The rotation of low pressure weather systems

Many people use the rotation of water down sinks as an example of the Coriolis effect, claiming that it turns different directions in either hemisphere. This is largely known to be false, since water rotates both directions no matter where you are on the globe (or plane, if you like), and differences can often be attributed to the shape of the sink itself.

A better example, that I haven't seen explained, is that of low pressure weather systems.

In the Northern Hemisphere, a low pressure weather system such as a cyclone, will rotate anti-clockwise. The converse will happen in the Southern Hemisphere.

How can this be explained under the FE model?

your premises are not supported by any evidence.

your premises are not supported by any evidence.

Meh, I have seen FE's claiming more ridicules things than this whit out showing evidence.

I want to see what others say about it

not in this thread you haven't.

Wait and see, wait and see.

How can this be explained under the FE model?

Causality is assumed in RET.
To follow the Zetetic Method, we don't assume anything like causality. I could make up an untestable hypothesis like RE did, or hold myself to a higher standard and say it is unknown.

your premises are not supported by any evidence.

Are you crazy? I think, in this forums you try to debunk century of science and progress. You are spitting in the face of men that pass their lives studying and discovering, someone also dying for science and technology. And for what reason? A conspiracy? This things make me so sad, frustrate me.

This things make me so sad, frustrate me.

wut.

Quote

This things make me so sad, frustrate me.

wut.

You think that progresses and discoveries in science and technologies are all fake things made by a conspiracy. This is frustrating, don't you think? Not for you, of course, you stay all days on a chair watching the earth and thinking that it is flat and thinking that some kind of gears spinning on our heads.

your premises are not supported by any evidence.

Be specific.  What premise outlined in the original post do you feel is not supported by evidence.

Quote from: Snaggletooth on July 28, 2009, 03:47:08 PM

How can this be explained under the FE model?

Causality is assumed in RET.
To follow the Zetetic Method, we don't assume anything like causality. I could make up an untestable hypothesis like RE did, or hold myself to a higher standard and say it is unknown.

I want to be sure. I understand that you claim that there is no weather observation systems on the Earth which can follow cyclones and their rotation? And it's impossible to tell even from ground on which way wind blows?

Quote from: frostee on July 29, 2009, 07:00:28 AM

Quote

This things make me so sad, frustrate me.

wut.

You think that progresses and discoveries in science and technologies are all fake things made by a conspiracy. This is frustrating, don't you think? Not for you, of course, you stay all days on a chair watching the earth and thinking that it is flat and thinking that some kind of gears spinning on our heads.

How the hell did me saying wut have anything at all to do with the shape of the earth and the conspiracy
I was actually highlighting the extremely poor grammar and sentence structure

. . . and 'wut' is correct and proper use of the English language is it?   
 

Quote from: SSSavio on July 29, 2009, 07:22:45 AM

Quote from: frostee on July 29, 2009, 07:00:28 AM

Quote

This things make me so sad, frustrate me.

wut.

You think that progresses and discoveries in science and technologies are all fake things made by a conspiracy. This is frustrating, don't you think? Not for you, of course, you stay all days on a chair watching the earth and thinking that it is flat and thinking that some kind of gears spinning on our heads.

How the hell did me saying wut have anything at all to do with the shape of the earth and the conspiracy
I was actually highlighting the extremely poor grammar and sentence structure

I know, i can't write very well cause english is not my first language. However, I think the concept was clear. If you say that the earth is flat, you are destroying centuries of evolution.