Talk:Coriolis force

message: This article presents factually incorrect information about Coriolis.  More than nearly any physics phenomenon, Coriolis seems to be shrouded in anecdotal explanations that have nothing at all to do with Coriolis, and this "Eotvos = vertical Coriolis" is one that is repeated constantly.  And yet in one minute at a white board, Coriolis and Eotvos are easily shown to be discrete unrelated phenomenon.  Just because they both act in the same direction (+Z with an eastward velocity, -Z with a westward velocity, does not mean they are the same or even related.
Imagine I am shooting a bullet to the east at the equator.  My intended sightline from Rifle to Target creates a linear vector RT.  The eastward rotation of the earth also imposes an inertial vector that is tangential to my location on earth, and thus is ever so slightly inclined upward in relation to vector RT.  The net vector that becomes my resulting sightline is the sum of RT and this inertia vector I, or I+RT.  THIS is Coriolis and will make my bullet strike about 3.6 inches high on a typical 1,000 yard eastward shot and about 3.6 inches low on a typical 1,000 yard westward shot.
Completely separate and unrelated to this is the Eotvos phenomenon.  Eastward or westward velocity will be higher (east) or lower (west) relative to the center of the earth's mass.  This increases (east) or reduces (west) the perceived centrifugal force, which is actually just a reduction (east) or increase (west) net gravitational force G.  This means my ballistic computation of the correct superelevation that creates a trajectory arc that is subtended by vector RT will be slightly off because it assumes a constant for G.  This means my bullet will arrive a tiny bit high firing east and a tiny bit low firing west.  In my example above this G error may be +/- a half inch or an inch at these 1,000 yard times of flight.  But this is NOT Coriolis and is unrelated in every way to Coriolis.
SkyKing36 (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Gravitational force is constant for a given distance between the center the interacting masses, to calculate the net force, gravity is a centripetal component that keeps our motion circular the faster we spin the smaller the net resulting vertical force, but gravity remains constant. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

text: It's also worth noting that the section on Eotvos (caused by centrifugal force) describes how it is parabolic in nature.  While acting downward for low values of west velocity of the hypothetical train, it reverses direction and acts upward for high values of west velocity.  But under the section for 'Rotating sphere', the formula for Coriolis acceleration, \boldsymbol{ a}_C, will not result in any upward value for any magnitude of west velocity. --Robot42marvin (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eotvos is NOT the vertical (+/-Z) Component of Coriolis 

message: The "cannon on turntable" section is mentioned, but does not exist in the article. Darkman101 (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems silly.  Removed. Constant314 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "cannon on turntable" 

message: I came here to add an article on the subject of this section (which I did) but found this section to be a mess for many reasons. I have attempted to clean it up a bit. RobP (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the work.  I think that the section needs to be pruned severely.  There is a lot of redundancy. Constant314 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks... but I disagree that mentioning the widespread incorrect beliefs about this subject, covered in RS, is "irrelevant to the subject of the article," particularly that museums on the equator perpetuate the incorrect info. RobP (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Any other opinions on this subject? I added this material which has now been deleted: Also, the importance of one's location relative to the equator regarding the direction water drains, purportedly due to the difference in Coriolis force strength, is a misconception that is purposely reinforced by some equatorial museums. This is in addition to other erroneous claims being made about other forces affecting people and objects differently due to equatorial proximity.[61] RobP (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draining in bathtubs and toilets 

message: The first sentence is "In physics, the Coriolis force is an inertial or fictitious force"
In meteorology, the Coriolis force is an inertial term in the expression of the horizontal dynamics.
It looks like an inertial force but it has just the formulation of an inertial force.
You wrote "The (inertial) force affecting the motion of air "sliding" over the Earth's surface" which is a well known analogy, yes an analogy.
The truth is that air is not sliding, it is constrained by the ambient hydrostatics and Earth sphericity+rotation.
The exact statement, without the analogy, is:
"The true force affecting an air parcel that is forced to move horizontally over the Earth's surface"
I suppose that only a very very very few people remarked that, but it is pretty evident that the impossibility of cyclones to be filled (geostrophic approximation) can not be due to geometry and inertia, but due to a true opposing force involving ambient hydrostatics and Earth sphericity+rotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e0a:9d2:3e20:c540:bf51:1a8b:5496 (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification needed on the true definition of the Coriolis force 

message: (Context: I am a non-mathematician, non-physics major that nonetheless uses Wikipedia to gain better understanding of a wide variety of topics.)
The Intuitive Explanation section should be written such that the explanation is accessible to anyone with a basic knowledge of science, but, to be honest, most people do not have the math to understand the preceding sections and so may get discouraged before they even get this far. The graphic at the beginning of the article is wonderful to show the inertial force. A second animation depicting the effects of the inertial force on a long-range object traveling from the equator towards a pole (or from a middle latitude towards the nearer pole would be great in the introduction. I don’t believe that graphic and the brief explanation would interrupt the introduction too much. That way, the Intuitive Section could be deleted. Comments appreciated. SmokeyShyla (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisit Intuitive Explanation section?