Re: [Phys-l] Coriolis effect puzzlement

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

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.