Coriolis Effect

  • 169 Replies
  • 20106 Views
?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #150 on: February 10, 2013, 05:31:31 AM »
did it ever occur to you that its just that you dont understand? i dont blame you for not understanding. their is lots of things i dont understand but what i do blame you for is saying eveyone else in the world is wrong just because you dont understand. do you find it strange that even FErs think you are a crazy lunatic?
There are billions upon billions of things that I nor you or anyone else understand about this universe and earth, each in our own different ways.
As for flat earthers, round earthers, hollow earthers, or anyone else having me down as a crazy lunatic, is of no consequence to me. I am my own person and I have my own thoughts and I decide what I accept or question, whether it's flawed logic or whatever.
I'd rather think outside the box, than be confined within and think.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #151 on: February 10, 2013, 07:49:23 AM »
If everything moves the same as the earth, including the invisible force , then "everything" moves with it. It cannot be cherry picked to allow for north/south v east/west differences.
Whether you move west to east or east to west, or north to south, or south to north. It should still be the same, as in you move with the earth, plus the magical atmosphere that grips it.


Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #152 on: February 10, 2013, 08:00:07 AM »
If everything moves the same as the earth, including the invisible force , then "everything" moves with it. It cannot be cherry picked to allow for north/south v east/west differences.
Whether you move west to east or east to west, or north to south, or south to north. It should still be the same, as in you move with the earth, plus the magical atmosphere that grips it.

No, you just don't understand the coriolis effect.
Why use evidence
Ok

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #153 on: February 10, 2013, 08:17:29 AM »
If everything moves the same as the earth, including the invisible force , then "everything" moves with it. It cannot be cherry picked to allow for north/south v east/west differences.
Whether you move west to east or east to west, or north to south, or south to north. It should still be the same, as in you move with the earth, plus the magical atmosphere that grips it.

No, you just don't understand the coriolis effect.
I agree.

Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #154 on: February 10, 2013, 09:45:39 AM »
As expected, sceptimatic misses the point that the example is meant to highlight the misbelief rests on a false interpretation of physics, rather than anything else. A true understanding of physics would lead to the prediction that the plane would indeed fly.
I was being sarcastic.

Your false interpretation of me not accepting physics as part of life is where you go wrong.
I accept a lot of things and how stuff works and why they work.
My issue isn't about earthly things in the main, it's about space and space craft and what space is purported to be, is what I have a problem with.

No. I've read your posts. Your angle is consistently "I don't believe X because the explanation is ABC and that's bullshit" and then you invariably show that you don't understand the principles of ABC to the slightest degree. It's nothing to do with having an open mind, it's nothing to do with belief in a flat or round earth, it's simply that you are unable to grasp the predictions made by common laws of physics, such as inertia, and what their results would be.
I feel exactly the same way about you and others, yet I don't harp on about it, I just discuss it.

Saying you feel that the others who respond to you don't understand physics just shows you can't follow the reasoned arguments they lay out for you so simply a child could follow them.
There you go again. Misinterpreting what I'm saying.
I cannot tell anyone that they don't know physics and equations and such. That is not what I am saying.
What I am saying is, those that do know what they are talking about, as in calculating, are doing so by the usage of a formula that works for the models that have been ingrained into their heads.

For example:
The Earth is told to you are rotating and round, turning once on it's axis per day, whilst the moon is going around the Earth at 240,000 miles away and the Earth, plus the moon are going around a central massive 1000,000 km diameter, 93 million mile distant Sun at 67,000 miles per hour and the equations are set out , because this model has been designed to fit into the equations, so to you, it works and that's that, yet any model can be made to fit any equation, it's just a case of believing in whatever magic gets added to it to make it fit.

On Earth, they add gravity, inertia, relativity, E=MC2, special relativity, quantum physics and many many more things to push an agenda, yet they have it all worked out and the figure match up because of this, yet , anyone using their own model that fits their own equations, is labelled a fantasy tin foil hat nut job.

That's how it all works.

No, that's not how it works. They find relations between two objects, and then compare that relation with other objects and see whether or not it works. If it doesn't work, then either there's something else at play or the relation clearly isn't one that isn't determining the end results. I've linked it before, but Kepler's laws of planetary motion are prime examples of this working in space. Kepler studied the orbit of Mars around the sun and found a relationship. He then used that relationship to compare other planets with the sun and found that they all followed they same principle. They're not forcing the square block into the circular hole; they found the circle and put it into the circular hole and voila, we now understand how the planets orbit the sun.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #155 on: February 10, 2013, 09:54:12 AM »
As expected, sceptimatic misses the point that the example is meant to highlight the misbelief rests on a false interpretation of physics, rather than anything else. A true understanding of physics would lead to the prediction that the plane would indeed fly.
I was being sarcastic.

Your false interpretation of me not accepting physics as part of life is where you go wrong.
I accept a lot of things and how stuff works and why they work.
My issue isn't about earthly things in the main, it's about space and space craft and what space is purported to be, is what I have a problem with.

No. I've read your posts. Your angle is consistently "I don't believe X because the explanation is ABC and that's bullshit" and then you invariably show that you don't understand the principles of ABC to the slightest degree. It's nothing to do with having an open mind, it's nothing to do with belief in a flat or round earth, it's simply that you are unable to grasp the predictions made by common laws of physics, such as inertia, and what their results would be.
I feel exactly the same way about you and others, yet I don't harp on about it, I just discuss it.

Saying you feel that the others who respond to you don't understand physics just shows you can't follow the reasoned arguments they lay out for you so simply a child could follow them.
There you go again. Misinterpreting what I'm saying.
I cannot tell anyone that they don't know physics and equations and such. That is not what I am saying.
What I am saying is, those that do know what they are talking about, as in calculating, are doing so by the usage of a formula that works for the models that have been ingrained into their heads.

For example:
The Earth is told to you are rotating and round, turning once on it's axis per day, whilst the moon is going around the Earth at 240,000 miles away and the Earth, plus the moon are going around a central massive 1000,000 km diameter, 93 million mile distant Sun at 67,000 miles per hour and the equations are set out , because this model has been designed to fit into the equations, so to you, it works and that's that, yet any model can be made to fit any equation, it's just a case of believing in whatever magic gets added to it to make it fit.

On Earth, they add gravity, inertia, relativity, E=MC2, special relativity, quantum physics and many many more things to push an agenda, yet they have it all worked out and the figure match up because of this, yet , anyone using their own model that fits their own equations, is labelled a fantasy tin foil hat nut job.

That's how it all works.

No, that's not how it works. They find relations between two objects, and then compare that relation with other objects and see whether or not it works. If it doesn't work, then either there's something else at play or the relation clearly isn't one that isn't determining the end results. I've linked it before, but Kepler's laws of planetary motion are prime examples of this working in space. Kepler studied the orbit of Mars around the sun and found a relationship. He then used that relationship to compare other planets with the sun and found that they all followed they same principle. They're not forcing the square block into the circular hole; they found the circle and put it into the circular hole and voila, we now understand how the planets orbit the sun.
You understand what they tell you to understand.

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • Literally a dog
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #156 on: February 10, 2013, 11:31:29 AM »
Ok now that I've seen you use it a million times, who is 'they'?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #157 on: February 10, 2013, 11:42:51 AM »
Ok now that I've seen you use it a million times, who is 'they'?
Whoever were tutored by those who were tutored by those who were tutored by those who tutored you.

Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #158 on: February 10, 2013, 11:57:19 AM »
if every human on earth had to learn everything from scratch on thier own without somone teaching we would still be cave man. the reason are species is as advanced as it is is because we teach and pass on information learnt. we also deligate so not everyone has to know everything. if we did things your way no on would know anything because no one would be taught.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #159 on: February 10, 2013, 12:16:18 PM »
if every human on earth had to learn everything from scratch on thier own without somone teaching we would still be cave man. the reason are species is as advanced as it is is because we teach and pass on information learnt. we also deligate so not everyone has to know everything. if we did things your way no on would know anything because no one would be taught.
If we did things my way, everyone would be told the truth and taught the truth, so that people would be more up to date with what is and what isn't in this world.
This species are not as advanced as they were years ago, except for brainwashed knowledge.
Todays society have trouble dealing with ordinary manual things in life, unlike years ago when people could think for themselves and use their own brains.
Learning how to play a computer game is hard for the older generation, yet easier for kids, as it's "fun" and kids like a fun challenge.
All the old skills are dying, so are we more intelligent?

*

Wolf

  • 133
  • Flat Earth non-believer
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #160 on: February 11, 2013, 01:36:23 AM »
Sceptimatic, I don't think any amount of toothpaste will get rid of the smell caused by the amount of shit that comes out of your mouth.
lol - they actually believe the earth is flat!

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #161 on: February 11, 2013, 02:31:55 AM »
Sceptimatic, I don't think any amount of toothpaste will get rid of the smell caused by the amount of shit that comes out of your mouth.
It's all a matter of opinions. You have yours and I have mine. I know in my mind that you can't have things both ways with your spinning earth.
You hang on to what you are conditioned to hang onto and I'll condition myself on what I believe.

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #162 on: February 11, 2013, 04:30:42 AM »
Ok now that I've seen you use it a million times, who is 'they'?
Whoever were tutored by those who were tutored by those who were tutored by those who tutored you.

Shouldn't that be Whoever tutored those who tutored those who tutored those who tutored you?

I think you've got it backwards.

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • Literally a dog
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #163 on: February 11, 2013, 03:09:13 PM »
I know in my mind that you can't have things both ways

Here we go again with the vague shit with no supporting evidence...

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #164 on: February 11, 2013, 05:48:56 PM »
Yea, they both do both, but a law is proven and a theory hasn't (at least as much).
This is a common misconception that many have about Science. In general the name "law" was used in times of Newton and up to the 19th century, when scientists were much more certain that current scientific knowledge would never be corrected. More or less since then the name "theory" replaced "law" as the highest level of certainty in science to emphasize the fact that any law or theory might be revised when new information becomes available.

Even now we have "laws" like Ohm's law, that should have been renamed "theories" and supposed "theories", like String Theory, that should be named "String hypothesis", since it does not fill the requirements of a scientific theory. But right now the use of the words "theory" and "law" depend a lot on historic reasons and should be generally used as synonyms.

Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #165 on: February 11, 2013, 05:54:06 PM »
Yea, they both do both, but a law is proven and a theory hasn't (at least as much).
This is a common misconception that many have about Science. In general the name "law" was used in times of Newton and up to the 19th century, when scientists were much more certain that current scientific knowledge would never be corrected. More or less since then the name "theory" replaced "law" as the highest level of certainty in science to emphasize the fact that any law or theory might be revised when new information becomes available.

Even now we have "laws" like Ohm's law, that should have been renamed "theories" and supposed "theories", like String Theory, that should be named "String hypothesis", since it does not fill the requirements of a scientific theory. But right now the use of the words "theory" and "law" depend a lot on historic reasons and should be generally used as synonyms.

Actually, a theory describes something and a law is how something is happening. They're independent of one another in the sense that you couldn't call them synonymous, but they both are very important and can relate to one another. A law has a lot of math associated with it, and a theory doesn't. Also, one does not supersede the other, as a law doesn't become a theory or vice versa.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2013, 05:55:39 PM by Alonewarrior »

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #166 on: February 11, 2013, 09:03:40 PM »
Yea, they both do both, but a law is proven and a theory hasn't (at least as much).
This is a common misconception that many have about Science. In general the name "law" was used in times of Newton and up to the 19th century, when scientists were much more certain that current scientific knowledge would never be corrected. More or less since then the name "theory" replaced "law" as the highest level of certainty in science to emphasize the fact that any law or theory might be revised when new information becomes available.

Even now we have "laws" like Ohm's law, that should have been renamed "theories" and supposed "theories", like String Theory, that should be named "String hypothesis", since it does not fill the requirements of a scientific theory. But right now the use of the words "theory" and "law" depend a lot on historic reasons and should be generally used as synonyms.

Actually, a theory describes something and a law is how something is happening. They're independent of one another in the sense that you couldn't call them synonymous, but they both are very important and can relate to one another. A law has a lot of math associated with it, and a theory doesn't. Also, one does not supersede the other, as a law doesn't become a theory or vice versa.
I have to stress my point because the geniuses in this forum make a fuss over it.

This "how" problem is not something you can evaluate scientifically. In general we cannot say "how" things work without getting into problems with the explanation of the mechanisms that make that "how" work. And then, if a level of explanations seems reasonable, the next level of explanations may or may not sound good enough. In the end, nothing is fully explained because there is something in some mechanism that we do not know "how" it works.

What does have a scientific solid ground is what is predictable. If my predictions, based on a hypothesis, happen to match the results of my experiments and observations, my hypothesis will be given the rank of "theory", which is the highest in Science.

Lots of pseudo-scientists are all over the place saying "evolution is just a theory" or "gravity is just a theory". This just does not have a meaning.

Also, think about Ohm's Law, Snell's Law, Newton's Second Law of Motion, Newton's Law of Gravitation, the Law of Conservation of Energy and so many more. They describe "what" happens but frequently say little or nothing about "how". They are all Scientific Theories.

Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #167 on: February 12, 2013, 08:13:15 AM »
Yea, they both do both, but a law is proven and a theory hasn't (at least as much).
This is a common misconception that many have about Science. In general the name "law" was used in times of Newton and up to the 19th century, when scientists were much more certain that current scientific knowledge would never be corrected. More or less since then the name "theory" replaced "law" as the highest level of certainty in science to emphasize the fact that any law or theory might be revised when new information becomes available.

Even now we have "laws" like Ohm's law, that should have been renamed "theories" and supposed "theories", like String Theory, that should be named "String hypothesis", since it does not fill the requirements of a scientific theory. But right now the use of the words "theory" and "law" depend a lot on historic reasons and should be generally used as synonyms.

Actually, a theory describes something and a law is how something is happening. They're independent of one another in the sense that you couldn't call them synonymous, but they both are very important and can relate to one another. A law has a lot of math associated with it, and a theory doesn't. Also, one does not supersede the other, as a law doesn't become a theory or vice versa.
I have to stress my point because the geniuses in this forum make a fuss over it.

This "how" problem is not something you can evaluate scientifically. In general we cannot say "how" things work without getting into problems with the explanation of the mechanisms that make that "how" work. And then, if a level of explanations seems reasonable, the next level of explanations may or may not sound good enough. In the end, nothing is fully explained because there is something in some mechanism that we do not know "how" it works.

What does have a scientific solid ground is what is predictable. If my predictions, based on a hypothesis, happen to match the results of my experiments and observations, my hypothesis will be given the rank of "theory", which is the highest in Science.

Lots of pseudo-scientists are all over the place saying "evolution is just a theory" or "gravity is just a theory". This just does not have a meaning.

Also, think about Ohm's Law, Snell's Law, Newton's Second Law of Motion, Newton's Law of Gravitation, the Law of Conservation of Energy and so many more. They describe "what" happens but frequently say little or nothing about "how". They are all Scientific Theories.

I was just stating what I learned and have read. I know the differences between a theory and a scientific theory, and am not discrediting a scientific theory in any way, but a law is generally described as something that states how, while a theory describes the phenomenon. There's obviously more to it than that, so here's a place that pretty accurately describes both: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

Again, I'm not trying to discredit you in any way.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 08:15:12 AM by Alonewarrior »

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #168 on: February 12, 2013, 11:33:11 AM »
I was just stating what I learned and have read. I know the differences between a theory and a scientific theory, and am not discrediting a scientific theory in any way, but a law is generally described as something that states how, while a theory describes the phenomenon. There's obviously more to it than that, so here's a place that pretty accurately describes both: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

It is unfortunate that so many definitions, coming from several centuries and sometimes being included in apparently reputable dictionaries and other sources, contradict each other in such disastrous ways. I understand what you are trying to say, and feel you have tried hard to get to the bottom of this. But we could discuss epistemology and epistemology in science for a long time, just to end accepting that science does not really answer the "how" questions very well. In fact, we as humans have only found one ultimate answer to the ultimate "how" questions, and that is God, or Gods. And that answer stinks. As one mildly famous man said, "'God did it' is the ultimate non-answer".

So, because every "how" question gets, at best, a subjective answer in science, cheap philosophers like the ones here jump to say "science does not explain gravity", or "science does not explain evolution", or "science does not explain atoms". And because the answer is subjective, geniuses like skeptimatic jump to say the whole thing is a hoax.

Science got us to the technological boom we are living through predictability, not by answering "how" questions, and that has left armchair philosophers without a job, ranting in places like this one. Philosophy of science has showed pretty much nothing of use in the last century, so scientists have done their work in a sort of void of conceptual definitions, like the definition of "law" and the definition of "theory". Scientists understand each other in this subject, they are just not as good as they should reaching the general population.

In conclusion, I do not find fault in you, I find fault in the people who try to score points on scientists by playing with words instead of actually doing some science for themselves.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Coriolis Effect
« Reply #169 on: February 13, 2013, 11:21:42 AM »
I was just stating what I learned and have read. I know the differences between a theory and a scientific theory, and am not discrediting a scientific theory in any way, but a law is generally described as something that states how, while a theory describes the phenomenon. There's obviously more to it than that, so here's a place that pretty accurately describes both: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

It is unfortunate that so many definitions, coming from several centuries and sometimes being included in apparently reputable dictionaries and other sources, contradict each other in such disastrous ways. I understand what you are trying to say, and feel you have tried hard to get to the bottom of this. But we could discuss epistemology and epistemology in science for a long time, just to end accepting that science does not really answer the "how" questions very well. In fact, we as humans have only found one ultimate answer to the ultimate "how" questions, and that is God, or Gods. And that answer stinks. As one mildly famous man said, "'God did it' is the ultimate non-answer".

So, because every "how" question gets, at best, a subjective answer in science, cheap philosophers like the ones here jump to say "science does not explain gravity", or "science does not explain evolution", or "science does not explain atoms". And because the answer is subjective, geniuses like skeptimatic jump to say the whole thing is a hoax.

Science got us to the technological boom we are living through predictability, not by answering "how" questions, and that has left armchair philosophers without a job, ranting in places like this one. Philosophy of science has showed pretty much nothing of use in the last century, so scientists have done their work in a sort of void of conceptual definitions, like the definition of "law" and the definition of "theory". Scientists understand each other in this subject, they are just not as good as they should reaching the general population.

In conclusion, I do not find fault in you, I find fault in the people who try to score points on scientists by playing with words instead of actually doing some science for themselves.

Doesn't Alonewarrior mean "how" as in: Newton's Law of Gravitation can tell you -how- fast a ball will be falling in a vacuum after 3 seconds?

Theory, as I know it to be used scientifically, refers to "a body of knowledge".
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.