*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1239
    • View Profile
Re: The Coriolis Effect
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2019, 08:14:00 AM »
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)

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?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: The Coriolis Effect
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2019, 09:50:53 AM »
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.

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: The Coriolis Effect
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2019, 11:37:08 AM »
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.
BobLawBlah.

Re: The Coriolis Effect
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2019, 12:12:11 PM »

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: The Coriolis Effect
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2019, 12:17:51 PM »
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?
BobLawBlah.

Re: The Coriolis Effect
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2019, 12:55:25 PM »
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:



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.

Re: The Coriolis Effect
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2019, 01:02:51 PM »
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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: The Coriolis Effect
« Reply #27 on: January 21, 2019, 01:17:22 PM »
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:





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


Re: The Coriolis Effect
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2019, 05:29:18 PM »
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.


A single video demonstrating an uncontrolled, non-replicated "experiment" is lots of evidence?

Re: The Coriolis Effect
« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2019, 06:07:57 PM »
No, it is just part of the lots of evidence.
What is the FE explanation for that result?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
Re: The Coriolis Effect
« Reply #30 on: January 21, 2019, 06:15:51 PM »
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.


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
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: The Coriolis Effect
« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2019, 06:22:02 PM »
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.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: The Coriolis Effect
« Reply #32 on: January 21, 2019, 06:24:35 PM »
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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: The Coriolis Effect
« Reply #33 on: January 21, 2019, 07:10:06 PM »
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.

Re: The Coriolis Effect
« Reply #34 on: January 21, 2019, 07:55:51 PM »
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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.