The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Projects => Topic started by: Mysfit on October 04, 2018, 11:00:55 PM
-
Hello,
I have found an interesting page on the wiki, The Humber Bridge.
It is interesting as it includes a named forum contributor and a copy+pasted forum post. This is the first time I have seen this.
I would love to know the steps for such a thing to occur, as it helps to prevent a repeated forum topic using a forum post. Antibodies, baby :).
There is a very active, and complicated, ongoing debate for the Coriolis effect on bullet trajectory and I would like for it’s outcome to be considered as a similar page.
-
I've updated the Coriolis Effect page here with some of the latest discussion:
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect
What more should we add?
-
I've updated the Coriolis Effect page here with some of the latest discussion:
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect
What more should we add?
It would be nice if you wouldn't blatantly lie in your wiki if that's not too much to ask.
-
I've updated the Coriolis Effect page here with some of the latest discussion:
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect
What more should we add?
I was thinking more of adding the conclusion. Sandokhan has some interesting maths and my video seems to be experimental proof so far.
Edit: I spelled Sandokhan's name wrong but have now corrected it.
-
It would be nice if you wouldn't blatantly lie in your wiki if that's not too much to ask.
C'mon CS, you know that's not how things work around here. If you think Tom's edits are untrue, specify which claims and why - preferably in a discussion board so that others can weigh in.
-
The Coriolis Effect, however, is a fictitious effect that is not, and has never been, demonstrated with experimental evidence. Its proponents are unable to show that this effect has ever been detected or that it is truly necessary to account for in various operations.
Do what?!
The one thing accurate on that page is that the thing about water draining down a sink in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere and an anti-clockwise direction in the southern isn't true.
The Coriolis Effect isn't fictitious, but it is a weak force which isn't a factor in the way the water drains compared with the way the water is moving or the shape of your basin and plug.
You can find YouTube videos for tourists at the equator demonstrating the effect but if you look at those videos you see they pour the water differently in different hemispheres to demonstrate the effect.
On a macro scale though there is a clear effect, weather systems and ocean currents mostly move clockwise in the northern hemisphere and anti-clockwise in the southern.
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/hurricanes-spin-different-directions-northern-southern-hemispheres-coriolis-effect.html
-
It would be nice if you wouldn't blatantly lie in your wiki if that's not too much to ask.
C'mon CS, you know that's not how things work around here. If you think Tom's edits are untrue, specify which claims and why - preferably in a discussion board so that others can weigh in.
I was planning to, but was late at night and while I probably shouldn't have weighed in at all without being ready with sources, I did. But anyway, post going up shortly.
-
I've made a slight adjustment to one of the opening statements. I have changed "The Coriolis Effect, however, is a fictitious effect" to "The Coriolis Effect, however, appears to be a fictitious effect"...
It was an opinion before the change (as are all statements), but this change makes it clearer that it is an opinion. I don't see how an opinion can be a "lie".
-
How does a fictitious effect cause the differences in weather patterns in the northern and southern hemispheres?
Unless you deny that even happens.
If you don’t deny that then something is causing it.
-
The Coriolis Effect isn't fictitious...
Actually, that's a common label for it. Whether or not it is manifest in our world (spinning globe vs. static plane), in a rotating inertial reference frame it is very real. However, "real" is not the antonym of "fictitious" here, in this usage. I personally don't like "fictitious" either. I prefer "pseudo;" but there is a distinction between it and other non-internal forces, and use of the adjective "fictitious" is part of the physics lingo.
Edit to add that, based on the discussion in the other topic, Sandokhan's version of FET recognizes the reality of the Coriolis Effect (unlike the TFES wiki), but unlike the globe earth where it is a "pseudo force," in his rendition of FET, the force is real. Frankly, I think he makes an intriguing argument that is in stark contrast to the skepticism of the Coriolis Effect's existence.
-
I think this has gone a bit off-topic. And I am also to blame.
Has there been many other incidents of a forum post conclusion leading to it's own wiki page?
More pages would help as nailing down merits for inclusion in the wiki from just this one page is scary-difficult.
I am glad that it is being talked about though. Thanks to all those that are helping and Tom for making the changes.