Coriolis Effect, Only Spherical Earther's reply

  • 4 Replies
  • 674 Views
Coriolis Effect, Only Spherical Earther's reply
« on: July 23, 2017, 01:46:07 PM »
It has come to my attention that some Spherical Earther's say that the Coriolis Effect is a major, while other say that it is minor.

I would like for the Spherical Earther's to debate this and come to a conclusion if it is a major of a minor, on a Global scale.

Please tell us
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Re: Coriolis Effect, Only Spherical Earther's reply
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2017, 04:30:45 PM »
On a global scale, it is major.
On a small scale, it is quite minor, unless you have something to build it up or a very sensitive experiment.

But on a global scale, you can have the effect be negated. For example, if you were to hypothetically walk along the surface you continually correct for the surface as you walk and in each step the Coriolis force is effectively nothing. And over time with your continual corrections for this effectively nothing, it builds up to a much larger correction for a much larger effect.

*

rabinoz

  • 22633
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Coriolis Effect, Only Spherical Earther's reply
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2017, 07:47:43 PM »
It has come to my attention that some Spherical Earther's say that the Coriolis Effect is a major, while other say that it is minor.

I would like for the Spherical Earther's to debate this and come to a conclusion if it is a major of a minor, on a Global scale.

Please tell us
You decide!

Firstly the effect on hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones.
Why is there a clear band that cyclones and hurricanes rarely cross?
I would say that something that causes
          hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones to rotate in a counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and
          cyclones to rotate in a clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere,
is a rather major effect on a Global scale and if you've been through a cyclone or hurricane, I'm sure you'd agree.

Even when it comes to the ordinary weather patterns of Highs and Lows, something causes the four distinct situations observed for High and Low Pressure Weather systems,
These include Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
     
Northern Hemisphere
     
Southern Hemisphere
Highs
     
Clockwise
     
Anti-clockwise
Lows
     
Anti-clockwise
     
Clockwise
Just look at weather maps that show highs, lows and wind directions to verify this for yourself.

Explain that without the Coriolis effect - looks a pretty major Global effect to me!

But, if you want big Coriolis, here's big Coriolis and long-range artillery, and the Coriolis Effect, try the "Paris Gun" used by Germany in WW I. It's at ranges like thus where the Coriolis and Eötvös effects become essential.

Have a look at:
Quote from: G. Trifkovic


In June 2002 issue of Military Heritage there is an article on Paris gun and a good part of it is about calculations that needed to be done in order to ensure accuracy. So,the Germans digged out the works of one Gustave Gaspard Coriolis (1792-1843),who in 1835 published his Sur les Equations du Mouvement Relatif des Systemes de Corps ("On the equations of Relative Motion of System of Bodies"),in which he stated that ,due to spherical nature of the Earth and it's rotation, a moving object on a north-south vector would be affected by the relative rotational speeds of launch and impact points. Earlier German use of long-range guns (firing from Lugenboom on Dunkirk), didn't have to take into account Coriolis Effect, because the firing site and target were on an east-west axis. Obscure mathematician von Eberhardt, at the time working for Krupp, understood the problems of firing on the north-south axis, so he based his research on Coriolis' works and made calculations accordingly.
Being advised on the site of the gun (Crepy-an-Laonnois), he estimated rotational speed of Paris at 567 mph on the 49th parallel and that of Laon at 555.55mph on the 48th parallel.So, an adjustment of 11.58 mph had to be provided for the laying of the gun. Also, he calculated the estimated flight time at 176 seconds and this called for easterly correction of 0.5659 miles to compensate for differing rotational speeds of gun and target.
I am not too keen on math  ::) but this article really captured me, showing how much hard work (apart from technical aspects) was needed just to fire this gun. And all this was done without computer...  :o

Cheers,

GAius

From: Axis History Forum, The Paris Gun

Yes, I know long range artillery relies of spotters to correct the azimuth and elevation angles, but to get over half a mile out is a bit much!

But when it comes to
water-down-the-drain, aircraft or cars there to many other effects for the very small Coriolis effect to be even measurable.

So, is the Coriolis efect major or minor on a Global scale?

PS I know one very weak cyclone did start rotating counter-clockwise near India, then drifted around,
    finally crossed the equator and promptly died!

« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 03:25:43 PM by rabinoz »

Re: Coriolis Effect, Only Spherical Earther's reply
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2017, 12:39:00 AM »
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.

I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.

But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:

fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc =  rand([2 100]);
fluc2 =  (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');

I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference ;)

It has come to my attention that you don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do.

Re: Coriolis Effect, Only Spherical Earther's reply
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2017, 01:09:36 AM »
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.

I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.

But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:

fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc =  rand([2 100]);
fluc2 =  (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');

I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference ;)

It has come to my attention that you don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do.

And that is not only true but PROVABLY so. Every word this dimwit says, further proves it.