The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: exadon on January 01, 2018, 05:01:30 PM
-
How does the current FE model explain the Coriolis effect?
For reference: http://www.theozonehole.com/coriolis.htm
-
See the Coriolis Effect articles in the Wiki.
-
See the Coriolis Effect articles in the Wiki.
In summary - the FES denies it even exists.
-
Its more like RET is claiming something without evidence.
-
Its more like RET is claiming something without evidence.
Just looking at Wikipedia, I see a number of examples of its effect listed. Are you suggesting that everything there is false and every one of those references listed on the wiki is incorrect?
-
Its more like RET is claiming something without evidence.
The Coriolis effect CAN be demonstrated very simply - as shown in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmyx9G_7T8k
Of course, said method can be easily faked. However, it is just as easily replicable, so you can try it for yourself and see the result ;)
-
Its more like RET is claiming something without evidence.
Just looking at Wikipedia, I see a number of examples of its effect listed. Are you suggesting that everything there is false and every one of those references listed on the wiki is incorrect?
The supposed examples of the Coriolis Effect are addressed in our wiki.
Its more like RET is claiming something without evidence.
The Coriolis effect CAN be demonstrated very simply - as shown in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmyx9G_7T8k
Of course, said method can be easily faked. However, it is just as easily replicable, so you can try it for yourself and see the result ;)
I disagree that this video is evidence that of the earth's Coriolis Effect.
-
Its more like RET is claiming something without evidence.
*sigh*
This sort of argument is so tiresome. It always goes the same.
RE: Claim
FE: There is no evidence for that.
RE: There's loads of evidence for that *provides sources*
FE: Those sources are fake/wrong *provides some dubious source from someone with a blog with know scientific argument*
And then you run off claiming victory.
If you dismiss or call fake all evidence which shows you to be wrong then you can "prove" yourself right about anything.
-
Its more like RET is claiming something without evidence.
*sigh*
This sort of argument is so tiresome. It always goes the same.
RE: Claim
FE: There is no evidence for that.
RE: There's loads of evidence for that *provides sources*
FE: Those sources are fake/wrong *provides some dubious source from someone with a blog with know scientific argument*
And then you run off claiming victory.
If you dismiss or call fake all evidence which shows you to be wrong then you can "prove" yourself right about anything.
No. You came here claiming that some effect exists. Prove it and provide evidence for your claim.
If you cannot provide the evidence, then you have no evidence. Pretty simple.
-
No. You came here claiming that some effect exists. Prove it and provide evidence for your claim.
That's the penultimate part of the dialogue I outlined above.
Plenty of evidence has been provided, you then respond with the last part of that dialogue.
-
No. You came here claiming that some effect exists. Prove it and provide evidence for your claim.
That's the penultimate part of the dialogue I outlined above.
Plenty of evidence has been provided, you then respond with the last part of that dialogue.
What evidence? Zero evidence has been provided. We've been talking about this for over ten years. You guys consistently struggle to provide evidence on this matter.
-
Its more like RET is claiming something without evidence.
The Coriolis effect CAN be demonstrated very simply - as shown in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmyx9G_7T8k
Of course, said method can be easily faked. However, it is just as easily replicable, so you can try it for yourself and see the result ;)
I disagree that this video is evidence that of the earth's Coriolis Effect.
Could you, please, explain why? Or provide an alternative explanation?
-
Its more like RET is claiming something without evidence.
The Coriolis effect CAN be demonstrated very simply - as shown in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmyx9G_7T8k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmyx9G_7T8k)
Of course, said method can be easily faked. However, it is just as easily replicable, so you can try it for yourself and see the result ;)
I disagree that this video is evidence that of the earth's Coriolis Effect.
Could you, please, explain why? Or provide an alternative explanation?
It's an attempted example of the pull of such an effect, not evidence of the effect on earth. An example of someone being pulled sideways or outwards on a merry-go-round is not evidence of the Coriolis Effect on earth. It's evidence of what happens on a merry-go-round.
-
Where was the merry go round in this thread? Or video? All I saw was a guy on a ladder.
Of course, I agree with Tom. We all know that centrifugal force is what is in play on a merry go round. 6th grade physics class. But that's shifting the goalposts, again. No one mentioned merry go round, at least in this thread alone. Nor are they confusing centrifugal force with coriolis.
-
It's simply a demonstration that water wants to travel in straight lines against the motion of the swinging.
It's the same sort of demonstration as putting a marble on the floor of a merry-go-round and seeing that the marble wants to travel against the merry-go-round.
Such experiments attempt to demonstrate the principle behind the idea of the Coriolis Effect, but not that the earth creates a Coriolis Effect.
Shall I point to my dinner plates as an example of flat objects when you ask me for evidence that the earth is flat? This is exactly what you guys are doing.
-
It's simply a demonstration that water wants to travel in straight lines against the motion of the swinging.
It's the same sort of demonstration as putting a marble on the floor of a merry-go-round and seeing that the marble wants to travel against the merry-go-round.
Such experiments attempt to demonstrate the principle behind the idea of the Coriolis Effect, but not that the earth creates a Coriolis Effect.
Shall I point to my dinner plates as an example of flat objects when you ask me for evidence that the earth is flat? This is exactly what you guys are doing.
Does this still hold true:
The Coriolis Effect is caused by the stars, which are moving at a rate of one rotation per 24 hours.
-
Tom, are you saying celestial gravitation provides underlying force for the Coriolis effect?
-
When we looked into it further we found that there was no evidence for the effect at all. It's an unfounded claim.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect)
https://wiki.tfes.org/Coriolis_Effect_(Weather) (https://wiki.tfes.org/Coriolis_Effect_(Weather))
-
If that's true, why do gunner mates have to understand the coriolis effect on their guided missiles?
See Chapter 2. Gunners mate training manual.
https://www.okieboat.com/GMM.html
(Even says they have to account for the curvature of the earth interestingly enough for long range missile launches).
I even found a paper from a Russian professor discussing the Coriolis effect on their unguided missile systems. It was on a research website to which I did not have access to the paper, but I requested access. We shall see if that happens.
-
Guided missiles guide to correct themselves, and would not be a good example to champion. Also, a lot if those papers are theoretical.
-
When we looked into it further we found that there was no evidence for the effect at all. It's an unfounded claim.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect)
https://wiki.tfes.org/Coriolis_Effect_(Weather) (https://wiki.tfes.org/Coriolis_Effect_(Weather))
From the wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect) referencing the “Coriolis” Correction Table H from the "The Production of Firing Tables for Cannon Artillery (1967)” doc, it states:
"When Coriolis Effect proponents are challenged on the accuracy or validity of this table, the proponents proclaim that if it were incorrect then artillery and artillerymen would be routinely inaccurate and miss their targets, and how could that be the case?
From the introduction of the above paper provided to us we read that military artillery, which is purported to require adjustments for the "Coriolis Effect," is indeed, routinely inaccurate. The first round generally misses its target. Only after missing a number of times, and then adjusting the alignment of the cannon to compensate, does the artilleryman hit his or her target.”
And it goes on to list a series of quotes regarding the accuracy of firing tables and how most first rounds fired are inaccurate.
So is the argument that because the Coriolis Table H is used but most first rounds are not accurate that the Coriolis Effect doesn’t exist?
If so, wouldn’t the same apply to Tables A-G and I-M. Things like table corrections for Elevation, Wind, Temperature/Density, Muzzle Velocity, etc? Meaning, do all of these things not exist as well because often the first round(s) fired are not accurate?
-
What evidence? Zero evidence has been provided. We've been talking about this for over ten years. You guys consistently struggle to provide evidence on this matter.
Lots of evidence has been provided. You either struggle to understand it or dismiss it as fake. You do this about all evidence which shows you to be wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38
-
Tom, you must not understand guided missile systems. The control system operated by the gunners mate gives the missile an initial trajectory that is calculated based on known variables - location of target, speed and trajectory of target, as well as environmental variables, ie coriolis effect, wind, etc. Guided missiles then do course correction throughout its flight if anything changes.
-
Here are the four main threads on the Coriolis effect:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10918.0
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10258.msg168527#msg168527
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10875.msg167782#msg167782
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10804.msg167732#msg167732
Each and every problem associated with the Coriolis effect is totally solved, once and for all.
-
So essentially, you are stating that the Coriolis effect is actually caused by aether and not rotation of the earth, and that you do agree that some effect exists?
-
You need to go back to the original definition given by Gaspard de Coriolis:
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/compoundcentrifugalforce.pdf
And also understand that Newton (or the group of people who wrote the works attributed to Newton) presented to the public ONLY the radial component of gravity.
Here is the complete general acceleration equation:
(http://image.ibb.co/bJJHkx/acc1.jpg)
There are THREE more components in the true equation of acceleration.
It is these three additional terms, craftily removed from the eyes of physicists, which explain the Coriolis effect, the Sagnac effect, the Kozyrev effect, the DePalma effect.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2033009#msg2033009
Now, we can add even two more terms to the acceleration equation: the vorticity of the electromagnetic potential and the vorticity of the superpotential (Biefeld-Brown effect and the acoustic levitation phenomenon).
Most physicists do not understand that the Newtonian acceleration is concerned only with the radial component, having left out the other three essential terms of the equation.
-
Each and every problem associated with the Coriolis effect is totally solved, once and for all.
And yet the Nobel Prize still eludes you, somehow.
Your theories aren't even impressing the rest of the FE community let alone the scientific one.
You don't even seem to be disputing the effect exists, you just claim a different mechanism for it.
-
A. Michelson received the Nobel prize (1907) for the wrong formula (published in 1904 and 1887).
He ascribed the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for this Sagnac interferometer:
(http://image.ibb.co/iQWfJ7/cir2.jpg)
(http://earthmeasured.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/michelson-gale-1.png)
No other physicist was able to derive the correct SAGNAC EFFECT formula, not Lorentz, Einstein, Miller, Pauli, Post, no one else knew what to do with Sagnac interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation.
Until now:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351
-
What evidence? Zero evidence has been provided. We've been talking about this for over ten years. You guys consistently struggle to provide evidence on this matter.
Lots of evidence has been provided. You either struggle to understand it or dismiss it as fake. You do this about all evidence which shows you to be wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38
A single video demonstrating an uncontrolled, non-replicated "experiment" is lots of evidence?
-
No, it is just part of the lots of evidence.
What is the FE explanation for that result?
-
What evidence? Zero evidence has been provided. We've been talking about this for over ten years. You guys consistently struggle to provide evidence on this matter.
Lots of evidence has been provided. You either struggle to understand it or dismiss it as fake. You do this about all evidence which shows you to be wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXaad0rsV38
A single video demonstrating an uncontrolled, non-replicated "experiment" is lots of evidence?
It wouldn't be hard to go do a controlled experiment and prove it wrong if you wanted to, surely? It looks controllable and repeatable to me. I've always been a little dubious of the draining water direction thing but that's mainly because i know sinks and toilets may be directing the flow of draining and flushing. When the simpsons made a whole episode about it I thought it was for jokes. If it actually does happen then I'm as surprised as you are and I'm a "round earther". I'm willing to believe either way regarding water draining directions as I haven't looked much into it. :D
-
The basic principle of the Coriolis Effect is simple. There is some force that imparts minor rotation to objects on the Earth's surface, that's all; it would be logical to conclude that this force is the same, or at least connected to, the one that causes the stars and Sun to rotate in the sky. There is no significant argument there, independent of whatever model you are talking about.
The only reason the Coriolis Effect is brought up at all is because it acts differently depending on what side of the equator you are. This is not nearly as dramatic as some REers claim, you cannot simply take a few steps either side of the equator and have water drain from a bowl in opposite directions like a few tourist traps would have you believe, but there is still an effect, the most reliable indication of which is the direction that hurricanes and cyclones move.
So all FET needs in response to this is to explain what it is that makes the equator special. To again tie to other similar rotational motion, this argument may as well be the same as the star trail argument. Why does the direction change at the equator?
True, it is hard to see how conventional, uniplanar FET would deal with this. Good thing that's not the only option we have.
-
The thing about sinks and toilets as per the Simpsons episode is a myth because the effect is so slight. But these guys show that if you do things in a controlled enough way you can see an effect, as we can with tornadoes and hurricanes rotating in opposite direction in the different hemispheres.
The counter argument from FE basically amounts to “nuh uh” which I’d suggest isn’t really an argument at all.
-
The thing about sinks and toilets as per the Simpsons episode is a myth because the effect is so slight. But these guys show that if you do things in a controlled enough way you can see an effect, as we can with tornadoes and hurricanes rotating in opposite direction in the different hemispheres.
The counter argument from FE basically amounts to “nuh uh” which I’d suggest isn’t really an argument at all.
In order for it to be solid evidence of the Coriolis effect the experiment would have to be replicated numerous times in various locations with various different kinds of containers. There are also unaccounted variables that are not accounted for as mentioned by several of the commentators on Youtube. The evidence you presented has practically zero statistical power.
-
The thing about sinks and toilets as per the Simpsons episode is a myth because the effect is so slight. But these guys show that if you do things in a controlled enough way you can see an effect, as we can with tornadoes and hurricanes rotating in opposite direction in the different hemispheres.
The counter argument from FE basically amounts to “nuh uh” which I’d suggest isn’t really an argument at all.
In order for it to be solid evidence of the Coriolis effect the experiment would have to be replicated numerous times in various locations with various different kinds of containers. There are also unaccounted variables that are not accounted for as mentioned by several of the commentators on Youtube. The evidence you presented has practically zero statistical power.
Feel free to do your own experiment.
But stop acting as if that is the only single piece of evidence for the effect existing. It is merely an example.