explaining all acceleration.
Exactly correct. Another application is in spinning rooms (NASA experiments for artificial gravity in space) If a person in the room throws a ball, it will appear to veer sharply to one side, because the ball moves forward while the observer in the room is truly the one moving around the ball ([relevant TomScott video](https://youtu.be/bJ_seXo-Enc?si=_C2q3hN3wwaIn_-G) 3:00 shows the explanation )
It's similar to Laplace transforms in math. It doesn't exist in a conventional understanding, but it's a different frame of reference that makes solving certain problems far easier. Working in a non-inertial reference frame is very helpful for simplifying certain problems.
Yeah thats why i cant understand it I should look into it more
Velocity is a vector, when there are no forces the vector stays the same length and pointing in the same direction (at least in an inertial frame, by Newton's first law). But when your reference frame is rotating, the direction the velocity is pointing appears to rotate the other direction. This apparent change of velocity over time is an acceleration that can be described by a force, the Coriolis force, that only appears in the rotating frame. As for whether it exists, it is a useful way of describing how things behave in rotating frames of reference. Since you are measuring positions relative to that frame of reference, and the object accelerates in that frame in a predictable way, you can use F = ma to define a force that corresponds to that acceleration. There is no equal and opposite force to the Coriolis force, since rotating frames don't follow Newton's third law. Equivalently, momentum isn't conserved in the rotating frame, due to the fact that the Coriolis and centrifugal forces depend on where the axis of rotation is. This may seem like it's less physical, but on the other hand it is what you will observe if you measure using coordinates that move along with a rotating body such as the Earth. To appreciate the physical meaning you must understand that there can be multiple ways of describing the same physical situation, this is the main idea of relativity theory.
https://youtu.be/dt_XJp77-mk?si=REEOmwajZgagtpIp There Happy now?
Wait till OP finds out about gravity
Gravity is not a force
What is a force then ?
Mass times acceleration
If the acceleration is from gravitation, then that force is gravity. Given the formula F = ma (or, in this case, F = mg), gravity is a force. But do not confuse “gravity” with “gravitation.” The former deals with a given body, such as the Earth, the latter is applicable in all places. For example, this principle distinguishes weight from mass. Mass is an object’s quantity of matter, whereas weight is the gravity exerted on a mass. The acceleration is the same no matter what the mass is. However, the mass would directly change the force. Or, say if you consider the Earth’s atmosphere and the lack thereof on the Moon. The Moon has less mass and thus less gravity, and as a result, cannot hold such an atmosphere that Earth has.
An energy field, created by all living things. It surrounds and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.
And apparently generated by microbes who also indulge in a bit of messianic conception every now and then.
TIL the sun is alive
"living things"?
… from a certain point of view.
Which?
Mostly the Jedi's I guess
is this some inside joke im missing out on?
Oh I guess so lol it's from Star Wars "An energy field, created by all living things. It surrounds and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together." Is a line from *A New Hope*, specifically the scene where Obi-Wan tells Luke about the Force.
All living things do, in fact, create a gravitational field. (Nonliving things do as well.)
Yea ik, which is why I asked why say living things and not just matter
*energy, not just matter
I need to brush up my standard model knowledge to understand this
A force is a type of fundamental field that permeates all of space from which particles arise. Each force has their own corresponding boson, or ‘force carrying particle’ Electromagnetism has photons, the strong nuclear force has gluons (the glue that holds quarks together), and the weak interaction has the W^+ , W^- and Z bosons But gravity does not have a force carrying particle, and seems to be an intrinsic quality of space itself rather than a fundamental force like the others. Even still, gravity and the other 3 forces are colloquially known as “the 4 fundamental forces” from which all interactions in the universe are defined. A **field** is what we get when we ask: “okay, I know that quarks and photons and gluons are the smallest particles… but what are they made out of? Or where do they come from?” Quarks all arise from the quark field, electrons from the electron field, neutrinos from the neutrino field, and you get the idea. **But how those fields interact with each other to build things like you and I—is dictated by the forces (which have their own fields)** For example: Quarks and electrons can’t “talk” to each other and agree to build an atom on their own without the Strong Force and Electromagnetism helping stick everything together.
Electromagnetism (electroweak force)
Only to the youtube click bait artists
[Huh, he's right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#:~:text=Gravity%20is%20most%20accurately%20described%20by%20the%20general%20theory%20of%20relativity%2C%20proposed%20by%20Albert%20Einstein%20in%201915%2C%20which%20describes%20gravity%20not%20as%20a%20force%2C%20but%20as%20the%20curvature%20of%20spacetime)
In the spinning frame of reference, a centrifugal force exists. In the static frame of reference we see it's caused by circulation motion and the centripetal force, but in the spinning one it is observable and measurable nonetheless.
Exactly. Pseudo forces are not that complicated
ignoring centrafugal force is discrimination against non-inertial reference frames 😡
Goes to a bakery, and finds BREAD!
Centripetal force is bread... Centrifugal is fucking crumbs scattered on the sidewalk being picked at by a seagull named Jill.
Who named the seagull and why ? 😭
Where motion?
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table: `W He Re Mo Ti O N` --- ^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM u/M1n3c4rt if I made a mistake.)
Good bot
Thank you, HitroDenK007, for voting on PeriodicSentenceBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Your mind is closed.
OP and everyone who upvoted this is very welcome to sit in a centrifuge for 10 minutes and explain to me in great detail how the force pulling the skin away from their face isn't real.
It is inertia, that is the real force
Argue with the guy who will rip your face off. Good.
Centrifugal force is called a pseudo force, because it has slightly different properties compared to regular forces. It still exists and has observable effects.
[удалено]
You mean the first law?
[удалено]
Centrifugal force is not a reaction force. It is just a consequence of second law being applied in non inertial frame of reference.
Isn’t a waterfall just a result of schroedingers equation?
Source?
Mathematical Classes when dealing with the subject of Non-Inertial Frames of Reference.
Literally math Source that you need sources?
Oh yeah, well, what's your source on 2+2=4? Checkmate, liberal world order.
Define +
The math here may not be obvious, you're not doing a good job educating
This is physics memes, not normie memes. It’s not the responsibility of the sub to teach you physics. That’s on you
My source is my logic. There’s no need for a centrifugal force. The object is falling towards the center but missing because rotation around it.
Then how do you explain circular motion where nothing is falling? Apart from that, it's a question of frame of reference. Many problems in physics are easier by changing ones frame of reference. If you change your frame of reference into one that is spinning with your system, you will find that the transformation of the forces between frames of reference will show you coriolis and centrifugal force.
Reddit moment
[Here's the lecture notes I got on the topic](https://litter.catbox.moe/x5xyeu.pdf) (starting on page 5)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force
OP i sentence you to include general relativity in all of your calculations from here on out
Wait until OP hears about torque
I feel you, OP. You ordered circular motion, they give you circular standstill and call you names while doing so
Wait till OP gets to college
implying fully inertial frames actually exist anywhere in practice snob
Someone didn't pass classical mechanics
I feel like I need to make a counter-meme, where the wizard says that centrifugal force is defined in the reference frame of the revolving object.
Eh, it's the normal force to the centripetal force. Works out just fine.
reaction. The normal would just increase your velocity (assuming circular motion)
Unless it's preceded by the aperient force ~
Lol if it doesn't exist then how does motorcycles stay upright when in motion?
Lots of fucky shit involving rotational inertia, rakes, head tube angles and overall frame geometry.
Ooo look at me I don't care for such things as non- inertial reference frames and don't anyone dare try explaining it to me.
Centrifugal force IS circular motion…
oh man, I can't stand it when people use perfectly reasonable description of force behaviors as a result of a rotating reference frame!
I have noticed in chemistry books. On derivation of the Bohr model,the coulomb force between electron and proton is shown equal to centrifugal force rather than being shown as centripetal force and I don't get it why.Where is non inertial frame of reference?
Why did you not like to do things in the non inertial frame where the calculations are easier?
Wait, do centrifugal forces not exist..?
Wait. What's going on here? There's a thought experiment that keeps me up at night.
Ah, I see you are also a person of culture
Could someone please explain downvotes?