[Regicide]

Was scrolling through the wiki, in the Coriolis effect article, when I found this gem.

In those highly controlled settings, scientists at MIT in the 1960s were able to show that Coriolis could work on a draining tub. In fact, I have been told that graduate students at MIT still do this experiment today in one of their classes.

Tom, if you're going to cherrypick quotes, at least have the sense to:

1. Remove the sections that count against FET
2. At least attempt to address the questions raised.

[Tom Bishop]

Was scrolling through the wiki, in the Coriolis effect article, when I found this gem.

In those highly controlled settings, scientists at MIT in the 1960s were able to show that Coriolis could work on a draining tub. In fact, I have been told that graduate students at MIT still do this experiment today in one of their classes.

Tom, if you're going to cherrypick quotes, at least have the sense to:

1. Remove the sections that count against FET
2. At least attempt to address the questions raised.

Where does it say that the later MIT results were against FE?

Those sources in that section specifically say that when Shipiro's claim was repeated it was found that the outcome is dependent on the specific conditions it was conducted, and that the matter was not resolved.

[scomato]

Was scrolling through the wiki, in the Coriolis effect article, when I found this gem.

In those highly controlled settings, scientists at MIT in the 1960s were able to show that Coriolis could work on a draining tub. In fact, I have been told that graduate students at MIT still do this experiment today in one of their classes.

Tom, if you're going to cherrypick quotes, at least have the sense to:

1. Remove the sections that count against FET
2. At least attempt to address the questions raised.

Where does it say that the later MIT results were against FE?

Those sources in that section specifically say that when Shipiro's claim was repeated it was found that the outcome is dependent on the specific conditions it was conducted, and that the matter was not resolved.

The Coriolis Effect is caused by the rotation of the Earth around its axis, if the effect (and therefore the fact that the Earth revolves around an axis) can be proven with a simple bathtub experiment, how is the reconciled with the notion of a non-revolving, upwardly accelerating flat earth?

[jack44556677]

@scomato

if the effect (and therefore the fact that the Earth revolves around an axis) can be proven with a simple bathtub experiment

This is a tricky topic within a tricky subject.

The coriolis effect is taught correctly to virtually no one.

Coriolis is a PSUEDO-effect which only occurs when one reference frame APPEARS to rotate/deflect when it is - in fact - not (like looking up at the sky spinning when you are twirling like a figure skater - you didn't MAKE the sky spin, nor is it actually spinning as you see it - THAT is the coriolis effect). If the water in the tub merely APPEARED to be rotating due to our distinct rotating (or non-rotating) frame of reference THEN (and only then) would it be an example of coriolis.

Most everything that is referred to incorrectly as a coriolis effect is, in fact, ACTUAL deflection (real measurable/quantifiable forces) PRESUMED to be caused by the rotation of the earth.

how is the reconciled with the notion of a non-revolving, upwardly accelerating flat earth?

Easily.  Reconciling, even, things that are not reconcilable is child's play.  Through imagination all things are possible, but reality is unaffected by that.

One way is to claim that the effect (in the bathtub) is not real.  Most everyone who has ever done it did not get the results they wanted and had to tweak their procedure in order to do so - in science, we often call this fraud.

Another is to claim that the effect is real, however it is not caused by the presumed cause (the presumed rotation of the world) which has never been scientifically/experimentally validated.  The deflection of the gyroscope IS the "proof" that the world is spherical and rotating, and the proof that the cause is certainly the spherical rotating world is the deflection of the gyroscope.  This circular logic is embarrassing, unscientific, and indefensible.

[Peter Winfield]

how is the reconciled with the notion of a non-revolving, upwardly accelerating flat earth?

The bigger problem with that second notion is that gravity is not the same everywhere on Earth...