This man is so powerful, he judged physics' performance. "Ball rolls in straight line" *intense watching as the ball and physics desperately act* "excellent"
Absolutely fantastic demonstration. This can truly show anyone why it's a "fictitious" force, because it depends solely on the reference frame. Plus you're well dressed. Edit: Well a guy who puts "QED" at the end of his youtube comments like this is a serious forum replied to me with a long ramble contradicting what I thought I knew, the physics guy knew, and my physics teacher knew, and my dad knew, and a bunch of my friends knew and I was like "I don't want to say something untoward and I'm too busy to read all that", then I revised it to try to hint about why language might be the confusion factor, and now I'm realizing my notifications are never going to say less than the maximum number for a while so that's cool I guess. 🥴
Coriolis force is not fictitious. Imagine a rod rotating about one end. Now imagine a mass that is constrained to slide along the rod from the centre towards the moving end. As the mass moves radially outward it picks up tangential velocity ie: it accelerates in the tangential direction. The mass experiences a force normal to the rod that keeps its tangential velocity the same as the rods tangential velocity at every point. That force is the Coriolis force. No imagine that the same mass but it is not constrained to move along the rod. Since no forces act on the mass its tangential velocity does not increase as it moves away from the centre of rotation and it falls behind the rod. Coriolis force does not act in this case and the mass appears to describe a curve path with respect to the non-interial frame, but a straight path wrt to the inertial frame. That’s why its called the Coriolis “Effect.” QED
@@OneEyedJacker I'll have to think about this. Thanks for taking the time to write it up. Edit: I've been too busy to really think much about it so far, but I did want to add, I have always thought that terms like "fictitious" were a little dodgy to begin with. As in, for example, there are plenty of reasons to call a mirage an "illusion" but, it is also perfectly reasonable to say that because it is a phenomena with an underlying mechanism, it is also "really there". It may indeed come down to definitions of terms, and what is precisely being called "illusory" or "fictitious". I'll find a moment to dig into what you wrote and do it justice one of these days. 😔 (I should add, I am not trying to cast doubt on anything you said, I'm explicitly saying I haven't really had the mental bandwidth given everything going on for me and my own job to think very deeply about a youtube comment. I just wanted to gripe a little about the language we use sometimes to refer to technical things which can be misleading.)
Yes, there is no force involved and also there is not any difference of trajectory in the two views. Only an optical illusion. The motion of the ball in the dish is always cycloid if the dish is rotating. What do they claim is the meaning of the this effect? Something weird I bet.
@@OneEyedJacker, the force that you refer to as the Coriolis force is not actually Coriolis. In your example, the tangential force that drags the constrained mass in the azimuthal direction is real indeed, but that is not the Coriolis force in question. In your second example, where the mass is not constrained, you correctly state that the mass will fall behind the rotating rod. From the perspective of this rod, the mass is pushed back. That is the fictitious Coriolis force that “pushes” the mass. You are right that there is no actual force since the mass is moving in a straight line in an inertial frame. That is precisely why the Coriolis force is fictitious. I can understand why this misconception might have arisen. The video can be a little bit misleading because there is friction that drags the balls along the rotation, and this dragging force is real. Maybe it would have been better to showcase the effect with sliding objects instead. The cycloidal motion would still be present in the rotating frame.
@@whattha930 Not sure if troll. As a marksmanship instructor, I know enough about Earth's curvature and rotation to know that if you're being serious with this comment, you know little to nothing about geophysics.
*James Bond: **_"Do you expect me to talk, Dr. Coriolis!?!?_* *Dr. Coriolios: **_"No, Mr. Bond! I expect you to experience acceleration in a non-inertial reference frame!"_*
Very nice, thank you. We did the theory in school, but I never saw it in practice. It's far more relevant to see it in this way than on a computer graphics simulation!
In Seattle, back in the 1970s, at the corner of 45th and University Way was a drinking fountain that pivoted around the center but the stream was towards the center. When you rotated it the water would curve in the 'wrong' way. Great demonstration.
As a scientist I have to say you have made the best explanation so far or maybe ever of Coriolis force. You really know your stuff. Congratulations! This is a great discovery and show at the same time. I will pass on this link to my fellows.
Excellent demonstration sir! Was searching for these sort of demonstrations (as well as showing it mathematically, which you have done in other videos). Subscribed!
Uhmm, but the rotating disc in not rotating on it's center point. If I look at the edge of the disc, I see it moving from left to right compared to a still background pointof reference. I would think that also causes a distortion in how the balls move in either viewpoint?
The Coriolis effect comes up in accurate long range shooting. I can accept the need to adjust for it but, did not have a good understanding of why. Now I understand. I also appreciate the example of the inertial and non-inertial reference planes. I am now more amazed at the understanding of physics needed to hit a target with indirect fire.
I went to a shooting range in Texas and then calculated the bullet deflection caused by the Coriolis force. Check out that video. Although it's not long range shooting to be fair.
@godbluffvdogg Depends on the range and the compass direction. Extreme long range shots have had to account for it, such as the record-setting shots by a Canadian sniper in 2017. The distance was 3,540 meters, well beyond typical sniper shots.
@@THall-vi8cp Bullshit...A sniper or long shot shooter only adjust for WINDAGE ...NOT THE "SPINNING OF THE EARTH" It's so asinine that people still try that lie... You can't bullshit me kid...I'm a Veteran.
@@THall-vi8cpThis is an old hearsay that keeps coming up, between all the variables such as distance, wind, air density, humidity and elevation it can not be proven that Coriolis force has any effect. None of the really long range targeting systems such as canon fire or missile targeting systems count for Coriolis force and they travels hundreds of miles !
You can find two videos on the Coriolis force and electromagnetic phenomena in my playlist on the Coriolis force. When it comes to the Coriolis force, please keep in mind that it can not change the speed of an object, only the direction. So, this force does no work. I also have separate videos on that.
Excellent demonstration, Thanks for the video. The curvature if the motion changes w.r.t reference point. What is the actual motion, straight line? What happens if you put a wet paint ball, will it draw straight lines?
That was very informative, thank you. What I'd like to see is having the marble swinging back and forth but the marble is attached, by way of a string, to the rotating camera. Would the effect be the same? Since now the marble is not experiencing friction from the plate. I would venture to guess that the marble will swing in a straight line regardless of the position of the rotating camera.
Hi doctor! My university has given me green light to do this experiment! What kind of motor did you use for the rotating table? It’d really help me to know. Thank you
I had a great physics teacher in High School, but he didn't have access to video cameras back in the late 70s. I like to thing that Mr. Hall at Queen Anne High School in Seattle would have done something similar if he had this set up available.
Wow! Excelent demonstration. So now I have to think, what if marble left ink trails? Would they be curly, straight across, or what? Friction will keep them from going straight across. They would have to be curly. Not from the marble moving in curly direction. Its not. But from table spinning in circles.
As an advocate of "Short Radius Human Centrifuge in space. I wonder if you have conducted any stability studies of liquids in the outer diameter of a ring oscillation with a mass that is shifted from the center of rotation to the outer outer diameter. Should the water shift to ballance the new center of gravity. See Dynamic wheel balancers from Centrimatic. See video link in reply some channels don't allow links...;-)
Yes, the deviation is in the opposite direction. In the Southern Hemisphere, the deviation is to the right. I have few videos describing that both geometrically and mathematically.
So, which one are we actually seeing ? Is the marble actually making coriolis movements or straight ? I mean it can’t be both. - I take it the point is it depends on your frame of reference ? - Even though it ‘appears’ the marble is making parabolic movements it’s not really ? - If we were spinning at the same rate with the table, we would only see the Marne moving in a straight line back and forth yes ? - Luke others have suggested, what would an ink trail look like ? Parabolic from friction on the marble ? Why then are cyclones/hurricanes subject to Coriolis effect when the earth and atmosphere aren’t touching ? Is it because there’s still friction of the atmospheric air relative to the earth ?
Does the earth have an impact on the experiment's observations? Will the observations be the same if this experiment was set up in the southern hemisphere? i.e. Will the cycloid trajectory of the marble still be to the right in this setup if it was done in the southern hemisphere or at one of the poles at the geographic centre?
Earth's rotation does effect all motions including that marble's. However, the effect on the scale of this experiment is practically unmeasurable. One can simply demonstrate that by calculating the Rossby number for this experiment. The outcome of the experiment would be the same in the Southern Hemisphere because, as I just wrote, the Earth's Coriolis effect on the scale of the experiment is negligible.
The camera frame rate does not affect the outcome. What would affect the outcome is different rotational speed of the turntable. If the turntable was rotating faster, the deviation would be larger. If the table was rotating slower, the deviation would be smaller. Of course, no deviation if the table is not rotating.
Nicely done demonstration with 2 cameras showing showing the frames. Subscriber #894 here so I'm looking forward to more adventures in physics. Montreal gets nippy so I'm also looking forward to other cold weather wear such as toques and maybe you could do some physics featuring poutine, just a thought.
Very interesting! How can this be? How can two camera's, looking at the same experiment, see two different things?? I know one camera is spinning and one is stationary. But HOW can they be taping two totally different realities? I can't grasp this concept. "Does not compute".
@@DjordjeRomanic I wonder...If each camera, could count how many times each ball was rotating, I assumer that they would be exactly the same. Even though it seems that the spinning camera would record higher revolutions??? Fun to imagine!
They aren't taping two different realities. They are taping two different views of the same reality. There is less going in here than you seem to think. Think of a ball moving in a straight line. A stationary camera shows the ball moving. A camera moving with the ball shows it as stationary. A camera violently shaking back and forth shows the ball violently shaking back and forth. Etc.
According to Einstein, it had to do with your point of view, called ‘frame of reference’ to motion. It’s not two different things, it’s the same thing from different reference points.
You are correct. However, if one calculates the Rossby number for this experiment with respect to Earth's rotation and one will notice that the Earth-related Coriolis effect is negligible. But yes, you are 100% right that there is some component of Earth's Coriolis force being exerted on this moving marble.
We’re all brainwashed as children to believe earth is spinning as a globe. At a 24,900 mile circumference at the equator it would be moving at over 1000 miles per hour to go around once every 24 hours. But not once have the forces he so magnificently demonstrated been shown on earth. We experience no motion. That’s why the real documents for long range munitions have written in them that they are designed as if on a flat and non rotating earth. If they designed them for a rotating earth they would miss their targets. This is why airplanes coming in for a landing never have to adjust for a runway moving out from below them (unless they are landing in a heavy cross wind).
I knew the Coriolis effect existed, but I didn't quite understand how it worked. This instantly brought understanding to me. Thank you for sharing this.
Can we make some lists below on what flat earthers will say in response to this experiment? What do you guys think? Im thinking "see, he's using a flat dish, he proved flat earth." Or the even better "failed experiment because the scale is way too small."
Thanks for showing us what we should see if the Earth was turning, so we never see this happen in nature, so thanks for proving our Earth doesn’t move!
Does this mean that if we get close to the north pole (or south pole) and we drop the marble it will oscilate in cyclades and not in straight lines? Given that one would have the same perspective as the non intertial camera (the camera that rotates with the plate)?
In your scenario, the marble would prescribe a circular motion. That circular motion is known as inertial oscillations. I have a video on inertial oscillations if you want to know the details.
The coriolis effect is a pathway to abilities some consider unnatural
Supernatural some might say
Anneken tried it.
Wonder what it would look like in 3 dimensions with the marble getting smaller and larger?
@@justaguywhoplaysfalloutsom1104 I'm lost, can you explain?
@@xsarchitect he looks like cass from supernatural
He's such a good detective that he discovered the best way to demonstrate the Coriolis effect.
haha indeed!
@@DjordjeRomanicbravo druže, svaka čast na ideji za videe 😉. Ta laboratorija će ti biti nepresušan izvor motivacije, samo monetizuj i ako jesi piči 👏
He demonstrated that the coriolis effect is not real..!
This man is so powerful, he judged physics' performance.
"Ball rolls in straight line"
*intense watching as the ball and physics desperately act*
"excellent"
Explaining science in one moment, solving 1930s crime mysteries the next.
I wish I was at least 1% as cool as this guy.
Okay, but why is he dressed like a 1940's film noir detective?
Inspector Gadget
I dunno but i'm here for it
Yah, like a KGB agent!
Because he can
He’s frkn cool like that. I like this guy
Absolutely fantastic demonstration. This can truly show anyone why it's a "fictitious" force, because it depends solely on the reference frame. Plus you're well dressed.
Edit: Well a guy who puts "QED" at the end of his youtube comments like this is a serious forum replied to me with a long ramble contradicting what I thought I knew, the physics guy knew, and my physics teacher knew, and my dad knew, and a bunch of my friends knew and I was like "I don't want to say something untoward and I'm too busy to read all that", then I revised it to try to hint about why language might be the confusion factor, and now I'm realizing my notifications are never going to say less than the maximum number for a while so that's cool I guess. 🥴
Much obligled.
Coriolis force is not fictitious. Imagine a rod rotating about one end. Now imagine a mass that is constrained to slide along the rod from the centre towards the moving end. As the mass moves radially outward it picks up tangential velocity ie: it accelerates in the tangential direction. The mass experiences a force normal to the rod that keeps its tangential velocity the same as the rods tangential velocity at every point.
That force is the Coriolis force.
No imagine that the same mass but it is not constrained to move along the rod. Since no forces act on the mass its tangential velocity does not increase as it moves away from the centre of rotation and it falls behind the rod. Coriolis force does not act in this case and the mass appears to describe a curve path with respect to the non-interial frame, but a straight path wrt to the inertial frame. That’s why its called the Coriolis “Effect.” QED
@@OneEyedJacker I'll have to think about this. Thanks for taking the time to write it up.
Edit: I've been too busy to really think much about it so far, but I did want to add, I have always thought that terms like "fictitious" were a little dodgy to begin with. As in, for example, there are plenty of reasons to call a mirage an "illusion" but, it is also perfectly reasonable to say that because it is a phenomena with an underlying mechanism, it is also "really there". It may indeed come down to definitions of terms, and what is precisely being called "illusory" or "fictitious". I'll find a moment to dig into what you wrote and do it justice one of these days. 😔 (I should add, I am not trying to cast doubt on anything you said, I'm explicitly saying I haven't really had the mental bandwidth given everything going on for me and my own job to think very deeply about a youtube comment. I just wanted to gripe a little about the language we use sometimes to refer to technical things which can be misleading.)
Yes, there is no force involved and also there is not any difference of trajectory in the two views. Only an optical illusion. The motion of the ball in the dish is always cycloid if the dish is rotating. What do they claim is the meaning of the this effect? Something weird I bet.
@@OneEyedJacker, the force that you refer to as the Coriolis force is not actually Coriolis. In your example, the tangential force that drags the constrained mass in the azimuthal direction is real indeed, but that is not the Coriolis force in question. In your second example, where the mass is not constrained, you correctly state that the mass will fall behind the rotating rod. From the perspective of this rod, the mass is pushed back. That is the fictitious Coriolis force that “pushes” the mass. You are right that there is no actual force since the mass is moving in a straight line in an inertial frame. That is precisely why the Coriolis force is fictitious.
I can understand why this misconception might have arisen. The video can be a little bit misleading because there is friction that drags the balls along the rotation, and this dragging force is real. Maybe it would have been better to showcase the effect with sliding objects instead. The cycloidal motion would still be present in the rotating frame.
Yes, that was the best demonstration of the coriolis effect I’ve ever seen. Good work.
Thanks 👍
I don't know why UA-cam chose me as one of the few first viewers, but this is a very good illustration! I will steal that to show to students
I love how simple practical experiments can demonstrate complex mathematical concepts. Thank you!!
I will be watching more of your videos.
I am glad you liked it!
@@DjordjeRomanic
Just more proof that the earth is flat. Thank you for your contribution to the truth seeker movement. 🙏
@@whattha930 Not sure if troll. As a marksmanship instructor, I know enough about Earth's curvature and rotation to know that if you're being serious with this comment, you know little to nothing about geophysics.
@@somedude4805
Not sure if troll you.
If you were in the military, your opinion is invalid.
@@whattha930 that would be the third perspective that is easy to illustrate with a blindfold and earplugs.
*To look at both screens simultaneously is to reignite the physical essence of mathematical wonder !*
Thank you, most sincerely ...
My pleasure. Have a great day.
Nice to see someone being so intelligently appreciative of a phenomenon.
Thank you. Much appreciated.
I agree, he is pretty awsome
“Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society.” (Mark Twain)
„Nah“. Said any naked football game streaker probably.
Mark Twain said that before tiktok 😢
IDK, Carbi B was a stripper and reality TV star, now she is rich and famous. Lack of clothes didn't seem to slow her down any.
He's Professor Gadget
however nekked women do
..and now I understand why its called the coriolis "effect". True path vs apparent path. Thank you!
You're very welcome!
The clearest demonstration of why Coriolis force is not really a force that I have seen. Thank you.
I allways wanted to understand physics but my teacher wasn't good at delivering information, you sir are on another level 👏
Thank you for your kind words.
Wow this is genius. I always could comprehend the Coriolis force, but this truly makes sense to me. Thank toy
Is it bragging if you can back it up? No. This is the best practical demonstration of this force on YT.
Thank you very much.
*James Bond: **_"Do you expect me to talk, Dr. Coriolis!?!?_*
*Dr. Coriolios: **_"No, Mr. Bond! I expect you to experience acceleration in a non-inertial reference frame!"_*
😂
I like your elegance
Your demonstration is mesmerizing, thank you for taking the time!
Thank you very much.
Finally someone with higher logic.
this is amazing, as i am amazed by the example. thank you...
I am glad to hear that. You are welcome.
Very nice, thank you. We did the theory in school, but I never saw it in practice. It's far more relevant to see it in this way than on a computer graphics simulation!
Glad it was helpful!
Very good and very clear presenter. Brilliant
Many thanks!
Why is the center of the plate off the axis of rotation by a significant distance?
It's not by a significant distance. It doesn't affect the experiment though.
I like the "Inspector Gadget" Jacket there Djorje.
Amazing
Thank you! Cheers!
Thanks for such a clear explanation.
Your English is excellent and your accent makes it even more interesting!
Glad you think so!
In Seattle, back in the 1970s, at the corner of 45th and University Way was a drinking fountain that pivoted around the center but the stream was towards the center. When you rotated it the water would curve in the 'wrong' way. Great demonstration.
Haha. I've seen this effect in lab eyewash fountains that rotate on center, with two opposing streams.
Love the subway flasher trenhcoat. Popped collar too, for extra special effect.
That is a brilliant demonstration of the Coriolis force.
Thanks. Much apricated.
As a scientist I have to say you have made the best explanation so far or maybe ever of Coriolis force. You really know your stuff. Congratulations! This is a great discovery and show at the same time. I will pass on this link to my fellows.
Thank you! Much appreciated.
Would it matter if the plate was centered on the spinning axis instead of how it is in this video (offset)?
No. Higher rotational speed of the disk would matter. It would result in larger deviation.
Excellent demonstration sir! Was searching for these sort of demonstrations (as well as showing it mathematically, which you have done in other videos). Subscribed!
Thank you. See you in the next video.
An often-misunderstood phenomenon very well explained indeed!
Thank you. Much appreciated.
What flerfer nightmares are made of.
Fantastic demonstration
Many thanks!
The dish is not on the center of rotation. How much does that skew the observation?
It does not. The Coriolis effect exists regardless of small deviations from the center line; or any deviation for that matter.
Uhmm, but the rotating disc in not rotating on it's center point. If I look at the edge of the disc, I see it moving from left to right compared to a still background pointof reference. I would think that also causes a distortion in how the balls move in either viewpoint?
Nope.
Finally understand it. Very simple to have intuitive understanding with such good demonstration.
I am glad to hear that!
The Coriolis effect comes up in accurate long range shooting. I can accept the need to adjust for it but, did not have a good understanding of why. Now I understand.
I also appreciate the example of the inertial and non-inertial reference planes.
I am now more amazed at the understanding of physics needed to hit a target with indirect fire.
I went to a shooting range in Texas and then calculated the bullet deflection caused by the Coriolis force. Check out that video. Although it's not long range shooting to be fair.
No it doesn't You're a liar...Army Rangers Sniper.
@godbluffvdogg
Depends on the range and the compass direction. Extreme long range shots have had to account for it, such as the record-setting shots by a Canadian sniper in 2017. The distance was 3,540 meters, well beyond typical sniper shots.
@@THall-vi8cp Bullshit...A sniper or long shot shooter only adjust for WINDAGE ...NOT THE "SPINNING OF THE EARTH" It's so asinine that people still try that lie... You can't bullshit me kid...I'm a Veteran.
@@THall-vi8cpThis is an old hearsay that keeps coming up, between all the variables such as distance, wind, air density, humidity and elevation it can not be proven that Coriolis force has any effect. None of the really long range targeting systems such as canon fire or missile targeting systems count for Coriolis force and they travels hundreds of miles !
This is beautiful I consider the Coriolis force in generating a magnetic field or electricity. Maybe a key to free energy.
You can find two videos on the Coriolis force and electromagnetic phenomena in my playlist on the Coriolis force. When it comes to the Coriolis force, please keep in mind that it can not change the speed of an object, only the direction. So, this force does no work. I also have separate videos on that.
Excellent demonstration, Thanks for the video. The curvature if the motion changes w.r.t reference point. What is the actual motion, straight line? What happens if you put a wet paint ball, will it draw straight lines?
VERY happy to receive a science lesson from Romanian Constantine.
Very interesting. Good job on showing the corolis effect.
Glad you liked it!
Simple, effective and easily understood.
Maybe that’s easy for you to say!
"My name is Giovanni Giorgio, but everyone calls me Giorgio"
I’d never heard of the Coriolis effect before this video. Now I’m hyper about the food dye version of the explanation lol. Thank you, sir!
WOW, that was way above the old dumb plumber that I am, but I am still trying to learn. Subscribed. My mind is officially blown.
I have enormous respect for tradesmen. Enormous!! If a person learns only 1 new thing every day, you will accumulate an enormous knowledge over life.
Beautiful!!
That was very informative, thank you. What I'd like to see is having the marble swinging back and forth but the marble is attached, by way of a string, to the rotating camera. Would the effect be the same? Since now the marble is not experiencing friction from the plate. I would venture to guess that the marble will swing in a straight line regardless of the position of the rotating camera.
Yes, the effect is the same. That apparatus is called the Foucault pendulum. I have a separate video about the Foucault pendulum.
The effect exits, however minimal it may be & has the potential for deviation of high speed projectiles fired at extended ranges.
Rail guns say different.
Interesting...What would be the pattern when the platform is tuning in the opposite direction?
It would be the same except that the curvature would be to the left.
Thank you :-)@@DjordjeRomanic
That's pretty cool. Makes it easier to understand
Excellent!
Hi doctor! My university has given me green light to do this experiment!
What kind of motor did you use for the rotating table? It’d really help me to know. Thank you
It's a 12 V motor. The motor code is 60zws-a-12v.
"that's very interesting, but how will this help us catch Lupin?"
Great demonstration for understanding reference frames.
How does the coriolis effect dynamics affect projectile ballistics at great distance?
I have a separate video addressing that exact question.
Excellent video. One question. Will this still work if I am not wearing a trench coat?
That's a good question! It works, but the effect is directly proportional to the visual appearance of the coast.
@@DjordjeRomanic thank you sir. Great video.
I had a great physics teacher in High School, but he didn't have access to video cameras back in the late 70s. I like to thing that Mr. Hall at Queen Anne High School in Seattle would have done something similar if he had this set up available.
Wow! Excelent demonstration. So now I have to think, what if marble left ink trails? Would they be curly, straight across, or what? Friction will keep them from going straight across. They would have to be curly. Not from the marble moving in curly direction. Its not. But from table spinning in circles.
Yes, your interpretation is correct.
Svaka Vam čast na prezentaciji, naravno,video ne bi bio kompletan bez tog detektivskog mantila! Sve najbolje.
Hvala puno. Veliki pozdrav.
As an advocate of "Short Radius Human Centrifuge in space. I wonder if you have conducted any stability studies of liquids in the outer diameter of a ring oscillation with a mass that is shifted from the center of rotation to the outer outer diameter. Should the water shift to ballance the new center of gravity. See Dynamic wheel balancers from Centrimatic. See video link in reply some channels don't allow links...;-)
Link to centrimatic wheel balancers: ua-cam.com/video/ullnFQD4F1I/v-deo.html
Interesting video. I haven't looked into it.
Would we expect any difference in behavior in the opposite hemisphere?
Yes, the deviation is in the opposite direction. In the Southern Hemisphere, the deviation is to the right. I have few videos describing that both geometrically and mathematically.
Does this explain thr effect that the earth is moving at 2m miles per hour in 4 different directions?
No it does not, but then also I am not sure which effect you are talking about.
Amazing demonstration. Thank you!
You're very welcome!
Wow. It's like an optical illusion.
So, which one are we actually seeing ? Is the marble actually making coriolis movements or straight ? I mean it can’t be both.
- I take it the point is it depends on your frame of reference ?
- Even though it ‘appears’ the marble is making parabolic movements it’s not really ?
- If we were spinning at the same rate with the table, we would only see the Marne moving in a straight line back and forth yes ?
- Luke others have suggested, what would an ink trail look like ? Parabolic from friction on the marble ?
Why then are cyclones/hurricanes subject to Coriolis effect when the earth and atmosphere aren’t touching ? Is it because there’s still friction of the atmospheric air relative to the earth ?
Yes, it depends on the reference frame.
i wonder what impact on the experiment exists because the lowest point in the dish is not the center of rotation
It's not relevant in terms of demonstrating the Coriolis effect.
What is a constant velocity along a straight line?
Equal intervals are traversed at equal times along a straight line.
I'm surprised that the name of the video is indeed not a bait, cos it is really the best demo of Coriolis Effect, thank you:)
You're welcome!
0:54 pliz tell me the dvd logo hit that corner 😭
Does the earth have an impact on the experiment's observations? Will the observations be the same if this experiment was set up in the southern hemisphere? i.e. Will the cycloid trajectory of the marble still be to the right in this setup if it was done in the southern hemisphere or at one of the poles at the geographic centre?
Earth's rotation does effect all motions including that marble's. However, the effect on the scale of this experiment is practically unmeasurable. One can simply demonstrate that by calculating the Rossby number for this experiment. The outcome of the experiment would be the same in the Southern Hemisphere because, as I just wrote, the Earth's Coriolis effect on the scale of the experiment is negligible.
Simple and brilliant!
Thank you! Cheers!
It will take some time for my brain to get this. The camera's frame/Scan rate is not a factor?
The camera frame rate does not affect the outcome. What would affect the outcome is different rotational speed of the turntable. If the turntable was rotating faster, the deviation would be larger. If the table was rotating slower, the deviation would be smaller. Of course, no deviation if the table is not rotating.
What is 40cm converted to freedom units?
0.4 m.
If you hang a pendulum from the rotating camera (to remove the friction component) does the shape of the cycloids change?
Check my video on Foucault pendulum I described that system there.
Ok i didnt expect my mind to be blown by this but it was
Thank you, Fellow!
You are welcome.
Nicely done demonstration with 2 cameras showing showing the frames. Subscriber #894 here so I'm looking forward to more adventures in physics. Montreal gets nippy so I'm also looking forward to other cold weather wear such as toques and maybe you could do some physics featuring poutine, just a thought.
Or crepes... Actually, I already have that one.
Perspective is everything
Excellent mate. New subscriber ✌🏻
Thanks and welcome.
Great demostrate! Thank you!
Glad you liked it!
Very interesting! How can this be? How can two camera's, looking at the same experiment, see two different things?? I know one camera is spinning and one is stationary. But HOW can they be taping two totally different realities? I can't grasp this concept. "Does not compute".
Difference between inertial and non-inertial reference frames. T
@@DjordjeRomanic I wonder...If each camera, could count how many times each ball was rotating, I assumer that they would be exactly the same. Even though it seems that the spinning camera would record higher revolutions??? Fun to imagine!
They aren't taping two different realities. They are taping two different views of the same reality. There is less going in here than you seem to think. Think of a ball moving in a straight line. A stationary camera shows the ball moving. A camera moving with the ball shows it as stationary. A camera violently shaking back and forth shows the ball violently shaking back and forth. Etc.
According to Einstein, it had to do with your point of view, called ‘frame of reference’ to motion. It’s not two different things, it’s the same thing from different reference points.
What’s weird to think about is every experiment done on earth is already subject to the Coriolis effect, including this one
You are correct. However, if one calculates the Rossby number for this experiment with respect to Earth's rotation and one will notice that the Earth-related Coriolis effect is negligible. But yes, you are 100% right that there is some component of Earth's Coriolis force being exerted on this moving marble.
We’re all brainwashed as children to believe earth is spinning as a globe. At a 24,900 mile circumference at the equator it would be moving at over 1000 miles per hour to go around once every 24 hours. But not once have the forces he so magnificently demonstrated been shown on earth. We experience no motion. That’s why the real documents for long range munitions have written in them that they are designed as if on a flat and non rotating earth. If they designed them for a rotating earth they would miss their targets. This is why airplanes coming in for a landing never have to adjust for a runway moving out from below them (unless they are landing in a heavy cross wind).
Yes I wanted to see the trails on the plate with marbles. Maybe coat the marbles in something that marks the plate
I knew the Coriolis effect existed, but I didn't quite understand how it worked. This instantly brought understanding to me. Thank you for sharing this.
I am happy to hear that. You are welcome.
Very interesting demo. So, were they expecting rain in the lab that day?
Yes, it's an atmospheric science laboratory. :)
This is a great explanation and visualization.
Thanks. I am glad you liked it.
Thank you Chief inspector.
You are welcome.
Can we make some lists below on what flat earthers will say in response to this experiment? What do you guys think? Im thinking "see, he's using a flat dish, he proved flat earth." Or the even better "failed experiment because the scale is way too small."
Who could be better at explaining than Lieutenant Colombo? ❤
That is so cool man!!! Wow! Great video. Thank you.
Glad you liked it!
When did Castiel start teaching science?
When you have existed since the beginning of science, you know everything.
Pretty awesome!
Thank you! Cheers!
Thanks for showing us what we should see if the Earth was turning, so we never see this happen in nature, so thanks for proving our Earth doesn’t move!
We see the Coriolis effect all the time on planet Earth. Have you heard of Hurricanes and Cyclones? Keep showing your ignorance.
Idiotic comment. Go to the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia and there’s a huge pendulum that proves the Earth is rotating.
You know you've got some swag when whole comment section praises your clothing choise in a video that has nothing to do with it.
haha thank you. :D
@@DjordjeRomanic i said nothing but truth ;) really cool outfit, that suit you well
Does this mean that if we get close to the north pole (or south pole) and we drop the marble it will oscilate in cyclades and not in straight lines? Given that one would have the same perspective as the non intertial camera (the camera that rotates with the plate)?
In your scenario, the marble would prescribe a circular motion. That circular motion is known as inertial oscillations. I have a video on inertial oscillations if you want to know the details.
Fascinating.Endlessly fascinating.Thank You Sir!🌞
I didn't know that the manager of FK Partizan moonlights as a scientist.
Multitasking is key in the modern society :P
why the trenchcoat?
That's the standard uniform in an atmospheric science laboratory.