Why it is impossible to reason with an FE'er.

Paper one is 31.50... which I don't have.  I will have to get someone to find me a copy of it.

Paper two:  "The magnitude and direction of this rotation-induced force are determined in exact mathematical form in this article. It is calculated that the gravitational force is at least 300 times larger than the largest rotation-induced force anywhere on Earth, the latter force being maximal along the equator and approximately equal to 34 N/m3 there. This compares with a gravitational force of ∼104 N/m3.

Paper three: "The tendency for the LSC to be in a preferred orientation due to the Coriolis force could be canceled by a slight tilt of the apparatus relative to gravity, although this tilt affected other aspects of the LSC that the Coriolis force did not."

Paper four: "In the high-frequency limit, the Coriolis effects may be neglected, and a family of stationary Kolmogorov solutions can be found, which includes the Garrett?Munk spectrum of oceanic internal waves."

All of your own papers that I could get my hands on say the same thing, two right in the abstract.  The Coriolis force is not important.  Paper four was even a restricted study, carefully controlling the shape size and forces of the experiment and it still doesn't say a thing about the Coriolis force being a major effect on the fluid.

The only one that might back your position is the first one and they are trying to create the Coriolis force, even though they claim "To get a viscous Shallow Water type model with Coriolis force from free surface Navier?Stokes equations, the required order of approximation depends on the relative order between the Reynolds number and the aspect ratio. Even if the methodology is classical in the field of asymptotic analysis (ansatz), we will prove that new terms depending on the latitude cosine have been omitted in recent papers and must be taken into account for some applications in geophysics. However, these terms do not appear when we study rotating thin films. We will also give the quasi-geostrophic and the lake limits corresponding to the equations with cosine effect. All these models are well posed (existence of global weak solutions) and we show that the cosine terms affect equatorial waves."

It should be an interesting paper at least.

But the rest of them still say the Coriolis force is simply not that important.  Does it exist?  Yes.  Why, under the FE?  Because the FE spins, I believe.  Let me check on that before I claim it.

Paper one is 31.50... which I don't have.  I will have to get someone to find me a copy of it.

Paper two:  "The magnitude and direction of this rotation-induced force are determined in exact mathematical form in this article. It is calculated that the gravitational force is at least 300 times larger than the largest rotation-induced force anywhere on Earth, the latter force being maximal along the equator and approximately equal to 34 N/m3 there. This compares with a gravitational force of ∼104 N/m3.

Paper three: "The tendency for the LSC to be in a preferred orientation due to the Coriolis force could be canceled by a slight tilt of the apparatus relative to gravity, although this tilt affected other aspects of the LSC that the Coriolis force did not."

Paper four: "In the high-frequency limit, the Coriolis effects may be neglected, and a family of stationary Kolmogorov solutions can be found, which includes the Garrett?Munk spectrum of oceanic internal waves."

All of your own papers that I could get my hands on say the same thing, two right in the abstract.  The Coriolis force is not important.  Paper four was even a restricted study, carefully controlling the shape size and forces of the experiment and it still doesn't say a thing about the Coriolis force being a major effect on the fluid.

The only one that might back your position is the first one and they are trying to create the Coriolis force, even though they claim "To get a viscous Shallow Water type model with Coriolis force from free surface Navier?Stokes equations, the required order of approximation depends on the relative order between the Reynolds number and the aspect ratio. Even if the methodology is classical in the field of asymptotic analysis (ansatz), we will prove that new terms depending on the latitude cosine have been omitted in recent papers and must be taken into account for some applications in geophysics. However, these terms do not appear when we study rotating thin films. We will also give the quasi-geostrophic and the lake limits corresponding to the equations with cosine effect. All these models are well posed (existence of global weak solutions) and we show that the cosine terms affect equatorial waves."

It should be an interesting paper at least.

But the rest of them still say the Coriolis force is simply not that important.  Does it exist?  Yes.  Why, under the FE?  Because the FE spins, I believe.  Let me check on that before I claim it.

Before you quote those sections it might be worth understanding what they are saying and also be able to quantify the other forces that may be involved.

You might also want to read the papers themselves.

p.s. one of the papers eliminated the coriolis force by tilting the apparatus.

edit: There is also a dependancy on stability limits and initial conditions i.e. a still system and cascading forces involved within the initial vortex and water draining direction.

Paper one is 31.50... which I don't have.  I will have to get someone to find me a copy of it.

Paper two:  "The magnitude and direction of this rotation-induced force are determined in exact mathematical form in this article. It is calculated that the gravitational force is at least 300 times larger than the largest rotation-induced force anywhere on Earth, the latter force being maximal along the equator and approximately equal to 34 N/m3 there. This compares with a gravitational force of ∼104 N/m3.

Paper three: "The tendency for the LSC to be in a preferred orientation due to the Coriolis force could be canceled by a slight tilt of the apparatus relative to gravity, although this tilt affected other aspects of the LSC that the Coriolis force did not."

Paper four: "In the high-frequency limit, the Coriolis effects may be neglected, and a family of stationary Kolmogorov solutions can be found, which includes the Garrett?Munk spectrum of oceanic internal waves."

All of your own papers that I could get my hands on say the same thing, two right in the abstract.  The Coriolis force is not important.  Paper four was even a restricted study, carefully controlling the shape size and forces of the experiment and it still doesn't say a thing about the Coriolis force being a major effect on the fluid.

The only one that might back your position is the first one and they are trying to create the Coriolis force, even though they claim "To get a viscous Shallow Water type model with Coriolis force from free surface Navier?Stokes equations, the required order of approximation depends on the relative order between the Reynolds number and the aspect ratio. Even if the methodology is classical in the field of asymptotic analysis (ansatz), we will prove that new terms depending on the latitude cosine have been omitted in recent papers and must be taken into account for some applications in geophysics. However, these terms do not appear when we study rotating thin films. We will also give the quasi-geostrophic and the lake limits corresponding to the equations with cosine effect. All these models are well posed (existence of global weak solutions) and we show that the cosine terms affect equatorial waves."

It should be an interesting paper at least.

But the rest of them still say the Coriolis force is simply not that important.  Does it exist?  Yes.  Why, under the FE?  Because the FE spins, I believe.  Let me check on that before I claim it.

You are displaying some very interesting psychological conditions on this forum. I hope you aren't like this when you aren't being a keyboard warrior.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 07, 2009, 02:21:43 PM

Paper one is 31.50... which I don't have.  I will have to get someone to find me a copy of it.

Paper two:  "The magnitude and direction of this rotation-induced force are determined in exact mathematical form in this article. It is calculated that the gravitational force is at least 300 times larger than the largest rotation-induced force anywhere on Earth, the latter force being maximal along the equator and approximately equal to 34 N/m3 there. This compares with a gravitational force of ∼104 N/m3.

Paper three: "The tendency for the LSC to be in a preferred orientation due to the Coriolis force could be canceled by a slight tilt of the apparatus relative to gravity, although this tilt affected other aspects of the LSC that the Coriolis force did not."

Paper four: "In the high-frequency limit, the Coriolis effects may be neglected, and a family of stationary Kolmogorov solutions can be found, which includes the Garrett?Munk spectrum of oceanic internal waves."

All of your own papers that I could get my hands on say the same thing, two right in the abstract.  The Coriolis force is not important.  Paper four was even a restricted study, carefully controlling the shape size and forces of the experiment and it still doesn't say a thing about the Coriolis force being a major effect on the fluid.

The only one that might back your position is the first one and they are trying to create the Coriolis force, even though they claim "To get a viscous Shallow Water type model with Coriolis force from free surface Navier?Stokes equations, the required order of approximation depends on the relative order between the Reynolds number and the aspect ratio. Even if the methodology is classical in the field of asymptotic analysis (ansatz), we will prove that new terms depending on the latitude cosine have been omitted in recent papers and must be taken into account for some applications in geophysics. However, these terms do not appear when we study rotating thin films. We will also give the quasi-geostrophic and the lake limits corresponding to the equations with cosine effect. All these models are well posed (existence of global weak solutions) and we show that the cosine terms affect equatorial waves."

It should be an interesting paper at least.

But the rest of them still say the Coriolis force is simply not that important.  Does it exist?  Yes.  Why, under the FE?  Because the FE spins, I believe.  Let me check on that before I claim it.

Before you quote those sections it might be worth understanding what they are saying and also be able to quantify the other forces that may be involved.

You might also want to read the papers themselves.

p.s. one of the papers eliminated the coriolis force by tilting the apparatus.

edit: There is also a dependancy on stability limits and initial conditions i.e. a still system and cascading forces involved within the initial vortex and water draining direction.

The point is, all of them admit that the force is not that important... which is what we've been trying to tell you for a week now.

Quote from: MotherNature on March 07, 2009, 02:29:01 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 07, 2009, 02:21:43 PM

Paper one is 31.50... which I don't have.  I will have to get someone to find me a copy of it.

Paper two:  "The magnitude and direction of this rotation-induced force are determined in exact mathematical form in this article. It is calculated that the gravitational force is at least 300 times larger than the largest rotation-induced force anywhere on Earth, the latter force being maximal along the equator and approximately equal to 34 N/m3 there. This compares with a gravitational force of ∼104 N/m3.

Paper three: "The tendency for the LSC to be in a preferred orientation due to the Coriolis force could be canceled by a slight tilt of the apparatus relative to gravity, although this tilt affected other aspects of the LSC that the Coriolis force did not."

Paper four: "In the high-frequency limit, the Coriolis effects may be neglected, and a family of stationary Kolmogorov solutions can be found, which includes the Garrett?Munk spectrum of oceanic internal waves."

All of your own papers that I could get my hands on say the same thing, two right in the abstract.  The Coriolis force is not important.  Paper four was even a restricted study, carefully controlling the shape size and forces of the experiment and it still doesn't say a thing about the Coriolis force being a major effect on the fluid.

The only one that might back your position is the first one and they are trying to create the Coriolis force, even though they claim "To get a viscous Shallow Water type model with Coriolis force from free surface Navier?Stokes equations, the required order of approximation depends on the relative order between the Reynolds number and the aspect ratio. Even if the methodology is classical in the field of asymptotic analysis (ansatz), we will prove that new terms depending on the latitude cosine have been omitted in recent papers and must be taken into account for some applications in geophysics. However, these terms do not appear when we study rotating thin films. We will also give the quasi-geostrophic and the lake limits corresponding to the equations with cosine effect. All these models are well posed (existence of global weak solutions) and we show that the cosine terms affect equatorial waves."

It should be an interesting paper at least.

But the rest of them still say the Coriolis force is simply not that important.  Does it exist?  Yes.  Why, under the FE?  Because the FE spins, I believe.  Let me check on that before I claim it.

Before you quote those sections it might be worth understanding what they are saying and also be able to quantify the other forces that may be involved.

You might also want to read the papers themselves.

p.s. one of the papers eliminated the coriolis force by tilting the apparatus.

edit: There is also a dependancy on stability limits and initial conditions i.e. a still system and cascading forces involved within the initial vortex and water draining direction.

The point is, all of them admit that the force is not that important... which is what we've been trying to tell you for a week now.

It may not be important, but it still exists and therefore, still has an effect. How does that fit into your theory?

Graham... Go find the thread Mothernature started the Coriolis force argument on and get caught up.

It doesn't matter at all I think, but MN made a comment that we called MN on and still... MN refuses to admit that all the evidence is going our way.

As to why it works, when it works, I haven't asked yet.  I will.

Graham... Go find the thread Mothernature started the Coriolis force argument on and get caught up.

It doesn't matter at all I think, but MN made a comment that we called MN on and still... MN refuses to admit that all the evidence is going our way.

As to why it works, when it works, I haven't asked yet.  I will.

Those papers give you the extent of the coriolis force. One even gives you the possible extent of the force which is alot more than that quoted in the FAQ.

Anyway

I'm going to try and put it another way and this relates to initial conditions and stability limits.

Imagine you have a hanging bucket of still water. The bucket has a hole in the bottom that is corked.

You remove the cork.

What initial forces are acting on the water?

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 07, 2009, 03:11:20 PM

Graham... Go find the thread Mothernature started the Coriolis force argument on and get caught up.

It doesn't matter at all I think, but MN made a comment that we called MN on and still... MN refuses to admit that all the evidence is going our way.

As to why it works, when it works, I haven't asked yet.  I will.

Those papers give you the extent of the coriolis force. One even gives you the possible extent of the force which is alot more than that quoted in the FAQ.

Anyway

I'm going to try and put it another way and this relates to initial conditions and stability limits.

Imagine you have a hanging bucket of still water. The bucket has a hole in the bottom that is corked.

You remove the cork.

What initial forces are acting on the water?

The primary would be the UA in the FE model.  Total others... hm...

Quote from: MotherNature on March 07, 2009, 03:19:05 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 07, 2009, 03:11:20 PM

Graham... Go find the thread Mothernature started the Coriolis force argument on and get caught up.

It doesn't matter at all I think, but MN made a comment that we called MN on and still... MN refuses to admit that all the evidence is going our way.

As to why it works, when it works, I haven't asked yet.  I will.

Those papers give you the extent of the coriolis force. One even gives you the possible extent of the force which is alot more than that quoted in the FAQ.

Anyway

I'm going to try and put it another way and this relates to initial conditions and stability limits.

Imagine you have a hanging bucket of still water. The bucket has a hole in the bottom that is corked.

You remove the cork.

What initial forces are acting on the water?

The primary would be the UA in the FE model.  Total others... hm...

Well it says in the FAQ that the coriolis force exists even if it's not being given the correct magnitude in terms of it's effect of water vortices. So if you are an FE'r then you believe it exists. Even though I haven't seen posts accounting for this effect in the FE theory (Well there was one posts which looked promising but the links don't work).

The Coriolis effect can only be noticed in a perfect bowl, with no distortions at all, no movement of the bowl at all, and the water entering the bowl at exactly the right angle. No matter what theory anybody subscribes to, stabbing a hole in the bottom of a bucket using a screwdriver and holding it out in front of you is not an adequate test.

The Coriolis effect can only be noticed in a perfect bowl, with no distortions at all, no movement of the bowl at all, and the water entering the bowl at exactly the right angle. No matter what theory anybody subscribes to, stabbing a hole in the bottom of a bucket using a screwdriver and holding it out in front of you is not an adequate test.

"Stephen...what are you doing in the bathroom?"

Is that an unbelievably obscure QI reference? If so, you're the first QI nerd.

Is that an unbelievably obscure QI reference? If so, you're the first QI nerd.

In the episode where they discuss the Coriolis Effect and Fry dismisses it as a myth, saying he's tried it and that you can make the water go either way you want.

I must take off my hat, and give you my QI master mantle. Do not abuse your power.

Quote from: General Douchebag on March 07, 2009, 04:38:33 PM

Is that an unbelievably obscure QI reference? If so, you're the first QI nerd.

In the episode where they discuss the Coriolis Effect and Fry dismisses it as a myth, saying he's tried it and that you can make the water go either way you want.

Got to love Futurama!

The Coriolis effect can only be noticed in a perfect bowl, with no distortions at all, no movement of the bowl at all, and the water entering the bowl at exactly the right angle. No matter what theory anybody subscribes to, stabbing a hole in the bottom of a bucket using a screwdriver and holding it out in front of you is not an adequate test.

Do the experiment and see for yourself and I never said hold the bucket out in front of you.

Also why do you think it needs to be a bowl?

I can see why that would need to be a requirement if you are trying to measure the coriolis force, but if all you're trying to do is see if it will effect the rotation direction then a symmetrical shape will surfice if the area of water is relativly small.

I'm going to try and put it another way and this relates to initial conditions and stability limits.

Imagine you have a hanging bucket of still water. The bucket has a hole in the bottom that is corked.

You remove the cork.

What initial forces are acting on the water?

I know where MotherNature is going with this.

Me too, but it's completely the wrong direction. A bowl shape prevents interference from bumps or cracks.

I know where MotherNature is going with this.

 

Me too, but it's completely the wrong direction. A bowl shape prevents interference from bumps or cracks.

If the water is perfectly still how will the bumps and cracks of the bowl etc... affect the initial force?

Quote from: svenanders on March 07, 2009, 05:12:52 PM

I know where MotherNature is going with this.

If my head isn't on another planet, you're trying to debunk the UA now right?

Quote from: MotherNature on March 07, 2009, 05:23:02 PM

Quote from: svenanders on March 07, 2009, 05:12:52 PM

I know where MotherNature is going with this.

If my head isn't on another planet, you're trying to debunk the UA now right?

Nope not yet that's for another question 

Quote from: svenanders on March 07, 2009, 05:27:53 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 07, 2009, 05:23:02 PM

Quote from: svenanders on March 07, 2009, 05:12:52 PM

I know where MotherNature is going with this.

If my head isn't on another planet, you're trying to debunk the UA now right?

Nope not yet that's for another question 

Ok, but aren't you asking what makes the water "fall" down from the bucket and down to the ground?
Isn't that the "force" your asking about?

Quote from: MotherNature on March 07, 2009, 12:10:00 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 07, 2009, 09:12:42 AM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 07, 2009, 09:04:02 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on March 07, 2009, 08:57:08 AM

There's one big flaw (among the many small ones) in that, and it's that you think it's easier to answer the question than insult you. In fact, insults jump to the forefront of my mind whenever you post.

So why are you here?

To insult people?

Because that's all I've seen so far.

Possibly that would be because you don't listen to anyone trying to talk to you.  The first thread you were in you made a point and at least three different people proved your point wrong and you wouldn't accept it.

Debate assumes that both sides have an open mind and are willing to admit that they might be wrong.  No one here is going to waste time debating with someone who has blind faith in their own opinions.

We all have better things to do than crashing into brick walls.

I wasn't wrong. It was you who wasn't reading the references you provided.

I even told you where you should read them. I still don't think I was wrong. You can conduct the experiment at home. I haven't seen anything in the FE'rs literature that tells me why the Coriolis effect exists within the FE model. There's some reference to a cog and gear motion that's associated with stellar movements but I can't see how that relates to the coriolis effect.

You second point is half valid. I agree people should admit they are wrong (I have admited it on this forum). The blind faith part is what most FE'rs are doing.

You all have better things to be doing than crashing into brick walls?

Well what better things is that? Insulting people? Because thats all I've seen you and your crew doing.

I've seen many RE'rs crashing into many brick walls with FE'rs. Simply because the FE'rs scientific method is seriously flawed and they can't understand it.

This is one of the arguments I've seen:

If you can't do the experiment at home then I don't except it's true. It's not peer reviewed.

This is a stupid way of approaching science. It shows that 'in psychology terms' the FE'rs is in some way paranoid and not willing to accept the fact that there are scientific discoveries that can't be conducted on a home built apparatus. It shows that they don't trust the science being presented to them even though countless people with the appropriate qualifications are saying it's correct.

I've worked at the ILL in France and I have seen the equiptment working with my own eyes. If they are going to claim a theory is wrong because of this 'home built' argument then they should at least verify there suspicons and go to a scientific facility and see them work with their own eyes.

Until they do that then simply saying I don't believe it is not a good argument for the FE theory.

First, the man would created the theory behind the effect said that it would take a Perfect sink under heavily controlled laboratory conditions... this is a man with proven skills and experience.

Now, you, an unknown being on the internet, with no known skills or training and say, "Oh, no, you can do the experiment in a bucket in your yard."

Do you not see why we're not taking your word for it?  Proven scientist vs. internet typist.  Which one would you believe?

And now, since you think we've been insulting you, allow me to show you what insulting you really is. 

You are full of shit.  You claim to be an educated person, but you cannot use simple English properly, certainly not to any standard I have ever seen in any higher education facility.  Note your post above.  I skimmed it once, not expecting to find anything worth replying to and then read it.

While I did that, I marked a few of the simple errors that any professor or higher level instructor should know better than to make.  Other people have pointed errors out to you, so this is not a once in awhile thing, but a continuous series of errors.

I don't believe that you are a graduate of any decent school.  You may be a student in college.  Insufficient data for a conclusion in that.

You are possibly the most pig headed person posting on this board.  I do believe that you even outdo Tom and Kingman in sheer stubborn crap.  You made a claim, three people showed you that the claim you made was wrong, that your experiment wouldn't work according to the pioneer of the field and still you insist it will work.  That is either an inability to change your mind or an ego the size of Bill Gates' bank account.

You criticize us for shoddy science, but your idea was to use a bucket with a hole punched in it with a screwdriver.  This is the best science you could come up with?  At the very least, drill the hole in the bucket, since no two holes done with a screwdriver are going to be the same.

In short, you are either a zealot, so absolutely certain of your own correctness that you couldn't change your mind at gun point or a particularly sneaky troll, hiding an attempt to annoy people under pseudo-science.

Either way, your combination of bullheaded ignorance, sloppy work and sheer mental blindness has lost it's attraction.  I was hoping, when you first arrived, that you would be a welcome addition to FES, with posts worthy of discussion.  Instead, you're just another /b/tard with a better vocabulary.

Now, I have called you stupid, ignorant, a lying weasel and mentally ossified.  Now, you have been insulted, not that you will care.  No mere words typed on any screen could penetrate that armour of self righteous bullshit that you wrap around yourself like a cloak.

Goodbye,

Raven

I am now deeply in love with you.

Quote from: General Douchebag on March 07, 2009, 07:08:17 AM

I don't need to, I've been here for two years and already know that you don't.

*begins acting like you and the other trolls*

Yes but I could answer your question but I'd rather put more effort into insulting and telling you to use the search facility of the forum.

*incomes the troll crowd*

HAHAHAHA your so funny your my forum buddy I think I'll join in.

*insert other random insult*

HAHAHAHAHA

*the end*

It's like a script. I've seen it in many many threads using the search function and the question is still not answered.

I am now deeply in love with you.

Like a script

Quote from: MotherNature on March 07, 2009, 05:40:12 PM

Quote from: svenanders on March 07, 2009, 05:27:53 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 07, 2009, 05:23:02 PM

Quote from: svenanders on March 07, 2009, 05:12:52 PM

I know where MotherNature is going with this.

If my head isn't on another planet, you're trying to debunk the UA now right?

Nope not yet that's for another question 

Ok, but aren't you asking what makes the water "fall" down from the bucket and down to the ground?
Isn't that the "force" your asking about?

Nope I'm trying to get them to establish an initial force diagram i.e. what initial forces are acting on the water. The UA model is actually quite sound in terms of an accelerating reference frame.

Although I haven't had time to go into most of the ideas and how they get over certain laws in physics

Quote from: svenanders on March 07, 2009, 05:59:36 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 07, 2009, 05:40:12 PM

Quote from: svenanders on March 07, 2009, 05:27:53 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 07, 2009, 05:23:02 PM

Quote from: svenanders on March 07, 2009, 05:12:52 PM

I know where MotherNature is going with this.

If my head isn't on another planet, you're trying to debunk the UA now right?

Nope not yet that's for another question 

Ok, but aren't you asking what makes the water "fall" down from the bucket and down to the ground?
Isn't that the "force" your asking about?

Nope I'm trying to get them to establish an initial force diagram i.e. what initial forces are acting on the water. The UA model is actually quite sound in terms of an accelerating reference frame.

Although I haven't had time to go into most of the ideas and how they get over certain laws in physics

Alright then! Then my question is:
If you hold this bucket of water in front of you, and then you make a hole in the bottom.
The water falls down to the ground. Why is that? What force makes the water fall down to the ground?
Even though you hold the bucket at the same position. It can't be the earth that catches up on the water.

Quote from: MotherNature on March 08, 2009, 05:11:32 AM

Quote from: svenanders on March 07, 2009, 05:59:36 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 07, 2009, 05:40:12 PM

Quote from: svenanders on March 07, 2009, 05:27:53 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 07, 2009, 05:23:02 PM

Quote from: svenanders on March 07, 2009, 05:12:52 PM

I know where MotherNature is going with this.

If my head isn't on another planet, you're trying to debunk the UA now right?

Nope not yet that's for another question 

Ok, but aren't you asking what makes the water "fall" down from the bucket and down to the ground?
Isn't that the "force" your asking about?

Nope I'm trying to get them to establish an initial force diagram i.e. what initial forces are acting on the water. The UA model is actually quite sound in terms of an accelerating reference frame.

Although I haven't had time to go into most of the ideas and how they get over certain laws in physics

Alright then! Then my question is:
If you hold this bucket of water in front of you, and then you make a hole in the bottom.
The water falls down to the ground. Why is that? What force makes the water fall down to the ground?
Even though you hold the bucket at the same position. It can't be the earth that catches up on the water.

In that case the bucket will be connected to the earth. The reason why the water falls through the hole is becasue of inertia. The water wants to stay in its original position while the earth and bucket (which is connected to the earth) carry on accelerating.

Great, the REers are arguing against each other now.

Great, the REers are arguing against each other now.

lol

Why do you think were arguing?

There's some confusion that's being clarified.