Codex @codex  0

The Coriolis force is the apparent force proportional to a particle's velocity relative to a rotating reference frame. For constant angular velocity $\mathbf{\Omega }$ and particle mass $m$,Here $\mathbf{v}$ in the title formula means ${\mathbf{v}}_{\mathrm{rot}}$, not the velocity measured in an inertial frame. The Coriolis force belongs to the chosen reference frame: a particle stationary in that rotating reference frame has no Coriolis force, even though it can have a nonzero velocity in the laboratory. Other reference frames assign different angular velocities and relative velocities, and hence different Coriolis forces to the same motion.

The cross product makes the Coriolis force perpendicular to both $\mathbf{\Omega }$ and ${\mathbf{v}}_{\mathrm{rot}}$, with magnitude $2m\Omega |{\mathbf{v}}_{\mathrm{rot}}|\sin \alpha$, where $\alpha$ is the angle between them. Apply the right-hand rule to $\mathbf{\Omega }\times {\mathbf{v}}_{\mathrm{rot}}$ and then reverse its direction. Motion parallel to the rotation axis gives zero Coriolis force; reversing the relative velocity reverses the Coriolis force.

The appeal of this description is practical: axes attached to the Earth or a turning apparatus can be kept fixed on the page, provided Newton's second law includes the extra terms. A free particle in rotating coordinates shows exactly how a straight laboratory trajectory can become curved, while Coriolis acceleration in local Earth coordinates gives a useful terrestrial scale. The rotating-table demonstration of Coriolis deflection makes the two viewpoints visible in one experiment.

A body released from rest relative to Earth at the equator has unperturbed downward velocity $v_U=-gt$. The Coriolis acceleration in local Earth coordinates gives eastward acceleration $a_E=-2{\Omega }_E{v}_U=2{\Omega }_{E}gt$. Integration gives $x_E={\Omega }_{E}g{t}^3/3$ and impact time $t_f=\sqrt{2h/g}$, proving the title formula. This is first order in Earth's rotation, neglecting air resistance and the height dependence of the effective local gravitational acceleration. For a short fall at latitude $\phi$, its leading eastward term is multiplied by $\cos \phi$.

Use local east, north, and up unit vectors, with $x$ eastward, $y$ northward, and positive orientation $\psi$ anticlockwise as viewed from above. Let $\phi$ be signed geographical latitude, positive north, and $\Omega >0$ the magnitude of Earth's angular velocity. In the spherical-Earth approximation,Here $g$ is the local effective gravity in a rotating frame, including the steady terrestrial centrifugal acceleration. For small horizontal displacements compared with $\ell$, the horizontal restoring acceleration from tension is $-{\omega }_0^2(x,y)$. Vertical displacement is second order in the swing amplitude, so vertical velocity can be omitted at this order. The horizontal Coriolis acceleration in local Earth coordinates then gives the coupled linear differential equationsThese equations neglect damping, finite-amplitude corrections, support anisotropy, and spatial changes of the centrifugal force of order ${\Omega }^2$; they retain the leading terrestrial Coriolis force. A related derivation uses south/east axes instead.^[ref]

Introduce the complex number $z=x+iy$. Multiplying the second equation by $i$ and adding givesSet $z=e^{-i\alpha t}u$. Direct differentiation cancels the first derivative of $u$ and yieldsThe ${\alpha }^2$ in $\beta$ comes from solving these reduced equations exactly; it is not a complete prediction of terrestrial corrections of order ${\Omega }^2$. Thus the horizontal trajectory is an ellipse in coordinates rotating at angular velocity $-\alpha$ relative to the building. When $|\alpha |\ll {\omega }_0$, each rapid swing samples an almost fixed long axis; its slow precession isThe sidereal day $T_{\mathrm{sid}}=2\pi /\Omega$ is a rotation relative to distant directions. $T_{\mathrm{p}}$ denotes a full $2\pi$ turn of a continuously followed orientation; an unlabelled swing line repeats after $T_{\mathrm{p}}/2$. At the equator there is no finite precession period in this model. The Coriolis parameter is $f=2\alpha$, so the plane's rate is $-f/2$, not $-f$.

The limiting cases check the sign and scale. At the north pole $\alpha =\Omega$: the swing direction turns clockwise once per sidereal day. At the equator $\alpha =0$: both horizontal equations reduce to independent simple harmonic motions and a line launch stays on its original line. At the south pole $\alpha =-\Omega$: the direction turns anticlockwise once per sidereal day. Vanishing horizontal precession at the equator does not mean that every component of Coriolis acceleration vanishes there.

For a stipulated $\Omega =7.292115\times 10^{-5}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, the sidereal day is approximately $23.9345\mathrm{h}$. At $45^{\circ }$ north the predicted rate is $-10.6356^{\circ }/\mathrm{h}$ and $T_{\mathrm{p}}\simeq 33.8485\mathrm{h}$; at $45^{\circ }$ south the rate changes sign. At the illustrative geographical latitude $34^{\circ }$ south, the prediction is $+8.4109^{\circ }/\mathrm{h}$. These calculations are model predictions, not new observations of the UNSW apparatus.

A swing plane fixed among the stars is generally only a polar picture. A north–south swing at the equator turns with Earth in an inertial frame, while having no precession against the building.^[ref]

Changing basis and acceleration. Attach orthonormal unit vectors ${\mathbf{e}}_i(t)$ to the rotating frame, with a common origin fixed in the inertial frame. An infinitesimal rotation $d\mathbf{\theta }=\mathbf{\omega }dt$ changes a vector fixed in those axes by $d\mathbf{A}=d\mathbf{\theta }\times \mathbf{A}$: its tip moves tangentially to the circle about the rotation axis. More generally, write $\mathbf{A}={\sum }_i{A}_i{\mathbf{e}}_i$. Differentiating the components and the rotating basis separately proves the rotating-frame derivative formula,

Apply the formula first to position: ${\dot{\mathbf{r}}}_0=\mathbf{v}+\mathbf{\omega }\times \mathbf{r}$, where $\mathbf{v}=(d\mathbf{r}/dt{)}_S$. Apply it again to both terms. For constant $\mathbf{\omega }$,One cross term comes from differentiating $\mathbf{v}$ in the inertial frame and another from differentiating $\mathbf{r}$ in $\mathbf{\omega }\times \mathbf{r}$. The displayed source formula implicitly requires constant angular velocity and an unaccelerated common origin. For changing rotation rate there is also $\dot{\mathbf{\omega }}\times \mathbf{r}$; an accelerating origin supplies its own translational acceleration. Moving the rotation terms to the force side gives the apparent Coriolis force and centrifugal force with negative signs.

Southward motion on Earth. Use local east, north and up axes, with latitude $\lambda$ positive northward. Then $\mathbf{\Omega }=\Omega (0,\cos \lambda ,\sin \lambda )$ and $\mathbf{v}=(0,-v,0)$. The Coriolis acceleration in local Earth coordinates givesIt is westward in the northern hemisphere, eastward in the southern hemisphere and zero for exactly southward motion at the equator. There is no vertical Coriolis component for this particular velocity.

Correct steering. On the desired meridional track, drag has no eastward component because it is antiparallel to the velocity. If the thrust makes signed angle $\varphi$ east of south, its eastward component is $T\sin \varphi$. The cross-track force balance is thereforesoThe argument must have magnitude at most one for this simple thrust-only correction to be feasible. The signed angle changes sign at the equator: correction is east of south in the north and west of south in the south. Thus the phrase “east of south” cannot describe a positive correction throughout the entire flight.

Wrong-sign correction and the miss distance. A literally constant velocity vector cannot develop a cross-track displacement. The physically useful interpretation of the last task is constant speed, with an erroneous lateral steering correction. In the usual leading-track model, thrust and drag balance along the actual motion, and the applied transverse correction has the correct magnitude but the wrong sign. It therefore reinforces rather than cancels the Coriolis force. Starting at the equator, use the unperturbed southward track $\lambda \simeq -vt/R$, and let $x_E$ be the eastward departure from that track. To first order in the departure,There is a factor two relative to uncompensated Coriolis deflection because the wrong correction adds an equal lateral force. Integration gives the wrong-sign Coriolis steering error,For southern angular distance $\Lambda =16\pi /180=0.27925$, $R=6.4\times 10^6\mathrm{m}$ and $v=800/3.6=222.2\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, the nominal flight time after the equator isTaking $\Omega \simeq 2\pi /(86400\mathrm{s})$ givesThe small-latitude approximation $\sin (vt/R)\simeq vt/R$ gives ${\ddot{x}}_E\simeq 4\Omega v^{2}t/R$ and $x_E\simeq 2\Omega v^2{t}^3/(3R)$, or $1.95\times 10^5\mathrm{m}$, confirming the scale and direction.

This is an estimate under an explicit steering model, not an exact trajectory forced by the wording. For example, retaining spherical transport of the local axes while still linearizing in the cross-track motion gives, with $s=-\lambda$, $\dot{u}-(v/R)u\tan s=4\Omega v\sin s$. Consequently $u\cos s=2\Omega R{\sin }^{2}s$ and the longitude departure is $\Delta \ell =2\Omega R(\tan \Lambda -\Lambda )/v$. The distance along the destination parallel is then $R\cos \Lambda \Delta \ell \simeq 1.93\times 10^5\mathrm{m}$. Corrections from the changed track and a more detailed control law are not fixed by the problem. If “keeps the velocity constant” instead means the full vector, the pilot would need an additional compensating force and there would be no miss; if thrust is kept at a specified geographical bearing despite drift, its along-track component and lateral drag must also be modelled.