Thread: The Coriolis Effect View Single Post
 08-26-2020, 10:29 AM #3 1&onlybillyshears adept   Join Date: Jun 2019 Posts: 924 Re: The Coriolis Effect Yeah it is defined as the apparent deflection of a body when viewed by an observer who is on a non inertial rotating frame. By definition 2 reference frames are required, defined either explicitly as a non-inertial rotating frame and an inertial frame, or implied by the fact we need the motion of a body, AND a rotating reference frame. I have not seen a defintion at any level that gets away from the 2 frames. However, I am told that 2 reference frames are not required, only one. Mathematically this may be the case, but not physically - with only a rotating frame a Coriolis force does not become apparent, you just rotate. But with motion with respect to this frame, a Coriolis effect becomes apparent as the body is viewed from the perspective of the rotating frame. So physically there are 2 frames, one in which the body is moving (inertial) and one from which the body is viewed (non inertial rotating). According to the definition of the guy who developed the framework, I do not think the inertial frame need be inertial, there could be 2 non inertial frames, ie "motion either linear or otherwise" with respect to a non inertial rotating frame. But usually it is defined as motion in a straight line in an inertial frame as viewed by an observer on a rotating frame, eg throw a ball from a moving roundabout. This is clearer, easier to understand and gets the physical principles across without obfuscating the point with stuff about there only being one frame - which I think is wrong anyway. Did say I wasn't going to comment (ie debate) but I guess the context is required