Coriolis Effect Proves Earth's Rotation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect

^ You are going to feel so silly when you realise you only posted a link and forgot to include your message.

If we lived in a world where the FET reigned supreme and the RET were just a few crackpots, when the Coriolis effect is observed, it would leave a massive hole in FET that would need to be patched up. Religious entities would classify it as a work of god. Scientists would need to rethink their theories of the Earth. Then the RES come along and provide their theory, it seems to fit this observation. By this point, RES would actually be considered plausible and mass experiments would be conducted around the world to explore this theory. It might even become the dominating theory.

So in both worlds, RET wins.

Artillery doesn't use rifling because rifling only works with a certain length to width ratio. Artillery makes use of a tail fin assembly to stabilize a round. When you combine a tail fin with rifling you lose accuracy. Also note that the JDAM is not artillery. It is launched from jets. There is however something similar in artillery, it's called the Excalibur.

The Coriolis effect can be explained by the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens.

I have a few issues with this explanation.

• First of all, gravitomagnetic effects are tiny - they are only really observable on massive scales, like the space around a spinning black hole.
• Secondly, even if it did create a measurable effect, the heavens being above us would put us perpendicular to its rotation. To experience any noticeable gravitomagnetic effect we would need to be on the same rotational plane of the spinning heavens.
• Thirdly, if there was enough mass and a fast enough rotation to produce measurable gravitomagetic effects, the earth would be directly in the path of a supermassive relativistic jet, which it clearly isn't.
• Fourth, it requires an acknowledgement of general relativity, which is incompatible with Universal Acceleration.
• Fifth, the proposed mechanism does not explain the Coriolis Effect in that it would only account for a general twisting of the atmosphere around the central point - not the reversal of atmospheric vortex rotation south of the equator.
• Sixth, the Coriolis effect is not detectable when independent of the earth's rotation. Gravitomagnetic effects should still be in effect under these conditions.
• Seventh, being a relativistic effect (in that it results from the distortion of spacetime) it should have an even effect on all matter and not favour large fluid systems the way the Coriolis effect does.
• Eighth, furthermore, as the gravitomagnetic effect would be uniform across the whole earth, its effects would only be visible from a frame of reference well beyond the earth, in fact, well beyond the gravitomagnetic effects themselves, which would cover an area much larger than the earth.

Like I've said before, you can't proclaim to believe in a giant flat disc of incredible mass but no gravity accelerating infinitely upwards and then invoke Relativity when it suits you.

Are you serious?

Is who serious about what?

His first post, good start.

[So not only am I still in doubt as to whether the earth is round, in fact I'm quite sure its flat, I'm now doubting whether it spins or not. Your not helping.] 


You seem to post here a lot and come up with interesting theories, however i would like to see you , or a colleague that you respect use the Scientific Method to come up with a Hypothesis stating exactly what you believe to be true. Then i would like to see experimentation done that shows non bias empirical data that supports this data.

Using the scientific method you must start in the status quo; meaning that you must assume that the world is round, however the data that you present leads you to believe otherwise.

the problem with this website is that it did not begin with the Scientific Method, the assumption was made from religious doctrine and then people attempted to fill in the blanks. This is not how science operates.

So basically i would like a hypothesis that can be peer reviewed. 

No. The Coriolis Effect is the result of the earth being a spinning globe - that is, the equator is the lattitude with the longest circumference and therefore moves faster (in m/sec terms) than any other. This creates a twisting effect in opposite directions north and south of the equator.

On a flat earth, the longest circumference would be the south pole (or whatever point beyond that you decide the earth ends). It would have a similar twisting effect, but everything would twist in the same direction regardless of which side of the equator it was on.

If the earth was round and flat like a plate and spinning in space with its own gravity, would that not give the same effects as a Coriolis? Any liquid on the surface would be driven round by the same force...

And on top of what Tristan said, if a flat Earth were spinning, we would feel a centripetal effect - that is, we would be tumbling away from the centre of the spinning disc.

His first post, good start.

Thank you



I just wondered, how anyone can take this serious...even those guys who are here for convincing others that flat earth theory is not right...

I don't, really. I just think it's fun looking at their semantics and stupid excuses.

Anyways, FE'ers seem to be unable to come up with any good reasons for the coriolis effect.

RE victory anyone?

RE victory anyone?

Does this come as a surprise to you? The only reason we ever see an FE victory is when both theories can explain the same observation (and for some reason this is by default a win for FE) or the FE'ers find our explanations absurd. Gravity or NASA pictures for example. All a part of the conspiracy which concludes an FE victory.

Quote from: silver on February 26, 2011, 06:10:43 AM

RE victory anyone?

Does this come as a surprise to you? The only reason we ever see an FE victory is when both theories can explain the same observation (and for some reason this is by default a win for FE) or the FE'ers find our explanations absurd. Gravity or NASA pictures for example. All a part of the conspiracy which concludes an FE victory.

Its called home turf advantage.  If we wanted easy wins we would be on the Round Earth Society.

Berny
QP w/ Cheese X 2

Quote from: Puttah on February 26, 2011, 05:36:30 PM

Quote from: silver on February 26, 2011, 06:10:43 AM

RE victory anyone?

Does this come as a surprise to you? The only reason we ever see an FE victory is when both theories can explain the same observation (and for some reason this is by default a win for FE) or the FE'ers find our explanations absurd. Gravity or NASA pictures for example. All a part of the conspiracy which concludes an FE victory.

Its called home turf advantage.  If we wanted easy wins we would be on the Round Earth Society.

Berny
QP w/ Cheese X 2

It's as though they're fighting a downhill battle, with 4 of them versus billions of us.

Quote from: berny_74 on February 26, 2011, 09:22:14 PM

Quote from: Puttah on February 26, 2011, 05:36:30 PM

Quote from: silver on February 26, 2011, 06:10:43 AM

RE victory anyone?

Does this come as a surprise to you? The only reason we ever see an FE victory is when both theories can explain the same observation (and for some reason this is by default a win for FE) or the FE'ers find our explanations absurd. Gravity or NASA pictures for example. All a part of the conspiracy which concludes an FE victory.

Its called home turf advantage.  If we wanted easy wins we would be on the Round Earth Society.

Berny
QP w/ Cheese X 2

It's as though they're fighting a downhill battle, with 4 of them versus billions of us.

Well, they kind of are...

By the way, saying RE victory usually stirs them up a bit. I suppose they are so lost for evidence that not even that is enough to make them enter seriously into this thread

Quote from: Puttah on February 26, 2011, 09:28:31 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on February 26, 2011, 09:22:14 PM

Quote from: Puttah on February 26, 2011, 05:36:30 PM

Quote from: silver on February 26, 2011, 06:10:43 AM

RE victory anyone?

Does this come as a surprise to you? The only reason we ever see an FE victory is when both theories can explain the same observation (and for some reason this is by default a win for FE) or the FE'ers find our explanations absurd. Gravity or NASA pictures for example. All a part of the conspiracy which concludes an FE victory.

Its called home turf advantage.  If we wanted easy wins we would be on the Round Earth Society.

Berny
QP w/ Cheese X 2

It's as though they're fighting a downhill battle, with 4 of them versus billions of us.

Well, they kind of are...

By the way, saying RE victory usually stirs them up a bit. I suppose they are so lost for evidence that not even that is enough to make them enter seriously into this thread

They don't need this thread, it's a sacrifice they're willing to take. Especially when they have FE victory planted all over their bendy light threads.
Hmm... a hypothesis made up to support their theory is an FE victory? Oh well, this is as good as it gets!

I don't, really. I just think it's fun looking at their semantics and stupid excuses.

Anyways, FE'ers seem to be unable to come up with any good reasons for the coriolis effect.

RE victory anyone?

Personally, I would say that international air travel, the weather, the tide, seasons, solar eclipses, celestial navigation, global communication satelites, the ISS, Man on the Moon, expeditions to the south pole, the total absense of any evidence for a global conspiracy of anything in the history of the world ever, gravity and the simple observation that if the earth really is flat then it is designed in such a perculiar way that it makes life easier to think of it as a sphere anyway all constitute wins for RE.

But apparently I'm not the referee, so I guess they were all disqualified or something.

Quote from: silver on February 26, 2011, 06:10:43 AM

I don't, really. I just think it's fun looking at their semantics and stupid excuses.

Anyways, FE'ers seem to be unable to come up with any good reasons for the coriolis effect.

RE victory anyone?

Personally, I would say that international air travel, the weather, the tide, seasons, solar eclipses, celestial navigation, global communication satelites, the ISS, Man on the Moon, expeditions to the south pole, the total absense of any evidence for a global conspiracy of anything in the history of the world ever, gravity and the simple observation that if the earth really is flat then it is designed in such a perculiar way that it makes life easier to think of it as a sphere anyway all constitute wins for RE.

But apparently I'm not the referee, so I guess they were all disqualified or something.

I'll give you man of the match in this RE vs FE battle.

It does raise an interesting philosophical question: If the earth were, in fact, a flat plane/disc, but behaved exactly as a spheroid for all conceivable intents and purposes, which would be more important? The abstract truth or the practical falsehood? Regardless of your position, I don't see FET solving any problems; simply trying to answer questions that have already been answered a different way.

It does raise an interesting philosophical question: If the earth were, in fact, a flat plane/disc, but behaved exactly as a spheroid for all conceivable intents and purposes, which would be more important? The abstract truth or the practical falsehood? Regardless of your position, I don't see FET solving any problems; simply trying to answer questions that have already been answered a different way.

We still use Newton's laws of motion, but acknowledge that it doesn't apply in extreme circumstances.
Similarly, in such a universe we would use calculations that apply to a round Earth, but also acknowledge that the Earth is in fact flat.

However, as further research has been undergone in the theory of relativity, the same would apply in such a situation. We could find a more general formula for the way the Earth works, while still using the old - but still correct for all intents and purposes - formula.

Let us consider a flat earth map with the north pole in the middle (quite common) and assume that the Coriolis effect is as measured. In order for the flat map to move as is measured requires discontinuities in the rotation of earth or changes in the physics of rotational motion. The former is not observed and the latter is not justified.

if FEers believe the earth does not rotate, how do you explain the rotation of the stars round the earth...?

easy to prove this, look out your window at night and dot down some constellations. wait a few hours and do it again with the same constellations.

they wont match.

is there any explanation?

if FEers believe the earth does not rotate, how do you explain the rotation of the stars round the earth...?

easy to prove this, look out your window at night and dot down some constellations. wait a few hours and do it again with the same constellations.

they wont match.

is there any explanation?

The explanation is that the stars are in motion above the surface of the earth.

Quote from: PCM49 on April 11, 2011, 07:28:40 AM

if FEers believe the earth does not rotate, how do you explain the rotation of the stars round the earth...?

easy to prove this, look out your window at night and dot down some constellations. wait a few hours and do it again with the same constellations.

they wont match.

is there any explanation?

The explanation is that the stars are in motion above the surface of the earth.

They follow a spherical path, each star following an arc precisely as the geometry of the round earth dictates it should.

Quote from: PCM49 on April 11, 2011, 07:28:40 AM

if FEers believe the earth does not rotate, how do you explain the rotation of the stars round the earth...?

easy to prove this, look out your window at night and dot down some constellations. wait a few hours and do it again with the same constellations.

they wont match.

is there any explanation?

The explanation is that the stars are in motion above the surface of the earth.

Can you explain why they rotate completely opposite of what would be predicted in the FE theory south of the equator?  They work fine with RE theory but FE theory the patterns of the stars completely completely falls apart in the south.  No explanation of this is given in ENaG either.

Berny
Gyro Time.

Let us consider a flat earth map with the north pole in the middle (quite common) and assume that the Coriolis effect is as measured. In order for the flat map to move as is measured requires discontinuities in the rotation of earth or changes in the physics of rotational motion. The former is not observed and the latter is not justified.

Quote from: PCM49 on April 11, 2011, 07:28:40 AM

if FEers believe the earth does not rotate, how do you explain the rotation of the stars round the earth...?

easy to prove this, look out your window at night and dot down some constellations. wait a few hours and do it again with the same constellations.

they wont match.

is there any explanation?

The explanation is that the stars are in motion above the surface of the earth.

It's marvelous that Tom Bishop responds to the query that can be found in the FAQ, but completely ignores the other one. And then he's going to ignore the followup responses to why his answer is flawed, such as

Can you explain why they rotate completely opposite of what would be predicted in the FE theory south of the equator?  They work fine with RE theory but FE theory the patterns of the stars completely completely falls apart in the south.  No explanation of this is given in ENaG either.

Berny
Gyro Time.

It's marvelous that Tom Bishop responds to the query that can be found in the FAQ, but completely ignores the other one. And then he's going to ignore the followup responses to why his answer is flawed, such as

Quote from: berny_74 on April 11, 2011, 08:46:40 PM

Can you explain why they rotate completely opposite of what would be predicted in the FE theory south of the equator?  They work fine with RE theory but FE theory the patterns of the stars completely completely falls apart in the south.  No explanation of this is given in ENaG either.

Berny
Gyro Time.

Tom's response to this would be to reference the wonderful FEW article that he wrote concerning celestial gears.

Quote from: Puttah on April 12, 2011, 12:46:37 AM

It's marvelous that Tom Bishop responds to the query that can be found in the FAQ, but completely ignores the other one. And then he's going to ignore the followup responses to why his answer is flawed, such as

Quote from: berny_74 on April 11, 2011, 08:46:40 PM

Can you explain why they rotate completely opposite of what would be predicted in the FE theory south of the equator?  They work fine with RE theory but FE theory the patterns of the stars completely completely falls apart in the south.  No explanation of this is given in ENaG either.

Berny
Gyro Time.

Tom's response to this would be to reference the wonderful FEW article that he wrote concerning celestial gears.

It sounds like a great read, I'll be eagerly awaiting the reference