First of all I am defining x axis in east of object and y to be in the north of object . Let us suppose a body is falling from a height; then after falling a certain height indeed gain some velocity in the direction which I am defining in the local height of the observer in z direction. indeed in a rest frame outside Earth it would not have velocity in y or x direction but in a frame standing still on earth (perhaps moving with earth) it will gain a velocity in the east direction and y direction so when I determine the coriolis force for a certain moment then to determine the coriolis force while doing the matrix of 2$m\omega \times v$should I put $\vec v$ is equal to $\dot x\hat{i} + \dot y \hat{j} + \dot z \hat{k}$ as in the in the earth rotating frame it has velocity in the x and y directions but in the rest frame outside earth it never has velocity in x or y direction. So should I put $\vec v$ =$0\hat{i} +0\hat{j} + \dot z\hat{k}$ ? Show my exact question is that what should I take as the velocity to detect the velocity as the perception as in perception of a rest frame outside Earth or should I take the velocity of a observer who is in the earth frame who can't perceive his own rotation so sees the ball shifting.

  • $\begingroup$ I think this could be a good question but it's not exactly clear what you're asking. Can you clean up your question a little bit? $\endgroup$ – Zack Hutchens Dec 14 '18 at 3:00
  • $\begingroup$ @ZackHutchens when an object falls down in earth which is a rotating frame then it would have some velocity in z direction or in local height of object but after subsequently falling it gains some velocity in x and y direction. So while determining coriolis force. $\2m \omega \times v$ should the v represented as earth standing observers perception or in rest frane perception outside earth. I think you may be able to understand the question now and you are welcome to suggest edits to clarify the question. $\endgroup$ – Nobody recognizeable Dec 14 '18 at 3:05
  • $\begingroup$ @ZackHutchens is it clear now ? $\endgroup$ – Nobody recognizeable Dec 14 '18 at 3:11
  • $\begingroup$ I think so. I posted an answer. If it does not help, then you can ask questions and I will try again. $\endgroup$ – Zack Hutchens Dec 14 '18 at 3:22

The equivalent of the Newton's second law in the noninertial frame is expressed as $$m\ddot{\vec r} = \vec{F}' - 2m \vec{\omega} \times\vec{v}.$$ Here everything is written in terms of the rotating coordinate system. $F'$ is the actual net force on the system, but it is written to be a function of the rotating coordinates. It also absorbed the centrifugal force, so in your case $\vec{F}' = m\vec{g}$ but $|\vec{g}| \neq 9.8$ N/kg.

So, the point here is that $\vec{v}$ is taken to be in the rotating coordinates -- is the viewpoint of an observer fixed on the Earth.

Thus for the initial velocity you have $\vec{v}_0 = \dot{z}\hat{k}$. As the object begins to fall, it will become deflected from the Coriolis effect, and this velocity will in accordance with $\vec{v} \times \vec{\omega}$. However for the Earth, $\omega$ is quite small at $\sim 10^{-4}$ s$^{-1}$. Thus, to a first approximation: $$m\ddot{\vec r} = \vec{F}' - 2m \vec{\omega} \times\vec{v}_0,$$ which will allow you to calculate the longitudinal deflection (in the x-direction).

As given in Goldstein p. 174, if you have that text, the corresponding inertial frame is a coordinate system which is stationary with respect to "local stars".

  • $\begingroup$ Ok so i see you are saying $\vec v$ should be taken in perception of the rest frame observer outside earth .( Probably stars' can be regarded as rest frame as their rotation is negligible. ) . Please justify this comment. $\endgroup$ – Nobody recognizeable Dec 14 '18 at 3:29
  • $\begingroup$ It's a good approximation to neglect the deflection $v$ because otherwise it's a really hard differential equation to solve. And yes, the local stars are a good approximation to an inertial coordinate system because their rotation is negligible. $\endgroup$ – Zack Hutchens Dec 14 '18 at 3:34
  • $\begingroup$ if v is taken in perception of outside earth observer (who is in a rest frame) then it has velocity in z direction only ; it never really deflects in other direction. So you'd never need to estimate or neglect anything. There's the problem. $\endgroup$ – Nobody recognizeable Dec 14 '18 at 3:39
  • $\begingroup$ Correct. This may help: youtube.com/watch?v=49JwbrXcPjc $\endgroup$ – Zack Hutchens Dec 14 '18 at 3:42
  • $\begingroup$ neglect the previous point. I think i got it. You are saying $\vec v$ is taken in rotating frame. But the invariance is shown with stars frame. $\endgroup$ – Nobody recognizeable Dec 14 '18 at 3:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.