The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: MikeRobson on March 26, 2019, 02:17:00 PM
-
Several observable events on Earth support the theory of a globe rather than a flat earth including the coriolis effect. What evidence can be put forward to support the coriolis effect in a flat earth model?
Regards - Mike
-
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect. In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Coriolis_Effect
-
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect. In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.
-
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect. In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.
Not quite. The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude. Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator. The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.
-
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect. In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.
Not quite. The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude. Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator. The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.
15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.
-
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect. In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.
Not quite. The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude. Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator. The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.
15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.
15 degrees per hour is indeed a constant angular speed.
The linear speed depends on the radius. In FET, all stars lay on the dome, hence all stars rotate at constant angular and linear speeds.
-
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect. In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.
Not quite. The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude. Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator. The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.
15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.
15 degrees per hour is indeed a constant angular speed.
The linear speed depends on the radius. In FET, all stars lay on the dome, hence all stars rotate at constant angular and linear speeds.
Yes, I'm going to take your word for how the stars behave under what I believe.
Angular speed doesn't matter here. If you go to RET, any point of the Earth is moving with constant angular speed. The linear speed is what defines the magnitude of the Coriolis effect.
-
Yes, I'm going to take your word for how the stars behave under what I believe.
I can confirm that the stars move with constant angular speed across the sky at a rate of 15 deg/hr as mentioned above. How do I know that? Because my mount has three calibrated constant speeds of sidereal, solar and lunar. When set to sidereal for the stars, any star remains centred in the eyepiece for as long as I care to track it. Throughout that time the mount is moving to counteract the Earths rotation. Not surprisingly when I turn the tracking off, the star drifts out of the FOV.
What do you believe and why do you believe it?
-
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect. In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.
Not quite. The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude. Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator. The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.
15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.
15 degrees per hour is indeed a constant angular speed.
The linear speed depends on the radius. In FET, all stars lay on the dome, hence all stars rotate at constant angular and linear speeds.
Yes, I'm going to take your word for how the stars behave under what I believe.
Angular speed doesn't matter here. If you go to RET, any point of the Earth is moving with constant angular speed. The linear speed is what defines the magnitude of the Coriolis effect.
Correct, but then how does that match up? The fastest linear speed should occur around the equator (or Antarctica if we discuss the monopole map) and the slowest at the poles. Yet that's the opposite of where the effect is the strongest. How? Why?
-
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect. In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.
Not quite. The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude. Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator. The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.
15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.
15 degrees per hour is indeed a constant angular speed.
The linear speed depends on the radius. In FET, all stars lay on the dome, hence all stars rotate at constant angular and linear speeds.
Yes, I'm going to take your word for how the stars behave under what I believe.
Angular speed doesn't matter here. If you go to RET, any point of the Earth is moving with constant angular speed. The linear speed is what defines the magnitude of the Coriolis effect.
Correct, but then how does that match up? The fastest linear speed should occur around the equator (or Antarctica if we discuss the monopole map) and the slowest at the poles. Yet that's the opposite of where the effect is the strongest. How? Why?
Only if you believe in a unipolar map.
-
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect. In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.
Not quite. The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude. Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator. The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.
15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.
15 degrees per hour is indeed a constant angular speed.
The linear speed depends on the radius. In FET, all stars lay on the dome, hence all stars rotate at constant angular and linear speeds.
Yes, I'm going to take your word for how the stars behave under what I believe.
Angular speed doesn't matter here. If you go to RET, any point of the Earth is moving with constant angular speed. The linear speed is what defines the magnitude of the Coriolis effect.
Correct, but then how does that match up? The fastest linear speed should occur around the equator (or Antarctica if we discuss the monopole map) and the slowest at the poles. Yet that's the opposite of where the effect is the strongest. How? Why?
Only if you believe in a unipolar map.
How does a dipole or similar map avoid this issue? I already made an allowance about the unipolar/monopole map. It's fastest speed would be above Antarctica (which would at least match measurements in one location sort of) but a multiple pole FE should have exactly the opposite in regards to the linear speed of the stars. Just like a record spun above each pole.
-
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect. In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.
Not quite. The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude. Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator. The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.
15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.
15 degrees per hour is indeed a constant angular speed.
The linear speed depends on the radius. In FET, all stars lay on the dome, hence all stars rotate at constant angular and linear speeds.
Yes, I'm going to take your word for how the stars behave under what I believe.
Angular speed doesn't matter here. If you go to RET, any point of the Earth is moving with constant angular speed. The linear speed is what defines the magnitude of the Coriolis effect.
Correct, but then how does that match up? The fastest linear speed should occur around the equator (or Antarctica if we discuss the monopole map) and the slowest at the poles. Yet that's the opposite of where the effect is the strongest. How? Why?
Only if you believe in a unipolar map.
How does a dipole or similar map avoid this issue? I already made an allowance about the unipolar/monopole map. It's fastest speed would be above Antarctica (which would at least match measurements in one location sort of) but a multiple pole FE should have exactly the opposite in regards to the linear speed of the stars. Just like a record spun above each pole.
Why? Slower at the poles, faster further away up to the equator, then slower up to the other pole as we observe with the stars. Constant angular, variable linear.
-
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect. In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.
Not quite. The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude. Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator. The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.
15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.
15 degrees per hour is indeed a constant angular speed.
The linear speed depends on the radius. In FET, all stars lay on the dome, hence all stars rotate at constant angular and linear speeds.
Yes, I'm going to take your word for how the stars behave under what I believe.
Angular speed doesn't matter here. If you go to RET, any point of the Earth is moving with constant angular speed. The linear speed is what defines the magnitude of the Coriolis effect.
I suppose you should. I’ve placed the stars on the firmament dome for you, as FET posits, and am helping you understand the consequences of this model.
Yes the angular speed matters. Precisely because that is the frame that is ROTATING. The linear speed of a moving object matters, when it is moving in that rotating frame.
In fact, unless the Planar Earth is also rotating, you can’t have a Coriolis effect. That is what I’m trying to help you understand.
If it’s just the down that rotates, you won’t see any coriolis unless you are glued onto it and watching something move below you on the Earth.
-
I suppose you should. I’ve placed the stars on the firmament dome for you, as FET posits, and am helping you understand the consequences of this model.
Yes the angular speed matters. Precisely because that is the frame that is ROTATING. The linear speed of a moving object matters, when it is moving in that rotating frame.
In fact, unless the Planar Earth is also rotating, you can’t have a Coriolis effect. That is what I’m trying to help you understand.
If it’s just the down that rotates, you won’t see any coriolis unless you are glued onto it and watching something move below you on the Earth.
Aside from how you're still trying to insist you know what I believe better than I do, it is not literally the stars reaching down that causes the coriolis effect, it's just that the force responsible for their motion doesn't vanish with altitude. There is another angular force acting at the Earth's surface, slower at the poles and faster at the equator, that acts in a set direction and as such will deflect motion in said direction. How would that have no effect, in your view?
-
I suppose you should. I’ve placed the stars on the firmament dome for you, as FET posits, and am helping you understand the consequences of this model.
Yes the angular speed matters. Precisely because that is the frame that is ROTATING. The linear speed of a moving object matters, when it is moving in that rotating frame.
In fact, unless the Planar Earth is also rotating, you can’t have a Coriolis effect. That is what I’m trying to help you understand.
If it’s just the down that rotates, you won’t see any coriolis unless you are glued onto it and watching something move below you on the Earth.
Aside from how you're still trying to insist you know what I believe better than I do, it is not literally the stars reaching down that causes the coriolis effect, it's just that the force responsible for their motion doesn't vanish with altitude. There is another angular force acting at the Earth's surface, slower at the poles and faster at the equator, that acts in a set direction and as such will deflect motion in said direction. How would that have no effect, in your view?
The force responsible for their motion doesn’t vanish with altitude. What force is responsible for the stars’ motion?
If I understand you correctly, then you posit a stationary plane Earth, that contains a force which has an azimuthal angle dependence but not polar angle dependence, and also not radially dependent. So the same force that manifests as a coriolis force on the earth is responsible for the rotation of the stars. Am I getting that right?
A clever idea. Here’s the problem. The force that causes the stars to rotate must do so such that we observe neither a radial nor azimuthal dependence. Otherwise, certain strips of the night sky would rotate faster. But it all rotates together. You can see this on time lapse photography.
Hence, this motion is consistent with a centrifugal force, not a coriolis one. That is, according to your idea, we should all be flung off the Earth’s plane!
-
A clever idea. Here’s the problem. The force that causes the stars to rotate must do so such that we observe neither a radial nor azimuthal dependence. Otherwise, certain strips of the night sky would rotate faster. But it all rotates together. You can see this on time lapse photography.
Some do rotate faster. That's how they are able to cross a larger distance in the same time as other stars cross a smaller. Why do I keep needing to explain this? You're jumping back and forth between linear and angular speed and coming up with something meaningless. There's no radial dependence for angular speed because angular speed is constant, it doesn't depend on anything, but there sure as hell is going to be for linear speed because the larger the radius, the faster it goes in order to keep up with the inner.
It is literally that simple. I'm not dedicating anything to a particular model here, I don't need to, whatever the FE model the rotational force exists. Faster the further you get from a pole, and so long as it's a model with two poles then it's there, and the distance between the stars does not change.
-
I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect. In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.
The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.
Not quite. The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude. Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator. The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.
15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.
15 degrees per hour is indeed a constant angular speed.
The linear speed depends on the radius. In FET, all stars lay on the dome, hence all stars rotate at constant angular and linear speeds.
Yes, I'm going to take your word for how the stars behave under what I believe.
Angular speed doesn't matter here. If you go to RET, any point of the Earth is moving with constant angular speed. The linear speed is what defines the magnitude of the Coriolis effect.
Correct, but then how does that match up? The fastest linear speed should occur around the equator (or Antarctica if we discuss the monopole map) and the slowest at the poles. Yet that's the opposite of where the effect is the strongest. How? Why?
Only if you believe in a unipolar map.
How does a dipole or similar map avoid this issue? I already made an allowance about the unipolar/monopole map. It's fastest speed would be above Antarctica (which would at least match measurements in one location sort of) but a multiple pole FE should have exactly the opposite in regards to the linear speed of the stars. Just like a record spun above each pole.
Why? Slower at the poles, faster further away up to the equator, then slower up to the other pole as we observe with the stars. Constant angular, variable linear.
But that's the reverse of what is observed? The Coriolis is STRONGER at the poles and weakest/zero at the equator. The linear speed of the stars is variable in the opposite direction. So how do they explain the Coriolis effect?
-
No that’s not the case. It is zero at the poles. If you drop a penny from a building on the North Pole, there will be zero coriolis effect. A penny dropped at the equator will have maximal deflection.
-
No that’s not the case. It is zero at the poles. If you drop a penny from a building on the North Pole, there will be zero coriolis effect. A penny dropped at the equator will have maximal deflection.
Somewhere one of us has confused terms. Literally every article I can find states the Coriolis effect is strongest at the poles and 0 at the equator.
-
No that’s not the case. It is zero at the poles. If you drop a penny from a building on the North Pole, there will be zero coriolis effect. A penny dropped at the equator will have maximal deflection.
Somewhere one of us has confused terms. Literally every article I can find states the Coriolis effect is strongest at the poles and 0 at the equator.
They are only considering the non vertical effects. At the equator, the coriolis term points upward! It is a vector cross product.
-
No that’s not the case. It is zero at the poles. If you drop a penny from a building on the North Pole, there will be zero coriolis effect. A penny dropped at the equator will have maximal deflection.
Somewhere one of us has confused terms. Literally every article I can find states the Coriolis effect is strongest at the poles and 0 at the equator.
They are only considering the non vertical effects. At the equator, the coriolis term points upward! It is a vector cross product.
When you're referring to vertical effects are you referring to the Eötvös effect? My understanding is the vertical component of Coriolis is Eötvös. I think more commonly when we refer to the Coriolis effect we're mostly talking about the lateral/horizontal component.
-
No I’m not, but this is easily confusing, and I’ve heard folks talk about them like they’re the same. Eotvos is tied to the centrifugal force. You can have Eotvos without coriolis.
Think of it this way:
a) you shoot a projectile at some angle, the Earth turns beneath it, so it looks like a deflection happened - cause you turn with the Earth.
b) I drop a penny above you, the Earth turns, so it looks like the penny doesn’t fall straight down to you. It is also deflected.
Scenario a) would happen at the poles but not at the equator (if you shot it east or west on there equator.
Scenario a) would happen if you shot it north or south from the equator.
Scenario b) would happen if you dropped it at the equator, but would not happen if you dropped it at the poles.
The fault for this confusion is mine. I should know better than to assume everyone can read my mind. The context for the coriolis was its vertical properties, since somehow this was being proposed as affecting the dome and earth surface similarly. I forget that most folks Are exposed to the lateral effects by way of examples.