Coriolis Effect--Science or Superstition?

[TheBigDog]

Great!! But a tiny doubt crept up in my widdle mind.

The plumb line. The plumb is traveling in an "orbit" 45+ meters smaller radius than the top of the tower. So it would "want" to travel a bit faster. Maybe it would tug forward about a centimeter to reach equilibrium. This is all conjecture. What do you think???? :) :) :hihi:

Plumb line would not work. Over a certain length they get a measureable inaccuracy because of the difference in velocity between the top and the bottom - and that only comes into play if you can control all of the other forces that will interfere (vibration, wind, etc.) You could observe this phenomena in a controlled environment.

 

Drill a hole straight down into the ground, and measure its accuracy with lasers. Then seal it and pump out all the air. Then drop the lead ball down the pipe and observe that it progresses toward the eastern wall. The closer you are to the equator the faster this will happen.

 

Next, lower a plumb line into the same hole. It will also drift toward the eastern wall, but at a slower rate than the lead ball because of the dynamic force of the line resisting gravity.

 

That is what I see when I think it through.

 

Bill

[Qfwfq]

Plumb line would not work. Over a certain length they get a measureable inaccuracy because of the difference in velocity between the top and the bottom

Why? :)

 

It's a totally static situation in Earth coordinates, the equilibrium is given only by the gravitational field corrected for centrifugal force which could only be perfectly radial to the rotation axis (this gives a southward effect in the northern hemsphere and vice versa) but there would be no east-west effect unless a huge mass is present to one side.

 

However it's the effective local gravitational field that you want to compare with, the only inaccuracy I see would be for the lack of radial symmetry. If the line having tangent vector equal to the effective g is significantly curved over the whole path, while the string would be essentially straight, the problem may be not so well defined. Even a mountain of DU to one side would cause a small inaccuracy compared to the effect of Coriolis.

 

BTW, don't take the figure I gave with 3 decimal digits too seriously, after posting I realized that :) I had used 24 hours for the value of omega instead of a sidereal day! An error of almost 2%, l should have said just less than 45 metres. :hihi:

[Pyrotex]

Why? It's a totally static situation in Earth coordinates, the equilibrium is given only by the gravitational field corrected for centrifugal force which could only be perfectly radial ... An error of almost 2%, l should have said just less than 45 metres. :hihi:

You are correct. The original model assumed the plumb was "lowered" into the hole. It would carry its original tangential velocity from the tower top. This would create the aforementioned complication. However, if you put the plumb down there, used a laser to position it, held it still then turned it loose carefully, it would stay where it should, all lines straight and vertical. Voila!

 

The difference between sidereal and solar day is a LOT less then 2%, don't you think? The sun "travels" about 1 degree against the sidereal stars per day. Earth rotates about 1 degree every 4 minutes. That would be around 0.27%, unless I've made one of those "not-enough-coffee" mistakes.

[Erasmus00]

Unfortunately, pedants like Erasmus can't get past their own egos--they must be inherently incapable of performing any CRITICAL THINKING about ANY point about which they have already formed an opinion.

 

I believe I responded with logic. I tried to explain where your thinking went wrong. Instead of responding to my points in a logical fashion, you attacked my critical thinking ability. You are commiting an ad hominem falacy, attacking me doesn't make me less right.

 

There is no motion event or experiment which takes place inside Earth's gravitational field which is even comparable, much less analogous, to Earth's MOTION THROUGH SPACE.

 

The whole process of physics is about abstracting up. We say "things work like this here on Earth, so maybe they work like this outside of Earth as well." The beauty of science is that this turns out to be true. We have ample evidence to suggest that the same laws that govern the sun govern the Earth, and each of the myriad of stars you see in the night sky. The whole point of physics is that nature works the same everywhere.

 

An object moving through space possesses neither potential nor kinetic energy.

 

According to your own personal theory, perhaps, but not according to Newtonian physics. If you don't believe in Newton, that's fine and dandy, but you should realize your problem with physics goes beyond the coriolis effect.

 

Transposing characteristics of intra-Earth motion to intra-Space motion is simply bad science. The SPACE SPEED of any point in Earth's surface is of absolutely NO PHYSICAL RELEVANCE to anything IN Earth.

 

Your dividing physics into two realms. Newton, who discovered that celestial bodies operate by the same laws that make apples fall here on Earth, wouldn't have been happy with that. Again, not believing in Newtonian physics is your personal choice, but you should keep in mind that your problem with the coriolis effect is really a problem with physics from Newton onward.

 

PLEASE, people. It's high time for at least one other thinker to get involved here.

 

Perhaps it is time for you to address other's points, instead of just repeating the same things over and over again.

-Will

[cnewtongifford]

CGN,

• Where would the transition from "IN Earth" to "IN Space" take place?
  
• What are the physical forces that delineate the difference?
  
• Is it a progressive transition, or a sudden transition?
  

Bill

 

Thanks, Bill:

1) At the precise point in space where an Earth-launched object achieves orbit V. The point in space is incidental. What matters is the necessary V, which is a product of the relative mass of Earth and the object being launched.

2) The delineating factor is whether motion per se represents application of force in the present moment. So you could say that the physical force which delineates the difference is FORCE. In space, things move indefinitely without spending energy. In Earth, nothing moves without expending energy.

3) Sudden. At sub-orbit V an ascending rocket always has an exact assigned place in Earth's surface. If you cut the engine it will fall back to one specific point in Earth's surface. Orbit V is the point on the acceleration graph where that changes. When you reach that V, if you cut the engines the object will no longer fall back to Earth, but will keep falling around Earth, indefinitely, at that same V--without using any energy.

 

Which is why I thought the best way to try and provoke Coriolis believers into thinking about the true impact of Earthly "Space Speeds" was to ask them to think about: At precisely what moment in the chronology of a space shuttle mission does a rocket cease to rotate precisely in synch with Earth (360 deg. per day eastward)? So far, I don't recall anyone even seeming to understand the question, much less reasoning out an answer.

 

Thanks. CNG

[Qfwfq]

That would be around 0.27%, unless I've made one of those "not-enough-coffee" mistakes.

:hihi: I must have misread the factor 0,9981789 in my hurry!!!!!!!

 

That gives me a bit less than 0.2% though. Your "not-enough-coffee" mistake? Apparently you didn't raise 0,9972696 to the power 2/3. Result not linear in omega, for a fixed effective g, that's the power it goes by unless I'm making a "not-enough-coffee" mistake. :)

 

I reckoned with the simplest possible method, using inertial coordinates (thence the sidereal omega) for a height h, calculate the time of fall and multiply by deltav = omega h, then invert for h. First order term. Good enough surely, for ordinary heights?

[Qfwfq]

In Earth, nothing moves without expending energy.

This is because of friction CNG, it isn't because of the gravitational field.

 

At precisely what moment in the chronology of a space shuttle mission does a rocket cease to rotate precisely in synch with Earth (360 deg. per day eastward)?

When the rockets are fired pointing eastward to begin descent. This bends trajectory toward a more eccentric elipse. It doesn't mean the rocket is suddenly "in earth" and no longer "in space".

[Pyrotex]

:...That gives me a bit less than 0.2% though. ...Apparently you didn't raise 0,9972696 to the power 2/3. Result not linear in omega, for a fixed effective g, that's the power it goes by unless I'm making a "not-enough-coffee" mistake. ...

I make not-enough-attention-paid mistakes.

So, to specify what we are doing:

Drop a particle from a height of "h" about the earths surface. The eastward deflection of the free falling particle is:

 

Dy = 2*sqrt(2) * h**(3/2 *w * sin(lambda)/(3*sqrt(g))

 

valid to first order of (w).

Where w is the Earth's rotation rate in radian's per second

~2*pi/period(sec),

lambda is the colattitude, and

g is gravity.

 

Hmmm... did I get my parentheses right in that equation???

[Qfwfq]

Compiler error #AC2E143%Q-T3: syntax error : missing right parenthesis.

 

If ** means raising to power, I bet it comes after the 3/2...

 

I was reckoning at the equator! Makes it easier. I can't figure out your 2/3 factor, it doesn't seem latitude related.

[cnewtongifford]

your problem with the coriolis effect is really a problem with physics from Newton onward.

-Will

 

Will: I gladly concede your superior knowledge of Newtonian (and other) branches of Physics. I still believe there is a question to be addressed.

 

The introduction to a standard World Atlas usually goes like this:

"All of us are on a space ship. Our vehicle, earth, rushes through

space at 18.5 miles a second, carrying us on a yearly trip of 584 million

miles around the sun. At the same time the whole solar system wheels

at 170 miles a second within the Milky Way galaxy of which it is a part,

and the Milky Way itself zips along in an empty vastness. We are all

aboard for the greatest of journeys--and we don't even notice it."

(Nat'l Geographic Atlas of the World, 2nd Ed)

 

Coriolis taught otherwise--that while these greater accelerations through space are unnoticeable, the smallest one (Earth's rotation) is

noticeable (part of the physics of the terrestrial experience). I have never found any explanation--from Coriolis or anyone since--for that apparent contradiction. Has that ever bothered anyone besides me? If Earth's space journey does in fact translate into physical momentum--why wouldn't the bigger velocities (such as solar orbit and galactic orbit / rotation) be the MOST--rather than the LEAST--noticeable? Is it playing fair to simply posit that the ONLY space motion affecting the terrestrial experience is Earth's rotation? Or is there some scientific rationale involved?

It is monumentally difficult to get our minds around "space motion". We keep transposing things we have learned from our terrestrial experience to Earth's space experience. But is that good science? Is the analogy of Earth to a vehicle or ship valid? Corilis answers, "Sort of". I say, "No."

I believe that when we understand the similarities between ALL of Earth's space motions we will be at the essence of Coriolis' assumption (Earth as vehicle--sort of). I believe the answer involves basic truths about the characteristics of gravitational fields--including answers as to the validity of the comparison of earth to a terrestrial vehicle.

Imagine, if you will, that the "pride and joy" of the Princeton University Art Museum was a beautiful oil on canvas called 'The Bridge at Poitiers' , signed Claude Monet '07. Suppose that a visitor (completely without artistic credentials) happened to know that the distinctive triple-arch stone bridge featured in the painting-- accented with a unique red tile cap stone, had been constructed between 1931 and 1932, by local engineer Henri Gilbert. Comparing this to the fact that Monet had died in 1926, the visitor doubted the authentIcity of the 'Monet' in question. Imagine the opposition (scorn, derision, castigation, insult) this visitor would arouse by calling this question to the attention of the authorities-- who had all previously examined and gone on record as validating the painting.

 

thanks for your interest.

 

cng

[TheBigDog]

cnewtongifford, I fear that answering this post will do little to sway you in your argument, but in the spirit of friendly debate, I offer my response based upon what I have learned here, and my evaluation of the facts presented.

 

Where would the transition from "IN Earth" to "IN Space" take place?

1) At the precise point in space where an Earth-launched object achieves orbit V. The point in space is incidental. What matters is the necessary V, which is a product of the relative mass of Earth and the object being launched.

The moment that the rocket lifts off of the pad it is no longer connected to the earth, and is free of the earth's inertia. It appears to be traveling at the same speed as the earth, but that is because of the minute difference between the rocket's lateral velocity and the earth's lateral velocity. As the altitude of the rocket increases this would become more and more apparent, but the rockets are not launched straight up, again, making it impossible to see this truth with the naked eye.

What are the physical forces that delineate the difference?

2) The delineating factor is whether motion per se represents application of force in the present moment. So you could say that the physical force which delineates the difference is FORCE. In space, things move indefinitely without spending energy. In Earth, nothing moves without expending energy.

The phenomena you are describing is caused by the atmosphere of the earth. The atmosphere is moving at about the same speed as the earth. It varies locally by the wind conditions. I could build a howitzer that would launch a projectile with enough velocity to orbit the earth at 30,000 feet. High enough to clear all mountains and travel freely for an indefinite period. But it cannot happen because of friction caused the the earths atmosphere. The projectile is being slowed by the atmosphere from the first moment. However, I could do the same thing on the moon, and the object if traveling at the correct speed could orbit the moon indefinitely at 30,000 feet because there is no atmosphere to deal with.

Is it a progressive transition, or a sudden transition?

3) Sudden. At sub-orbit V an ascending rocket always has an exact assigned place in Earth's surface. If you cut the engine it will fall back to one specific point in Earth's surface. Orbit V is the point on the acceleration graph where that changes. When you reach that V, if you cut the engines the object will no longer fall back to Earth, but will keep falling around Earth, indefinitely, at that same V--without using any energy.

Anything not physically connected to the earth is in fact orbiting the earth. The surface speed of the earth as it rotates is sufficiently low so that objects need a great amount of acceleration to get to a point where they can maintain orbit indefinitely. Add to that to friction of the earth's atmosphere and you also need to be 62+ miles above the surface for free orbit to happen. The third complication is direction. If were to launch something straight up in an attempt to put it into orbit, you would in fact send it into a slower than geosynchronous relationship. I am not going to attempt the math, but it would be well out beyond 22,300 miles and would have an orbit of greater than 24 hours. Using 8000 miles as the diameter of the earth... in geosynchronous orbit an object travels 165248 miles to orbit the earth one time. That is a velocity of 6885mph. The velocity of the earth's surface is 1047 mph. If the rocket is shot straight up, then when is it increasing its angular velocity to the earth? Earth gravity is not accelerating it sideways at it moves away from the earth. To put an object into orbit you need to closely calculate both the speed and the direction of travel. That is why rockets are launched east, in the direction of travel of the earth. Because it gives them a head start in reaching orbital velocity. To launch a rocket west in the reverse orbit of the earth would require an additional 2100mph of boost to overcome the rotational velocity of earth that the rocket starts at and to match the boost given in the opposite direction by that rotational velocity.

Which is why I thought the best way to try and provoke Coriolis believers into thinking about the true impact of Earthly "Space Speeds" was to ask them to think about: At precisely what moment in the chronology of a space shuttle mission does a rocket cease to rotate precisely in synch with Earth (360 deg. per day eastward)? So far, I don't recall anyone even seeming to understand the question, much less reasoning out an answer.

The answer is: the moment it stops touching the ground. As soon as it stops touching the ground it is traveling 1047mph east, it is being pulled to the center of the earth at 1g, and accelerating straight up at something greater than 1g. The 1047mph east becomes insufficient to maintain 360 degrees per 24 hours immediately. As the rocket moves away from the earth the diameter of its orbit increases and the rocket would appear to be drifting westward. But the drift would not be apparent until it had reached a sizable altitude and stayed there for long time. That never has the opportunity to happen, because rockets are angled into orbit. It soon changes its bearing to point east, increasing it speed relative to the rotation of the earth to ease its way into a sustained earth orbit.

 

Even if you attempt to experiment with this you will not easily observe the westward drift because the local effects of the atmosphere and wind are far greater than the drift you would see from sending something straight up. If you launched 100 rockets straight up from the same point they would all fall to different points back on earth. This is because of the randomness of the atmosphere - chaos theory if you like. Still, you could take a sizable result and show the drift statistically, if that would satisfy as a valid result.

 

I am not thinking that this will sway you in any way from your position about Coriolis. But I think that I have illustrated how the arguments you made are fallacious, and I would challenge you to illustrate how any of my statements are wrong. They may be, and I will certainly admit so if I am indeed in error. Will you do the same?

 

Bill

[Qfwfq]

"All of us are on a space ship. Our vehicle, earth, rushes through

space at 18.5 miles a second, carrying us on a yearly trip of 584 million

miles around the sun. At the same time the whole solar system wheels

at 170 miles a second within the Milky Way galaxy of which it is a part,

and the Milky Way itself zips along in an empty vastness. We are all

aboard for the greatest of journeys--and we don't even notice it."

(Nat'l Geographic Atlas of the World, 2nd Ed)

 

Coriolis taught otherwise--that while these greater accelerations through space are unnoticeable, the smallest one (Earth's rotation) is

noticeable (part of the physics of the terrestrial experience).

CNG, are you sure those are "greater accelerations"? Yes, they are greater velocities, but how long does it take for them to change? Not that this is essential, we don't detect the acceleration of Earth's obital motion due to the principle of equivalence. Earth's crust is a fairly rigid body, at any rate the ground we walk on is far from being in free fall. This is why we can detect the difference.

 

Coriolis acceleration is just a term, further to the centripetal one, in the transformation between rotating coordinate frames. Earth is only one example of rotation.

[Pyrotex]

...Coriolis taught otherwise--that while these greater accelerations through space are unnoticeable, the smallest one (Earth's rotation) is noticeable (part of the physics of the terrestrial experience). I have never found any explanation--from Coriolis or anyone since--for that apparent contradiction...

CNT,

perhaps...(perhaps)... the basic difficulty here is the distinction between an accelleration and a velocity.

An accelleration is, at its simplest, a change in velocity. If you are at one million MPH and stay at one million MPH, there is no change and no accelleration. If you are at one million MPH and change to 0.7 million MPH (or to 1.3 million MPH) in, say, one week, then there IS a change and there is an accelleration. In this case there would be an accelleration of either -0.3 or +0.3 million MPH / week.

 

Okay, another case and we're done. Velocity can change in another way, because velocity is a "vector"--it has both magnitude (speed) and direction. I you are at one thousand MPH due "east" (relative to galactic coordinates or the distant stars) and twelve hours later, you are at one thousand MPH due "west" (relative to same background) then your velocity has changed and there was an accelleration -- even though your speed never changed (1,000 MPH).

 

And this is exactly what happens on the Earth's surface. Every 12 hours, your velocity vector points in the opposite direction as you whirl around attached to a fixed point on the Earth's surface. That requires an accelleration. And an accelleration requires a force. F=ma. Where F is the Force and a is the Accelleration.

 

Our wandering through the universe may include huge velocities but these are velocities that either do not change, or change only over tens of millions of years. Nobody feels just "speed". You only feel accelleration. Any body at rest or in constant motion tends to stay at rest or in that same constant motion. [Newton]. If your motion stays the same, there is no accelleration, and therefore no Force.

 

But if you are whirling around in a circle, your velocity vector is changing all the time. That requires an accelleration. That requires a force. And it ain't gravity.

[Zythryn]

I have been lurking a bit and following this fascinating thread.

 

Pyrotex, I think you hit the nail right on the head and I am hoping that helps cnew with his question.

 

Cnew, if that still doesn't help, try this:

 

You mentioned that you didn't see why the rotational speed would have an effect that could overcome the affects of the solar system's speed or the galaxy's.

 

As Pyro explained above, the rotation of the earth actually has a greater acceleration due to the change in direction. Thus you get a greater local effect.

 

To test this, fill a glass with water. Stir it with a straw (or anything handy). The local rotaion of the water easily overcomes the affect of the speed of the solar system with very little energy (far less than the energy in the movement of the solar system).

 

Thanks to everyone for a wonderful discussion!:)

[cnewtongifford]

The moment that the rocket lifts off of the pad it is no longer connected to the earth, and is free of the earth's inertia.

Bill

 

Bill: I commend you for the effort you have obviously put into this topic. Please hold the thought quoted just above as we go through a seemungly simple analogy:

 

Let's say we are on a train, which is on straight and level tracks, moving at a constant speed. Let's go to the dining car and commandeer a table for an experiment. We take a large paper target, with a bull's eye surrounded by concentric citcles, and paste it to the table. We position a ping pong ball directly over the bull's eye and drop it. It falls, hits the target, then bounces a few times until it comes to rest.

 

How would you predict the ping pong ball to behave, in relation to the bull's eye? The answer may be simple--or as complex as the whole Coriolis body of work.

 

(I am behind in my duties here as resident provocateur--will catch up and review other recent posts as time permits)

Thanks again, CNG

[TheBigDog]

Bill: I commend you for the effort you have obviously put into this topic. Please hold the thought quoted just above as we go through a seemungly simple analogy:

 

Let's say we are on a train, which is on straight and level tracks, moving at a constant speed. Let's go to the dining car and commandeer a table for an experiment. We take a large paper target, with a bull's eye surrounded by concentric citcles, and paste it to the table. We position a ping pong ball directly over the bull's eye and drop it. It falls, hits the target, then bounces a few times until it comes to rest.

 

How would you predict the ping pong ball to behave, in relation to the bull's eye? The answer may be simple--or as complex as the whole Coriolis body of work.

 

(I am behind in my duties here as resident provocateur--will catch up and review other recent posts as time permits)

Thanks again, CNG

CNG, you drove me bust out a pen and paper and do this long hand during an exceptionally boring meeting today. Here is the answer.

 

If we remove such things as imperfections in the tabletop, paper and ping pong ball, then we can make some assumptions about what it is possible to observe. The ball will drop, hit the bulls-eye, bounce on the bulls-eye, and come to rest on the bulls-eye. The reason for this is that we have eliminated unpredictable elements from the equation and only measured based upon what we can observe without instruments.

 

The reality is that what we observe and what happens are not the same thing. Assuming the earth is 8000 miles in diameter, and that the ball is dropped from a height of 1 foot, at the time of the ball's release it is traveliing around the earth on a slighly bigger circle than the target, but is making one revolution in the same amount of time. This is regardless of the speed of the train. Because the ball is travelling further in the same amount of time it is moving faster than the table top. How much? 0.0000047% at the equator. That is not very much. Far less than we could easily measure to prove that it existed.

 

Try this for an example. You and I meet at a high school track. I get in the inside lane, and you get in the lane next to me. We begin to walk around the track taking the same sized steps at the same pace. Who finishes a lap first? That is why things above the top of a tower is moving faster than the bottom of the same tower. Not much faster, but it is there. The rigidity of the building and the minute force in play makes in a non issue for the building, but the fact is still there even if we don't see it.

 

Here are a couple of things that would make your example work...

 

1. The earth is flat :hihi:
   
2. The experiment is done at the point of the earth's axis with the train parked
   
3. The train is moving in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation at the same speed as the earth's rotation
   

 

Give me another example to work with to prove your point. In the early posts on this thread you state that you want someone to disprove your theory without using math. I would challenge you to show me proof of your theory with math.

 

Bill

[cnewtongifford]

The ball will drop, hit the bulls-eye, bounce on the bulls-eye, and come to rest on the bulls-eye.

Give me another example to work with to prove your point. Bill

 

Bill: If they find out you were actually thinking during a meeting, you'll be in serious trouble.

 

I thought I was being clever to NOT answer my own question. I was hoping to get you to work out how the bouncing ping pong ball will decelerate relative to the bulls eye. This is directly material to Coriolis-ism.

 

Encyclopedias usually use a rotating disk to illustrate how a "shot" fired from C toward P actually hits P' , creating the illusion, from the disk's point of view, that the trajectory has curved. True enough. My contention is that this disk illustration is non-analogous to Earth.

 

If you could put a saddle on that "shot" going out from the center of that disk, and go for a ride, you could do some detective work. If you looked 90 degrees to the side, facing the direction of rotation, you would see that the

disk surface was pulling away from you. Which could be explained in terms of motive force. Whatever force continues to provide the disk's rotation has ceased to provide the "round's" rotation--as of the moment it was fired.

 

Your encyclopedia will begin trying to connect that disk with our Earth with a paragraph like this:

'In accordance with fundamental definitions a curved motion

represents an acceleration (a) and an acceleration is the result of the

action of a force (f) which is proportional to the mass (m) of the

object and the speed (v) with which it is moving.'

 

But wait: this 'force (f)' is a misnomer. What is really happening on that 'disk' is the cutting off of force. That illustration confuses the force which moves the disk and the disk itself. Which is one big reason I think a train or rocket is a heckuva lot more scientific example. If the caboose of a moving train is cut loose, it will begin to decelerate, relative to the locomotive. And when those spent fuel tanks are jettisoned from an

ascending rocket, they begin to decelerate, relative to the rocket. There's a principle there, which applies to all terrestrial transport: Delta force causes delta travel.

 

So when you drop that ping pong ball it is like cutting the caboose loose. It ceases, briefly, to receive power via the train, and will experience a slight lag, relative to the continuously powered train. There will be a change between the train's momentum and the ping pong ball. The ping pong ball will move away from the bull's eye, exactly opposite the direction of the train.

 

And from there, it will be apparent that you don't need to hypothesize about 90 mile artillery shots. No. sir, all kinds of local experiments would be available to test whether that rotating disk in the encyclopedias is--or is not-- analogous to earth. One that appeals to me is to take 100 or so basketballs up on a big boom near the ceiling of a basketball arena and drop them directly over a mark on the floor. If more basketballs come to rest West of the mark than anywhere else, you'd have support for Coriolis-ism. But if they come to rest randomly--favoring no direction relative to the target--then they would directly call into question the comparability of that encyclopedia disk to terrestrial transportation.

 

Coriolis-ism requires the belief that--in terrestrial transportation--an airborn object has lost contact with Earth. But it isn't having your toes in the dirt that makes you part of Earth--it is being within Earth's gravitational field. There is absolutely no difference to that gravitational field whether you are a bird or a turtle. If you are inside the gravitational field, you are operating on terrestrial laws. Including the one that says there are no free rides. All relocation within that gravitational field has to be accounted for in terms of transmission of energy. (A cut-loose terrestrial caboose tends to lose).

 

So Coriolis went off the rails before he ever got into his math--by assuming the sameness of terrestrial rotating disks--and Earth. In Coriolis-ism, to question that premise is heresy, blasphemy, not allowed.

 

I apologize if I seem unsportsmanlike in this discussion. But this isn't like Law, where all you need to understand is the accepted, established precedent (right and wrong has nothing to do with anything). This is about a physical principle, basic to our world, and it's a black and white issue. Have you seen any sign that our world is like a rotating disk?

 

Do you know anybody with access to a basketball gym?

 

Thanks again, CNG