Coriolis Effect

In the FAQ:
Q: "How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?"

A: You are mistaken. The Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day, and fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet spins much faster than that (at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day), so the additional or lost rotation from the Coriolis effect would not be noticed.

Could you please refine this statement? Right now it's a little vague, or miss-worded on what you are trying to say about the Coriolis effect. I want to critique it, but I have no clue what the answer is trying to say.

There is a common misconception about the Coriolis effect, that it is strong enough to be seen in such a small body of fluid as a toilet or a bottle of soda. People say they have seen how water flushes out of a container rotating only in one direction if you are in the Northern hemisphere, and other people believe it even though anyone can do the experiment and debunk it.

But in big bodies of fluid, like clouds spanning hundreds of kilometers, that rotate in hours (not like the soda bottle, where the rotation takes tenths of a second), the Coriolis effect is easily seen. Every hurricane in the Northern hemisphere rotates anticlockwise, every hurricane in the Southern hemisphere rotates anticlockwise.

And the explanation given by some FE'rs is quite laughable: gravitational pull by stars.

There is a common misconception about the Coriolis effect, that it is strong enough to be seen in such a small body of fluid as a toilet or a bottle of soda. People say they have seen how water flushes out of a container rotating only in one direction if you are in the Northern hemisphere, and other people believe it even though anyone can do the experiment and debunk it.

But in big bodies of fluid, like clouds spanning hundreds of kilometers, that rotate in hours (not like the soda bottle, where the rotation takes tenths of a second), the Coriolis effect is easily seen. Every hurricane in the Northern hemisphere rotates anticlockwise, every hurricane in the Southern hemisphere rotates anticlockwise.

And the explanation given by some FE'rs is quite laughable: gravitational pull by stars.

To springboard on your great post, Tom Bishop argues that the difference in direction is caused by the different direction of the stars's rotation. He say that if you face north, the stars rotate counterclockwise and that if you face south the stars rotate clockwise. Since counterclockwise is a different direction than clockwise, he argues, forgeting that the observer turned 180^o, that this explains the difference in the Coriolis Effect between the hemidisks. Can we cue the Looney Tunes theme now please?

That makes no sense! If you were to jump out of a plane (as FE'ers say space travel is all a hoax) and theoretically stay at a very high altitude, you would clearly see the effect if the cyclone were in the northern vs. the southern.

Also, I still want a FE'er to elaborate on that FAQ!! And a quick question, do FE'ers believe the Earth rotates, or doesn't rotate?

And a quick question, do FE'ers believe the Earth rotates, or doesn't rotate? 

One of the few things that FE'ers agree on is that the flat earth does not rotate.  There seems to be a difference of opinion on almost all other aspects of the flat earth, however.

Quote from: JamesJamie on September 15, 2010, 09:21:33 AM

And a quick question, do FE'ers believe the Earth rotates, or doesn't rotate?  

One of the few things that FE'ers agree on is that the flat earth does not rotate.  There seems to be a difference of opinion on almost all other aspects of the flat earth, however.

Than please explain to me firing a rifle from long range (lets say 1 mile ~1760 yards). You don't account for anything (lets leave wind, humidity and all that junk out), your crosshairs in your scope are dead center between the eyes. You fire and the bullet not only misses below your crosshairs, but to the right (or left in the southern hemisphere). What makes that bullet miss to the right in the FET? The only possible explanation is that the Earth rotates, so when firing from a long distance, your target will be rotating ever so slightly as well. Talk to any number of professional long range marksman, they can tell you the exact same thing.

On another note, artillery has the same exact problem, but because they fire at longer distances it's much more apparent.

Quote from: markjo on September 15, 2010, 10:05:58 AM

Quote from: JamesJamie on September 15, 2010, 09:21:33 AM

And a quick question, do FE'ers believe the Earth rotates, or doesn't rotate?  

One of the few things that FE'ers agree on is that the flat earth does not rotate.  There seems to be a difference of opinion on almost all other aspects of the flat earth, however.

Than please explain to me firing a rifle from long range (lets say 1 mile ~1760 yards). You don't account for anything (lets leave wind, humidity and all that junk out), your crosshairs in your scope are dead center between the eyes. You fire and the bullet not only misses below your crosshairs, but to the right (or left in the southern hemisphere). What makes that bullet miss to the right in the FET? The only possible explanation is that the Earth rotates, so when firing from a long distance, your target will be rotating ever so slightly as well. Talk to any number of professional long range marksman, they can tell you the exact same thing.

On another note, artillery has the same exact problem, but because they fire at longer distances it's much more apparent.

A bullet also curves because it is spinning as it leaves the barrel from the grooves if im not mistaken, any professional sniper must take the Coriolis Effect into account as well, but It is worth noting that a bullet rotates on its own which can cause some of that to occur.

A bullet also curves because it is spinning as it leaves the barrel from the grooves if im not mistaken, any professional sniper must take the Coriolis Effect into account as well, but It is worth noting that a bullet rotates on its own which can cause some of that to occur.

The rifling, the groves in the barrel, causes the spinning. The spinning prevents, though not entirely, the bullet from curving--due to the conservation of angular momentum. I think that's the opposite of your claim. --but I'm not a expert on rifles.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling

Ok, then lets take modern (USA) artillery for example, which doesn't have rifling. They still need to account for SOME effect that magically makes the shell miss its target.

And in actuality, the spin is consistent, so curving due to rifling does not happen. Think of it this way, a pitchers pitch moves because of the airflow around the seams when he puts a certain spin on it, the bullet has no "seams" to speak of.

There we go, clocktower backed me up.

Quote from: AdmiralAckbar on September 15, 2010, 11:58:01 AM

A bullet also curves because it is spinning as it leaves the barrel from the grooves if im not mistaken, any professional sniper must take the Coriolis Effect into account as well, but It is worth noting that a bullet rotates on its own which can cause some of that to occur.

The rifling, the groves in the barrel, causes the spinning. The spinning prevents, though not entirely, the bullet from curving--due to the conservation of angular momentum. I think that's the opposite of your claim. --but I'm not a expert on rifles.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling

I don't claim I am either, but I highly doubt over longer ranges when the spin becomes dramatically slower that it will still allow it to keep a significantly straight path.

Ok, then lets take modern (USA) artillery for example, which doesn't have rifling. They still need to account for SOME effect that magically makes the shell miss its target.

And in actuality, the spin is consistent, so curving due to rifling does not happen. Think of it this way, a pitchers pitch moves because of the airflow around the seams when he puts a certain spin on it, the bullet has no "seams" to speak of.

There we go, clocktower backed me up.

I agree with the effect as well but I'm just saying what FE'rs might say so we can get it out of the way and laugh when they bring it up .

I didn't know pitchers have to throw their balls through the grooving of a barrel in order to gain spin, thanks for the analogy 0.o?

Quote from: ClockTower on September 15, 2010, 12:02:55 PM

Quote from: AdmiralAckbar on September 15, 2010, 11:58:01 AM

A bullet also curves because it is spinning as it leaves the barrel from the grooves if im not mistaken, any professional sniper must take the Coriolis Effect into account as well, but It is worth noting that a bullet rotates on its own which can cause some of that to occur.

The rifling, the groves in the barrel, causes the spinning. The spinning prevents, though not entirely, the bullet from curving--due to the conservation of angular momentum. I think that's the opposite of your claim. --but I'm not a expert on rifles.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling

I don't claim I am either, but I highly doubt over longer ranges when the spin becomes dramatically slower that it will still allow it to keep a significantly straight path.

Quote from: JamesJamie on September 15, 2010, 12:04:55 PM

Ok, then lets take modern (USA) artillery for example, which doesn't have rifling. They still need to account for SOME effect that magically makes the shell miss its target.

And in actuality, the spin is consistent, so curving due to rifling does not happen. Think of it this way, a pitchers pitch moves because of the airflow around the seams when he puts a certain spin on it, the bullet has no "seams" to speak of.

There we go, clocktower backed me up.

I agree with the effect as well but I'm just saying what FE'rs might say so we can get it out of the way and laugh when they bring it up .

I didn't know pitchers have to throw their balls through the grooving of a barrel in order to gain spin, thanks for the analogy 0.o?

I said when they pitch/throw the ball, the reason it curves is because of the airflow over the seams... I wasn't making an analogy to the barrel, I was making an analogy to the in flight rotation an object has.

Regardless, the question about the rotation still exists to the FE'er's out there! What is making that bullet or artillery shell miss!

Quote from: AdmiralAckbar on September 15, 2010, 12:07:35 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 15, 2010, 12:02:55 PM

Quote from: AdmiralAckbar on September 15, 2010, 11:58:01 AM

A bullet also curves because it is spinning as it leaves the barrel from the grooves if im not mistaken, any professional sniper must take the Coriolis Effect into account as well, but It is worth noting that a bullet rotates on its own which can cause some of that to occur.

The rifling, the groves in the barrel, causes the spinning. The spinning prevents, though not entirely, the bullet from curving--due to the conservation of angular momentum. I think that's the opposite of your claim. --but I'm not a expert on rifles.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling

I don't claim I am either, but I highly doubt over longer ranges when the spin becomes dramatically slower that it will still allow it to keep a significantly straight path.

Quote from: JamesJamie on September 15, 2010, 12:04:55 PM

Ok, then lets take modern (USA) artillery for example, which doesn't have rifling. They still need to account for SOME effect that magically makes the shell miss its target.

And in actuality, the spin is consistent, so curving due to rifling does not happen. Think of it this way, a pitchers pitch moves because of the airflow around the seams when he puts a certain spin on it, the bullet has no "seams" to speak of.

There we go, clocktower backed me up.

I agree with the effect as well but I'm just saying what FE'rs might say so we can get it out of the way and laugh when they bring it up .

I didn't know pitchers have to throw their balls through the grooving of a barrel in order to gain spin, thanks for the analogy 0.o?

I said when they pitch/throw the ball, the reason it curves is because of the airflow over the seams... I wasn't making an analogy to the barrel, I was making an analogy to the in flight rotation an object has.

I really don't see how it applies at all to a bullet spinning over a long distance, but okay.

You brought up spinning and how it would curve, I was simply stating that it could only curve if it's angular momentum was offcenter, or there were "seams" that distorted the air flow around the spinning bullet, much like what a pitcher does when throwing a curveball.

This is out of the question now, lets get back to the actual question at play here.

You brought up spinning and how it would curve, I was simply stating that it could only curve if it's angular momentum was offcenter, or there were "seams" that distorted the air flow around the spinning bullet, much like what a pitcher does when throwing a curveball.

This is out of the question now, lets get back to the actual question at play here.

okay.... so other than trying to compare munition physics to a ball being thrown a few yards... Has anyone ever actually shot a target that far taking account every possible complication other than the Coriolis effect?

Quote from: JamesJamie on September 15, 2010, 12:18:03 PM

You brought up spinning and how it would curve, I was simply stating that it could only curve if it's angular momentum was offcenter, or there were "seams" that distorted the air flow around the spinning bullet, much like what a pitcher does when throwing a curveball.

This is out of the question now, lets get back to the actual question at play here.

okay.... so other than trying to compare munition physics to a ball being thrown a few yards... Has anyone ever actually shot a target that far taking account every possible complication other than the Coriolis effect?

I imagine the space programs would be a clear example. It is rocket science after all.

Quote from: JamesJamie on September 15, 2010, 12:18:03 PM

You brought up spinning and how it would curve, I was simply stating that it could only curve if it's angular momentum was offcenter, or there were "seams" that distorted the air flow around the spinning bullet, much like what a pitcher does when throwing a curveball.

This is out of the question now, lets get back to the actual question at play here.

okay.... so other than trying to compare munition physics to a ball being thrown a few yards... Has anyone ever actually shot a target that far taking account every possible complication other than the Coriolis effect?

Like I said, lets get back the the actual question and not the analogy. Oh and yes, there have been numerous shots a mile or longer. Also, artillery shells go beyond tens of miles, and they follow the same principle of firing a gun.
figure in the seconds of firing, to the actual bullet hitting the target. Over 1000 yrds that's for sure.  Oh and here.
ignore the music, its god awful

Quote from: AdmiralAckbar on September 15, 2010, 12:25:15 PM

Quote from: JamesJamie on September 15, 2010, 12:18:03 PM

You brought up spinning and how it would curve, I was simply stating that it could only curve if it's angular momentum was offcenter, or there were "seams" that distorted the air flow around the spinning bullet, much like what a pitcher does when throwing a curveball.

This is out of the question now, lets get back to the actual question at play here.

okay.... so other than trying to compare munition physics to a ball being thrown a few yards... Has anyone ever actually shot a target that far taking account every possible complication other than the Coriolis effect?

Like I said, lets get back the the actual question and not the analogy. Oh and yes, there have been numerous shots a mile or longer. Also, artillery shells go beyond tens of miles, and they follow the same principle of firing a gun.
figure in the seconds of firing, to the actual bullet hitting the target. Over 1000 yrds that's for sure.  Oh and here.
ignore the music, its god awful

My apologies, I meant to say anybody here . And none of the videos prove that they account for the Coriolis effect specifically. The first video was very impressive. I wish my eyes were good enough to do that lol

In relative terms, it's hard to accurately show a sniper putting in calculations for the Coriolis effect. First off, they now have small computers that calculate for them, and they also zero their scope so even if you do put a camera in the scope with the crosshairs, it wouldn't show their how far off to the left they are. For the sniper, you would just have to talk to them, and they can accurately say they have to account for it.

Artillery is a little bit easier to show. This is an excerpt from WW1 for the Paris Gun

The Paris gun was used to shell Paris at a range of 120 km (75 miles). The distance was so far that the Coriolis effect  — the rotation of the Earth — was substantial enough to affect trajectory calculations. The gun was fired at an azimuth of 232 degrees (west-southwest) from Crépy-en Laon, which was at a latitude of 49.5 degrees North. The gunners had to account for the fact that the projectiles landed to the right of where they would have hit if there were no Coriolis effect.
 
I'm also going to post this in the general, seeing as no FE'er has responded yet

Wow... this ballistics stuff is fascinating. I had no idea!  Thanks for bringing it up.

Regardless, the question about the rotation still exists to the FE'er's out there! What is making that bullet or artillery shell miss!

People with horrible aim.

Quote from: JamesJamie on September 15, 2010, 12:13:06 PM

Regardless, the question about the rotation still exists to the FE'er's out there! What is making that bullet or artillery shell miss!

People with horrible aim.

Good trolling, that's why anyone with two eyes can get into Sniper school, right?

I dont really belive the toilet flush direction thing myself... who knows?

I dont really belive the toilet flush direction thing myself... who knows?

What don't you believe about it?

I dont really belive the toilet flush direction thing myself... who knows?

Ask an Australian. Or an Argentine.

EDIT: A Youtube video is hardly conclusive proof of ANYTHING so I don't imagine this will change any minds, but for what it's worth those who want to observe the effect can here:

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on September 17, 2010, 03:21:24 PM

I dont really belive the toilet flush direction thing myself... who knows?

Ask an Australian. Or an Argentine.

EDIT: A Youtube video is hardly conclusive proof of ANYTHING so I don't imagine this will change any minds, but for what it's worth those who want to observe the effect can here:

There are a number of problems with this, most notably being the sample size.

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 03:44:04 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on September 17, 2010, 03:21:24 PM

I dont really belive the toilet flush direction thing myself... who knows?

Ask an Australian. Or an Argentine.

EDIT: A Youtube video is hardly conclusive proof of ANYTHING so I don't imagine this will change any minds, but for what it's worth those who want to observe the effect can here:

There are a number of problems with this, most notably being the sample size.

Ask a thousand Australians. 

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on September 17, 2010, 06:00:55 PM

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 03:44:04 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on September 17, 2010, 03:21:24 PM

I dont really belive the toilet flush direction thing myself... who knows?

Ask an Australian. Or an Argentine.

EDIT: A Youtube video is hardly conclusive proof of ANYTHING so I don't imagine this will change any minds, but for what it's worth those who want to observe the effect can here:

There are a number of problems with this, most notably being the sample size.

Ask a thousand Australians. 

This is one of the most popularly debunked myths of all time.  I'm always amazed that there are people who still buy it.  Google coriolis myth and you'll find a great number of pages talking about it.

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 06:10:05 PM

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on September 17, 2010, 06:00:55 PM

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 03:44:04 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on September 17, 2010, 03:21:24 PM

I dont really belive the toilet flush direction thing myself... who knows?

Ask an Australian. Or an Argentine.

EDIT: A Youtube video is hardly conclusive proof of ANYTHING so I don't imagine this will change any minds, but for what it's worth those who want to observe the effect can here:

There are a number of problems with this, most notably being the sample size.

Ask a thousand Australians. 

This is one of the most popularly debunked myths of all time.  I'm always amazed that there are people who still buy it.  Google coriolis myth and you'll find a great number of pages talking about it.

Got no idea about drains, for sure.  Hell, I haven't even checked what direction my toilet empties in.

On the other hand..... hurricanes.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 17, 2010, 06:16:34 PM

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 06:10:05 PM

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on September 17, 2010, 06:00:55 PM

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 03:44:04 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on September 17, 2010, 03:21:24 PM

I dont really belive the toilet flush direction thing myself... who knows?

Ask an Australian. Or an Argentine.

EDIT: A Youtube video is hardly conclusive proof of ANYTHING so I don't imagine this will change any minds, but for what it's worth those who want to observe the effect can here:

There are a number of problems with this, most notably being the sample size.

Ask a thousand Australians. 

This is one of the most popularly debunked myths of all time.  I'm always amazed that there are people who still buy it.  Google coriolis myth and you'll find a great number of pages talking about it.

Got no idea about drains, for sure.  Hell, I haven't even checked what direction my toilet empties in.

On the other hand..... hurricanes.

Oh, I'm not arguing that hurricanes are affected by the coriolis effect.  I was just pointing out that water flowing down a drain isn't.

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 06:18:40 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 17, 2010, 06:16:34 PM

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 06:10:05 PM

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on September 17, 2010, 06:00:55 PM

Quote from: Maxine on September 17, 2010, 03:44:04 PM

Quote from: three-dimensional-world on September 17, 2010, 03:21:24 PM

I dont really belive the toilet flush direction thing myself... who knows?

Ask an Australian. Or an Argentine.

EDIT: A Youtube video is hardly conclusive proof of ANYTHING so I don't imagine this will change any minds, but for what it's worth those who want to observe the effect can here:

There are a number of problems with this, most notably being the sample size.

Ask a thousand Australians. 

This is one of the most popularly debunked myths of all time.  I'm always amazed that there are people who still buy it.  Google coriolis myth and you'll find a great number of pages talking about it.

Got no idea about drains, for sure.  Hell, I haven't even checked what direction my toilet empties in.

On the other hand..... hurricanes.

Oh, I'm not arguing that hurricanes are affected by the coriolis effect.  I was just pointing out that water flowing down a drain isn't.

I'll accept that.