[jack44556677]

@iceman

Not a particularly productive contribution to call the physicist insane / incompetent just because you dont believe them.

Did someone call a physicist insane?  In any case, competent physicists SHOULDN'T fall for it (sanity not withstanding).  This isn't an issue of belief or sanity, it is really an issue of competency in physics (even ignoring/accounting for gross oversimplification for accessibility / target audience).

Someone with physics competency would already understand that the air (a semi elastic fluid with varying gravitational attraction which wanes from the surface) of the world does not travel with it.  No layer of it does - the air does many things and the motion of the world is not involved.  Again, basic physics competency - understanding the source of the motion of the air above our heads is caused by the sun and not any rotation of the world is a good first step towards that.  Understanding, acutely, what coriolis IS and is not is a good second one.

@steelybob

Curious to know which part of it, precisely, you disagree with?

Absolutely!

In the hovering helicopter example, the helicopter has whatever velocity that latitude of the earth’s surface has at the point of lift off, as does the air mass around it, give or take local wind speed.

Conservation of momentum is not a problem, though there is no way to keep it indefinitely as is implied in the oversimplification.  The moment the helicopter leaves the ground, it begins to lose that momentum (or gain it in other directions etc.).  Assuming the air were perfectly still (in relation to the helicopter, and the ground beneath it) - "frame dragged" if you prefer, then the description is more or less reasonable/intelligible.

Because of wind, this is not the case.  The wind (caused by the sun, not the presumed rotation of the earth - which is responsible for 0% of the wind on earth) immediately begins to act upon the helicopter and the fanciful dream of eternal conservation of momentum dies immediately.

The only reason physicists play apologist in this way, and make up/parrot dreadful paradoxical tripe like this and then have to do cartwheels to try and rationalize/defend it, is because they are required to.  On some level, they know that the coriolis effect doesn't exist with planes, helicopters, and other flying craft and have "cognitive dissonanced" themselves into the sorry state.  They MUST understand why the coriolis effect doesn't occur, and why you can't wait for the earth to rotate beneath you - even if you could remove the influence of all wind (like on a perfectly still day, for instance).  There is no height at which this magical entrainment, which demonstrably and by consistent measurement of earths weather/air - does not happen, occurs.  It doesn't matter how high you go, or how much air you remove from the equation - you still come down essentially right where you took off, and rather than conclude the obvious (what goes up must come down, and the ground is stationary as it appears) from this fact, they are locked into fantasy which contradicts basic physics and observation.

[stack]

@iceman

Not a particularly productive contribution to call the physicist insane / incompetent just because you dont believe them.

Did someone call a physicist insane?  In any case, competent physicists SHOULDN'T fall for it (sanity not withstanding).  This isn't an issue of belief or sanity, it is really an issue of competency in physics (even ignoring/accounting for gross oversimplification for accessibility / target audience).

Someone with physics competency would already understand that the air (a semi elastic fluid with varying gravitational attraction which wanes from the surface) of the world does not travel with it.  No layer of it does - the air does many things and the motion of the world is not involved.  Again, basic physics competency - understanding the source of the motion of the air above our heads is caused by the sun and not any rotation of the world is a good first step towards that.  Understanding, acutely, what coriolis IS and is not is a good second one.

@steelybob

Curious to know which part of it, precisely, you disagree with?

Absolutely!

In the hovering helicopter example, the helicopter has whatever velocity that latitude of the earth’s surface has at the point of lift off, as does the air mass around it, give or take local wind speed.

Conservation of momentum is not a problem, though there is no way to keep it indefinitely as is implied in the oversimplification.  The moment the helicopter leaves the ground, it begins to lose that momentum (or gain it in other directions etc.).  Assuming the air were perfectly still (in relation to the helicopter, and the ground beneath it) - "frame dragged" if you prefer, then the description is more or less reasonable/intelligible.

Because of wind, this is not the case.  The wind (caused by the sun, not the presumed rotation of the earth - which is responsible for 0% of the wind on earth) immediately begins to act upon the helicopter and the fanciful dream of eternal conservation of momentum dies immediately.

The only reason physicists play apologist in this way, and make up/parrot dreadful paradoxical tripe like this and then have to do cartwheels to try and rationalize/defend it, is because they are required to.  On some level, they know that the coriolis effect doesn't exist with planes, helicopters, and other flying craft and have "cognitive dissonanced" themselves into the sorry state.  They MUST understand why the coriolis effect doesn't occur, and why you can't wait for the earth to rotate beneath you - even if you could remove the influence of all wind (like on a perfectly still day, for instance).  There is no height at which this magical entrainment, which demonstrably and by consistent measurement of earths weather/air - does not happen, occurs.  It doesn't matter how high you go, or how much air you remove from the equation - you still come down essentially right where you took off, and rather than conclude the obvious (what goes up must come down, and the ground is stationary as it appears) from this fact, they are locked into fantasy which contradicts basic physics and observation.

Can you point us to any competent physicists that support what you're going on about? Do you have any evidence for what you're going on about? So far your evidence for "physicists play(ing) apologist" is that you don't agree with them. That's not really a solid argument for, well, anything. That would just be your opinion, not fact.

[jack44556677]

@stack

That's not really a solid argument for, well, anything. That would just be your opinion, not fact.

Facts are arbitrary.  They are merely what your authority TELLS you / arbitrates / defines is a fact.

The argument was made pretty clearly - was there something about it that you don't understand or disagree with?  If you understand what I am saying, then you ought to be able to explain/respond why the air DOES in fact completely entrain to the whole world regardless of distance from the surface (ignoring gravity) and why we can ignore the most significant motion within it to support this apologist paradox.

This is just the stupid stuff they teach children/undergrads.  Much of it is oversimplified to the point of being false, just like in this example.  It reinforces cognitive dissonance, and conditions the impressionable/gullible "students" to think they have an answer for the paradox their science cannot explain.  We do it in astronomy every few years.  We find an irreconcilable problem that all but proves our model(s) is(are) wrong, and then we add that in as an exception caused by some more wildly speculative and unscientific fiction - or just teach it as a "great mystery" not the obvious/evident contradiction and refutation of the science we were/are taught.

There are physicists that hold this view, of course.  Finding you one would do ... what, exactly?  I encourage people to evaluate claims on their own merits, and not appeal to an "authority" for validation of any kind.  That said, their steeping in a particular worldview may help them to convey things in terminology/concept that you might more readily understand and accept, so there certainly are valid reasons for wanting to talk to a physicist about this if you can't fully grasp it without assistance.   Credential worship is a scourge and should be excised whenever recognized, in any case.  People conditioned (through rote under the guise of education) to repeat the same things mostly repeat the same things (they are not THEIR perspectives, findings, or science), and the echo of "consensus" (a VERY dirty word in science) can delude you into thinking that it must be the "most right" because a majority of "educated" parrot it.

As I said, the competent ones don't accept this line of reasoning - because it is logically unsound and incompatible with what we know about the motion of the air (and the ground) on earth.

[stack]

@stack

That's not really a solid argument for, well, anything. That would just be your opinion, not fact.

Facts are arbitrary.  They are merely what your authority TELLS you / arbitrates / defines is a fact.

The argument was made pretty clearly - was there something about it that you don't understand or disagree with?  If you understand what I am saying, then you ought to be able to explain/respond why the air DOES in fact completely entrain to the whole world regardless of distance from the surface (ignoring gravity) and why we can ignore the most significant motion within it to support this apologist paradox.

This is just the stupid stuff they teach children/undergrads.  Much of it is oversimplified to the point of being false, just like in this example.  It reinforces cognitive dissonance, and conditions the impressionable/gullible "students" to think they have an answer for the paradox their science cannot explain.  We do it in astronomy every few years.  We find an irreconcilable problem that all but proves our model(s) is(are) wrong, and then we add that in as an exception caused by some more wildly speculative and unscientific fiction - or just teach it as a "great mystery" not the obvious/evident contradiction and refutation of the science we were/are taught.

There are physicists that hold this view, of course.  Finding you one would do ... what, exactly?  I encourage people to evaluate claims on their own merits, and not appeal to an "authority" for validation of any kind.  That said, their steeping in a particular worldview may help them to convey things in terminology/concept that you might more readily understand and accept, so there certainly are valid reasons for wanting to talk to a physicist about this if you can't fully grasp it without assistance.   Credential worship is a scourge and should be excised whenever recognized, in any case.  People conditioned (through rote under the guise of education) to repeat the same things mostly repeat the same things (they are not THEIR perspectives, findings, or science), and the echo of "consensus" (a VERY dirty word in science) can delude you into thinking that it must be the "most right" because a majority of "educated" parrot it.

As I said, the competent ones don't accept this line of reasoning - because it is logically unsound and incompatible with what we know about the motion of the air (and the ground) on earth.

Yes, and by saying the "competent ones don't accept this line of reasoning" is an appeal to authority unto itself - The ones you deem competent. A distasteful notion you expounded upon with a great many words appealing to those who know better than the rote conditioned masses. All you are really saying in all of those words is that those who espouse explanations you dislike are incompetent, according to your opinion.

Who are these competent ones that I may look to to maybe explain these finer more logical points you claim to exist? Those who know more about the motion of the air than those with whom you disagree.

[Iceman]

I encourage people to evaluate claims on their own merits, and not appeal to an "authority" for validation of any kind. 

We would investigate your claims but you've never actually backed them up with any of the sources or results of your research into any of these matters.

[RonJ]

I encourage people to evaluate claims on their own merits, and not appeal to an "authority" for validation of any kind. 

We would investigate your claims but you've never actually backed them up with any of the sources or results of your research into any of these matters.

When I went to college to become a ship's officer we spent plenty of time doing the regular math & physics stuff.  Then we applied all that to global navigation and did plenty of homework & lab exercises.  During the summer we didn't get to go home.  We had to get aboard a ship and set sail to international destinations.  All of the things that were taught in school by the professors had to be put into practice supervised by already competent & licensed ship's officers.  If there was something taught in class that didn't work in the real world out at sea it would become immediately obvious.  In this case we were effectively evaluating all the professor's claims on their merits and challenging their 'authority' and confirming their teachings.  Guess what?  They claimed that the earth was spherical and we confirmed that out in the real world.  How could we be brain washed by any BS?   

[RazaTD]

@stack

That's not really a solid argument for, well, anything. That would just be your opinion, not fact.

Facts are arbitrary.  They are merely what your authority TELLS you / arbitrates / defines is a fact.

The argument was made pretty clearly - was there something about it that you don't understand or disagree with?  If you understand what I am saying, then you ought to be able to explain/respond why the air DOES in fact completely entrain to the whole world regardless of distance from the surface (ignoring gravity) and why we can ignore the most significant motion within it to support this apologist paradox.

This is just the stupid stuff they teach children/undergrads.  Much of it is oversimplified to the point of being false, just like in this example.  It reinforces cognitive dissonance, and conditions the impressionable/gullible "students" to think they have an answer for the paradox their science cannot explain.  We do it in astronomy every few years.  We find an irreconcilable problem that all but proves our model(s) is(are) wrong, and then we add that in as an exception caused by some more wildly speculative and unscientific fiction - or just teach it as a "great mystery" not the obvious/evident contradiction and refutation of the science we were/are taught.

There are physicists that hold this view, of course.  Finding you one would do ... what, exactly?  I encourage people to evaluate claims on their own merits, and not appeal to an "authority" for validation of any kind.  That said, their steeping in a particular worldview may help them to convey things in terminology/concept that you might more readily understand and accept, so there certainly are valid reasons for wanting to talk to a physicist about this if you can't fully grasp it without assistance.   Credential worship is a scourge and should be excised whenever recognized, in any case.  People conditioned (through rote under the guise of education) to repeat the same things mostly repeat the same things (they are not THEIR perspectives, findings, or science), and the echo of "consensus" (a VERY dirty word in science) can delude you into thinking that it must be the "most right" because a majority of "educated" parrot it.

As I said, the competent ones don't accept this line of reasoning - because it is logically unsound and incompatible with what we know about the motion of the air (and the ground) on earth.

Scientific facts are not arbitrates issued through some absolute scientific authority. There is no one authority that decides what science is. Science is knowledge produced through the use of scientific method. You can observe or test a scientific fact yourself. In the scientific world, if you think someone has got it wrong, you can literally challenge them or create your own theory and publish it. If your criticism or theory holds merit, other scientists will agree with you and your contribution to science will increase human knowledge.

It is a virtue of scientific facts that they are falsifiable. Science is always evolving. We are learning new things and changing our theories accordingly. If science worked the way you says it works wherein scientific contradictions are hidden as mysteries and no effort is made to correct current theories, why is our knowledge always getting better?

If our system of gathering knowledge is inherently flawed, why is our knowledge always getting closer to the truth? Technology that you use everyday is improving based on this flawed science you speak off.

Year after year, scientists are sitting around making sure no one questions their authority and hiding all their scientific contradictions as hidden mysteries of the universe, yet the pace at technology evolves is accelerating.