Coriolis Effect--Science or Superstition?

[cnewtongifford]

[IMG]DCP_0007JPG[/IMG]I never took a Physics class. I was into Liberal Arts, not Science. A few years ago I was fascinated by the Foucault Pendulum exhibit at the Smithsonian. The 'explanations' posted near the exhibit were meaningless to me. I was left with a nagging craving to truly understand what was going on with that pendulum. It became a hobby, then an obsession of mine.
The more I studied, the more complex the issues became. The more I tried to discuss my concerns with Scientific Authorities, the more frustrated I became. Physics Professors have been uniformly unwilling to "discuss" the Physics of Coriolis and Foucault. All they want to do is beat me over the head with the math--the wonderful process of mathematically creating rotating frames of reference. For ten years or so I have been trying to find JUST ONE Physicist willing to analytically discuss the Physics (as opposed to the Math) of Coriolis. So far, no luck.
Which brings me here. This seems to be a forum of educated, inquiring minds. I believe I have some startling and valuable information to share. But if my quest ever gains any traction, it will be a near-miracle. It is kind of like sending radio messages out into Space. I am earnestly seeking other intelligent life to communicate with--about the Physics of Earth's rotation.
I submit that Coriolis totally misunderstood the true Physics of Earth's Rotation. For those of us In Earth, Earth is an In-Ertial frame of reference.
The Coriolis Effect is a circular argument. Its goal was to show Earthly (non-astronomical) proof of Earth's rotation. However, the theory starts by ASSUMING that Earth is a physically non-inertial environment-- in order to purportedly Prove that Earth is physically a non-inertial environment.
WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM WHICH CAUSES EARTH TO ROTATE?
Has anyone out there ever pondered this question, and thought about its ramifications as far as Coriolis? Would anyone take the time to discuss this?
Thanks for your interest. C newton giffordhttp://coriolisdupedu.blogspot.com

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by cnewtongifford

WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM WHICH CAUSES EARTH TO ROTATE?

Stuff fell closer to the center of mass of the cloud of debris the Earth was built from. So it started rotating faster. This is analogous to the old experiment of turning on a rotating office chair with bricks in your hands. If you pull the bricks closer, you'll spin faster.
What's causing the Earth to spin is inertia. And the question shouldn't be what's causing the Earth to spin - rather, why doesn't it stop spinning? Friction is slowing it down, but the only friction of any importance is gravitational friction from the moon. And it is indeed slowing the Earth down - but very slowly. The moon got it bad, though; that's why it keeps showing the same face to the Earth. Eventually, both the Earth and the moon will show the same faces to each other due to gravity.

[cnewtongifford]

error

[cnewtongifford]

I appreciate your taking the time to respond. But I am not confused about what makes Earth rotate. And I don't see that you and I disagree about anything (so far). We agree that nothing materially hinders this gravitational field we call Earth in its natural planetary motions (solar orbit while rotating).
My contention is that this fact is material to (directly in opposition to) the fundamental contentions of Coriolis.
Earth's rotational motion through space is subject to different rules than motion within Earth's gravitational field. Earth's motion through space at the moment you are reading this sentence does not represent the expression of any energy. However, if you roll your chair one way or the other at the moment you are reading this sentence, that motion WILL represent the expression of energy. For lack of a better term, space and gravitational fields are different motion dimensions.
I contend that Coriolis schmeered these two dimensions together in order to create a starting point for his hypothesis. Coriolis' unstated premise is that the space speed of any given geographical point on Earth's surface is relevant to the physics of Earthly motion. In other words, that Earth's surface is like a sphere made up of different energy zones--circles parallel to the equator. The equator involves the greatest energy, and the poles the least. I say, "Nonsense".
Earth's rotation is either an energetic event or not. If we believe that Earth's rotation at any given moment is a non-energetic event, then how can we credit a hypothesis which is an extrapolation of an assumption that Earth's rotation is an energetic phenomenon??
I contend that the space speedof the chair you are sitting in has absolutely NO PHYSICAL RELEVANCE within Earth's gravitational field.
The mathematical value of the Coriolis Effect in any Earthly motion scenario will always be ZERO. It is the Gravitational Field which naturally rotates. An object either belongs to the gravitational field or not. For all particles comprising the gravitational field, their eastward rotation relative to Earth's axis will always be 360 degrees per day. Travel between geographic points will always start and end with that common basis--360 degrees per day. That applies to the start and end points, and to the travelling particle as well.
So if you want to include that rotational nature in the ballistics of an artillery round, for the projectile it would be 1, for the starting point it would be 1, for the intermediate points it would be 1, and for the final destination it would be 1. The acceleration between 1 and 1 is Zero.
Doesn't that blow up the underlying premise of the Coriolis Effect?

Thanks for your interest. CNG

[Boerseun]

Hi CNG:

The problem with understanding the Coriolis effect is the difference between tubes and spheres.

If you travel down a tube, the circumference stays the same. In other words, the dynamics as far as your x-axis versus y-axis co-ordinates stay the same.

Travel down a sphere, and as your latitute (y-axis) decrease, the 'width' (or x-axis) increase, complicating the whole issue.

If the matrix you happen to find yourself on (in this case a sphere) also happens to be spinning, weird things start to happen - like the shape you find in hurricanes etc. If the Earth was a tube, it wouldn't happen.

I don't exactly see why you've got a problem with my mate Coriolis...

[Erasmus00]

If the Earth were stationary, the pendulum wouldn't change direction at all.

What actually happens in the coriolis effect is that the Earth rotates out from under the pendulum. Since there isn't any force to move the pendulum, its orientation stays the same, while the Earth moves around it. However, because we move with the Earth, to us it looks like the pendulum moves.

This is why the strength of the coriolis effect depends on latitude. The experiment works best at the poles, not at all at the equator.
-Will

[cnewtongifford]

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

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by cnewtongifford

Boerseun:..."WHATAMULLET!!!!"

[bows]Thank you... thank you...[/bows]
Respect!

Originally Posted by cnewtongifford

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

Okay, what do you propose is causing the visible effect that we are now referring to as the Coriolis effect?
By all means - criticise Coriolis. But saying he's wrong without offering an alternative isn't going to get us anywhere in a hurry.

[cnewtongifford]

TO: Erasmus 00:

That is an accurate summary of the conventional 'explanation' of the straying nature of 'Foucault's Pendulum'. I have spent thousands of hours studying that 'explanation', with the conclusion that the 'explanation' is pseudo-science, a metaphysical conjuring trick, a lie.
The 'space speeds' of given geographic points are the basis of the Coriolis Effect ( and, hence, Foucault's Pendulum). This was a CLASSIC example of "begging the question". Go back and study what Coriolis was trying to do. He was trying to demonstrate Earthly evidence (non-astronomical) of the astronomical finding that Earth rotates relative to Space (and other heavenly bodies). Since Earth is spherical, different geographic points have different 'space speeds'. IF those space speeds were physically manifest in Earth, that would provide a means to demonstrate said rotation.
Coriolis simply ASSUMED that IF, and hypothesized that a long-range north / south event (such as an artillery round) would theoretically deflect.
To accept Coriolis (and Foucault) is to join them in ASSUMING that IF.
Is that scientific? I don't think so.
OK: Let's 'prove' a theory by assuming the basis of the theory. Is that the way science works? I don't think so.
A spherical pendulum does not vibrate in a plane. Earth's rotation accelerates NOTHING within Earth's gravitational field (moving or stationary).
For 170 years the scientific community has accepted as 'fact' that Coriolis discovered (long-range) non-astronomical evidence of Earth's rotation, and that Foucault discovered Local non-astronomical evidence accordingly.
Humbug. I urge you to take a fresh, independent, analytical look at Coriolis and Foucault. What you find may rock your world. Suggestion: start by re-reading 1) the established, encyclopedia version of Coriolis, then 2) my musings at http://coriolisdupedu.blogspot.com That would give you a great starting point for your own investigation.
Thanks for your interest!!
CNG

[cnewtongifford]

error