Boerseun:
[/FONT]
Thanks again for your reply. You are a gentleman and a scholar. And may I say, "WHATAMULLET!!!!"
Everything you have replied is true--relatively. What I am trying to get the scientific community to do is distinguish between the MATH and the PHYSICS of Coriolis. I find a fundamental contradiction between those two elements of Coriolis. However, the standard student (or teacher) of Physics seems impervious to that distinction.
Therefore, in the Physics classroom, to "learn" Coriolis is actually to learn the math trick of the rotating coordinate system. What I am crying from my rooftop is that Math is a tool. Math is not Physics. Math is not truth. Math is merely a tool, a language, a means to try and translate a truth numerically.
It is great to be able to mathematically establish either a conical or spherical frame of reference. However, to be valid, the mathematical frame of reference must comply with the physics of the actual motion event.
ALL empirical evidence says that a gravitational field is also an inertial field, where Newton's First law prevails. The natural motions of the gravitational field (such as Earth's rotation) RELATIVE to Outer Space (and Other gravitational fields) do not accelerate particles of the gravitational field relative to the said gravitational field.
My contentions are: That Coriolis was a fraud. That Foucault was a fraud. That the teacher who "taught"
you about the Coriolis Effect taught you a lie (perhaps a math truth, but definitely a
Physics lie).
Some time you might take a few minutes to scan my blog elsewhere
http://coriolisdupedu.blogspot.com
Thanks again, CNG
