Re: [Phys-l] Coriolis effect puzzlement

["Bob Sciamanda" <treborsci@verizon.net>]

John Denker wrote:
> Why do you think figure 12 explains the Coriolis effect at
> all? Because wikipedia said so?

Exactly my point when I wrote:
”If the space fixed camera records a curvature, it must be due to some real
forces, certainly not a Coriolis effect.”


So we agree that the airplane camera is NOT recording a Coriolis effect.

The problem which I then propose to your expertise is to analyze and 
mathematically model the behavior of the earth’s atmosphere in the 
neighborhood of a pressure high/low, AS OBSERVED FROM AN INERTIAL FRAME. 
Hopefully this model will show the true dynamical origin of the 
configurations cited in airplane pictures as Coriolis efects.

I realize that this is probably an impossible task, but I trust that your 
investigation will at least show some directions towards a plausible model.

From: John Denker
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:08 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Coriolis effect puzzlement
On 12/01/2011 02:53 PM, Bob Sciamanda wrote:
> Your cases (A vs B) are precisely why I thought I had better add the note
> “the earth isn’t even visible”.
>
> Which case do you think is portrayed in the Figure 12 I cited?

Why do you think figure 12 explains the Coriolis effect at
all?  Because wikipedia said so?

What if the caption were wrong, and this storm turned out to be
located in the southern hemisphere, spinning in the "abnormal"
direction?  How would you know?

Anticyclonic tornadoes are undoubtedly allowed by the laws of
physics.  The "Coriolis" explanation of such things is obviously
nonsense.

Ditto for the "Coriolis" explanation of water rotating as it
goes down the drain of a bathtub.

People misquote Shakespeare all the time.
People misquote the bible all the time.
People misapply Newton's laws all the time.
People say idiotic things about Coriolis all the time.

There are right ways and wrong ways to learn about Coriolis.
Obsessing over figure 12 is not one of the right ways.

> (The camera did no calculating.)

AFAICT, no calculations of any kind were done involving this
figure, with or without the camera.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
Bob Sciamanda
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (Em)
treborsci@verizon.net
http://mysite.verizon.net/res12merh/