[SoBouncy]

I read an FE explanation of how the coriolis effect isn't real, and a few ended with "drains and toilets spin either way."
So- first of all, ok- drains, etc- on a small scale, yes: coriolis effect does not happen.

But large storm systems are affected by the rotation of the (round) earth.

How is this explained in a FE model?

[jack44556677]

So- first of all, ok- drains, etc- on a small scale, yes: coriolis effect does not happen.

Actually, it doesn't happen on large scales either (and is more noticeable there, or ought to be - if the effect occurred/were real).  The coriolis effect is taught correctly to virtually no one.  The things you are talking about, and most people are mistaught are "coriolis effects" or related to it, are in fact ACTUAL/real deflection believed to be caused by the presumed angular momentum of the spinning world.  Coriolis effect is only when a deflection APPEARS to be there, due to varying reference frames (like when a twirling figure skater looks up at the ceiling spinning - the ceiling is not ACTUALLY spinning, it just looks like it is)

But large storm systems are affected by the rotation of the (round) earth.

This is widely believed and taught, but is not certain.  The reasons for prevailing winds (and jet streams, etc.) are well understood, and do not involve the supposed rotation of the world.  Just because those consistent weather patterns tend to cause storms with particular rotations is not "proof" of the shape or motion of the world.

How is this explained in a FE model?

Which one?  Honestly, there isn't a flat earth model (certainly no one agreed upon) - the better/accurate way to phrase your question is something along the lines of "How is this possible if the world is flat?" or "How can this be understood if the world is not spherical?"

[SteelyBob]

So- first of all, ok- drains, etc- on a small scale, yes: coriolis effect does not happen.

Actually, it doesn't happen on large scales either (and is more noticeable there, or ought to be - if the effect occurred/were real).  The coriolis effect is taught correctly to virtually no one.  The things you are talking about, and most people are mistaught are "coriolis effects" or related to it, are in fact ACTUAL/real deflection believed to be caused by the presumed angular momentum of the spinning world.  Coriolis effect is only when a deflection APPEARS to be there, due to varying reference frames (like when a twirling figure skater looks up at the ceiling spinning - the ceiling is not ACTUALLY spinning, it just looks like it is)

But large storm systems are affected by the rotation of the (round) earth.

This is widely believed and taught, but is not certain.  The reasons for prevailing winds (and jet streams, etc.) are well understood, and do not involve the supposed rotation of the world.  Just because those consistent weather patterns tend to cause storms with particular rotations is not "proof" of the shape or motion of the world.

How is this explained in a FE model?

Which one?  Honestly, there isn't a flat earth model (certainly no one agreed upon) - the better/accurate way to phrase your question is something along the lines of "How is this possible if the world is flat?" or "How can this be understood if the world is not spherical?"

I'm never quite sure why everybody focusses on storms and plugholes. Why not just discuss the wind? Not jet streams, or tornados - just the surface wind. Buys Ballot's law determines the wind direction in relation to the local low pressure, and:

- it works
- it is entirely consistent with the coriolis effect
- it changes direction depending on which side of the equator you're on
- it is entirely consistent with a globe earth and the rotation and direction that we expect from other observations

We all get that coriolis isn't 'real' - it's a correction, a transformation if you like, to take us from the notionally inertial frame of reference that we can generally consider our surroundings to be, to the actually not-quite-so-simply reality of a slowly rotating ball.

So in the blue corner, we have a round earth model that is entirely consistent with our observed world, and in the red corner we have a vague assertion that all that is wrong, and that the earth is flat, but yet we have no consistent proposal that would explain why the wind behaves the way it does if the earth is flat.

[jack44556677]

@steelybob

Why not just discuss the wind?

I agree.  I think it is because if you scrutinize too closely, the spell is broken.  Once you recognize that local wind is not caused by / related to the presumed rotation of the world, why would it be on any other scale?  Much like studying hydrostatics - if you recognize that no convex curvature (required for the globe to be even potentially possible) exists, then you know there is no scientific or emperical basis for globe belief. It doesn't exist at the scales we study, and so there is no reason to think it could/should on larger ones.

Buys Ballot's law determines the wind direction in relation to the local low pressure,

Exactly! Wind is created through convection.

We all get that coriolis isn't 'real'

WE all very much do not, including you. If the storms merely APPEARED to rotate, due to our presumed rotating reference frame and its presumed non-rotating isolation/separation from that reference frame (or vice versa), but weren't actually - only that would be an example of coriolis.  You, like most people who were miseducated, are talking about ACTUAL rotation - not virtual/reference frame based illusions thereof.

So in the blue corner,

There are no corners.  Reality does not get pay-per-view, nor does it care about/notice the outcome of the pageant/fight that we arbitrate.

Your prize fighter is old and weak, but it doesn't want to greet people at the casino yet so we keep pushing the gurney into the ring anyway so the WWE fanboys can cheer for their favorite lucador one more time.  All prize fighters get weak and old, and are destined to lose.  This is the fate of all models and scientific theories too - so in a way your analogy is, accidentally, quite apt.

[SteelyBob]

@steelybob
 Once you recognize that local wind is not caused by / related to the presumed rotation of the world, why would it be on any other scale?

Buys Ballot's law determines the wind direction in relation to the local low pressure,

Exactly! Wind is created through convection.

Well, let’s give it the close scrutiny you claim will ‘break the spell’.

If I show you a synoptic chart for anywhere in the world, how would you go about determining the local wind strength and direction using your convection model?

Regardless of your view on the shape of the earth, any study of isobars and wind reveals a clear relationship, and this relationship reverses at the equator - so something is clearly going on at the equator. What then, on a flat earth, is the significance of the equator, and why do weather systems rotate in opposite directions on different sides of it?

I’d recommend a look at this website - https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/webmap/beta/london_united-kingdom_2643743#coords=6.53/53.441/-9.226&map=windAnimation~coldwarm~auto~10%20m%20above%20gnd~pressure2mOverlay

If you select wind animation and isobars you get a brilliant animated view of the wind anywhere in the world, and you can clearly see the reversal in direction at the equator. And if you’re doubtful of the veracity of the data, just cross check the wind direction and strength with any local weather service.

You’re correct to mention convection -
It certainly has an effect on wind direction. The classic example is sea breezes, where the difference in specific heat capacity of the land and sea often causes local on-shore wind as the land heats up on sunny days, but this is a very local effect, and it is small in comparison to the dominant effect of pressure systems.

[Elyn95]

Regardless of your view on the shape of the earth, any study of isobars and wind reveals a clear relationship, and this relationship reverses at the equator - so something is clearly going on at the equator. What then, on a flat earth, is the significance of the equator, and why do weather systems rotate in opposite directions on different sides of it?

If the equator is the hottest line drawn across the earth, (caused the by sun's orbit or geothermal activity) then on either side of that individual weather patterns would be likely to develop. The rotation may be simply down to prevailing winds.

[Tumeni]

If the equator is the hottest line drawn across the earth, (caused the by sun's orbit or geothermal activity) then on either side of that individual weather patterns would be likely to develop. The rotation may be simply down to prevailing winds.

What would cause the winds to prevail, on a flat earth?

[jack44556677]

@tumeni

The driving engine/cause of all weather, all wind, is the sun (we assume).

It's the moving sun!

[Tumeni]

@tumeni

The driving engine/cause of all weather, all wind, is the sun (we assume).

It's the moving sun!

So prevailing winds stop at night? On cloudy days? Really?

[SteelyBob]

@tumeni

The driving engine/cause of all weather, all wind, is the sun (we assume).

It's the moving sun!

So it's back to my earlier question, and the examples I linked to. Given that there is a clear relationship between the isobars on a synoptic chart and the local wind, how would you go about predicting the wind using your flat earth model if I gave you the synoptic chart and a lat/long for a particular location?

[Elyn95]

[/quote]

So it's back to my earlier question, and the examples I linked to. Given that there is a clear relationship between the isobars on a synoptic chart and the local wind, how would you go about predicting the wind using your flat earth model if I gave you the synoptic chart and a lat/long for a particular location?
[/quote]

By using historic data. Previous weather patterns and thermal movement and surface pressure can all be used to predict future patterns (and improve upon the dataset already in existence). Curvature of the earth need have no bearing on it.

[SteelyBob]

So it's back to my earlier question, and the examples I linked to. Given that there is a clear relationship between the isobars on a synoptic chart and the local wind, how would you go about predicting the wind using your flat earth model if I gave you the synoptic chart and a lat/long for a particular location?
[/quote]

By using historic data. Previous weather patterns and thermal movement and surface pressure can all be used to predict future patterns (and improve upon the dataset already in existence). Curvature of the earth need have no bearing on it.
[/quote]

Well...ok. So historic data shows you that the wind blows anti clockwise around low pressure systems in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. Which is exactly what you’d expect if the earth was round and rotating. And all you have to offer is some vague statement about the sun, with no explanation of the exact mechanism at work, or why the direction reverses at the equator. Aren’t you just a tiny bit doubtful? Doesn’t looking at the animated synoptic chart, with all the wind arrows dutifully following the weather systems exactly as Buys Ballot predicts, make you a little bit curious as to whether your flat model might be a little off the mark?

As an aside, you seem to be using the end quote code in both your quote statements, which is why they aren’t working. Lose the / in the first one and you’ll be good to go.

[Elyn95]

Well...ok. So historic data shows you that the wind blows anti clockwise around low pressure systems in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. Which is exactly what you’d expect if the earth was round and rotating. And all you have to offer is some vague statement about the sun, with no explanation of the exact mechanism at work, or why the direction reverses at the equator. Aren’t you just a tiny bit doubtful? Doesn’t looking at the animated synoptic chart, with all the wind arrows dutifully following the weather systems exactly as Buys Ballot predicts, make you a little bit curious as to whether your flat model might be a little off the mark?

As an aside, you seem to be using the end quote code in both your quote statements, which is why they aren’t working. Lose the / in the first one and you’ll be good to go.

The direction could reverse at the equator becuase the temperature could be different on eitehr side of the equator which would cause a difference in pressure along the line of the equator. My main thought is that the corialis effect does not need to be the only explantion for the current weather patterns. It is simply the effect that fits with a GE model.

I am doubtful, which is why I'm always seeking out new answers.

Thanks for the tip on the quotes! Hopefully they worked this time!   

[SteelyBob]

The direction could reverse at the equator becuase the temperature could be different on eitehr side of the equator which would cause a difference in pressure along the line of the equator. My main thought is that the corialis effect does not need to be the only explantion for the current weather patterns. It is simply the effect that fits with a GE model.

But we know what the pressure gradients are, because we have synoptic charts showing isobars on them. If the earth was flat and not rotating, then the only lateral force acting on any particular small parcel of air would be the local pressure gradient, meaning that we'd expect the wind to blow from areas of high pressure towards areas of low pressure. But that's not what we see. What we actually get is the wind blowing perpendicular to the pressure gradient, in a direction that reverses depending on how which side of the equator we are on. This effect is everywhere, and it occurs regardless of temperature.

So the challenge for FE proponents is to explain why this is the case. If you take a particular parcel of air, moving along an isobar rather than across it as one would expect, what forces are acting on it to compel it to move in that fashion? If there is a pressure gradient force pushing it towards the low pressure, why doesn't it move that way? Other than pressure, what other force could possibly be at work?

I am doubtful, which is why I'm always seeking out new answers.

Well that's great. But when you're confronted with a massive problem with one model and a completely coherent other model, wouldn't a good scientist conclude that maybe the coherent one was the more credible?

Thanks for the tip on the quotes! Hopefully they worked this time!   

They did!

[jack44556677]

@steelybob

wouldn't a good scientist conclude that maybe the coherent one was the more credible?

Models are for limited and specific use.  A good scientist would never determine the shape of the world in this manner.

[SteelyBob]

@steelybob

wouldn't a good scientist conclude that maybe the coherent one was the more credible?

Models are for limited and specific use.  A good scientist would never determine the shape of the world in this manner.

What's your explanation for why the wind blows along isobars, and not across them as one might expect? And why does the direction reverse at the equator?

[Elyn95]

Well that's great. But when you're confronted with a massive problem with one model and a completely coherent other model, wouldn't a good scientist conclude that maybe the coherent one was the more credible?

Not if you observed massive problems with the first model. RET has so many other observal problems that simply outweigh the supposed problem of the coriolis effect if FET. 

[SteelyBob]

Well that's great. But when you're confronted with a massive problem with one model and a completely coherent other model, wouldn't a good scientist conclude that maybe the coherent one was the more credible?

Not if you observed massive problems with the first model. RET has so many other observal problems that simply outweigh the supposed problem of the coriolis effect if FET.

What are the massive problems with RET?

[Elyn95]

Well that's great. But when you're confronted with a massive problem with one model and a completely coherent other model, wouldn't a good scientist conclude that maybe the coherent one was the more credible?

Not if you observed massive problems with the first model. RET has so many other observal problems that simply outweigh the supposed problem of the coriolis effect if FET.

What are the massive problems with RET?

The Bedford canal experiment seems like a good place to start... Although this is going to pull us into another and well-discussed thread. Happy to go it again if needed!

[SteelyBob]

Well that's great. But when you're confronted with a massive problem with one model and a completely coherent other model, wouldn't a good scientist conclude that maybe the coherent one was the more credible?

Not if you observed massive problems with the first model. RET has so many other observal problems that simply outweigh the supposed problem of the coriolis effect if FET.

What are the massive problems with RET?

The Bedford canal experiment seems like a good place to start... Although this is going to pull us into another and well-discussed thread. Happy to go it again if needed!

Well, that's why we're here right?!

The thing I don't understand about FE proponents and the Bedford levels, and indeed other horizon / visibility / curvature experiments, is why the issue of refraction is never addressed, despite it being the obvious rebuttal to the observations made. We all get that you can observe things at distances beyond that one would expect from a simple curvature calculation. But surely we can move on from that? The issue is whether or not refraction can explain the observations. I clearly think it can - I'm curious as to why you think otherwise?