:: : : Might the discrepancy be that you're going for a full-trip average, while Anon was calculating the peak momentary Coriolis acceleration?
12.
Steve's rough method gives an estimate of 1 / 2, 500 gee, while the actual Coriolis acceleration at the relevant latitude is about 1 / 1, 000 gee.
13.
It is seen that the Coriolis acceleration not only cancels the centrifugal acceleration, but together they provide a net " centripetal ", radially inward component of acceleration ( that is, directed toward the center of rotation ):
14.
If the motion of the point is analysed using co-ordinates based on the direction normal to the velocity vector and tangential to the velocity vector there is no 2r'?'term and so no need to resort to a Coriolis acceleration.
15.
Because this reference frame rotates several times a minute rather than only once a day like the Earth, the Coriolis acceleration produced is many times larger and so easier to observe on small time and spatial scales than is the Coriolis acceleration caused by the rotation of the Earth.
16.
Because this reference frame rotates several times a minute rather than only once a day like the Earth, the Coriolis acceleration produced is many times larger and so easier to observe on small time and spatial scales than is the Coriolis acceleration caused by the rotation of the Earth.
17.
In non-vector terms : at a given rate of rotation of the observer, the magnitude of the Coriolis acceleration of the object is proportional to the velocity of the object and also to the sine of the angle between the direction of movement of the object and the axis of rotation.
