[exadon]

How does the current FE model explain the Coriolis effect?

For reference: http://www.theozonehole.com/coriolis.htm

[Tom Bishop]

See the Coriolis Effect articles in the Wiki.

[Stagiri]

See the Coriolis Effect articles in the Wiki.

In summary - the FES denies it even exists.

[Tom Bishop]

Its more like RET is claiming something without evidence.

[Bad Puppy]

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?

[Stagiri]

Its more like RET is claiming something without evidence.

The Coriolis effect CAN be demonstrated very simply - as shown in this video:


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 

[Tom Bishop]

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:


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.

[AATW]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[AATW]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Stagiri]

Its more like RET is claiming something without evidence.

The Coriolis effect CAN be demonstrated very simply - as shown in this video:


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?

[Tom Bishop]

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?

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.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[stack]

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.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

Tom, are you saying celestial gravitation provides underlying force for the Coriolis effect?

[Tom Bishop]

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/Coriolis_Effect_(Weather)

[WellRoundedIndividual]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

Guided missiles guide to correct themselves, and would not be a good example to champion. Also, a lot if those papers are theoretical.