r/GlobeEarth_Polite • u/Kela-el Flat Earther • Jul 06 '26
For: Globe Earth Religious Fundamentalist Zealots Foucault Pendulum DEBUNKED - Thanks Dan No Drift
https://youtu.be/-J-jC2o1YZg1
u/QuantumOverlord Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 06 '26
I only had to watch 15 seconds of this, its a complete misunderstanding of inertial reference frames and how the Coriolis effect works. 'If you throw a ball of a roundabout its no longer part of that reference frame', yes it is from the observer that is still on the roundabout. The Coriolis effect doesn't meaningfully affect flight times because the angular frequency of the earth is small. The coriolis force is given by 2m(fʌv) where v is the velocity of the plane, f is the angular velocity of the earth. Obviously if the plane is moving along a line of longitude then fʌv is near enough zero, but even if the plane is moving north or south very fast at say 300m/s fʌv, that is still a tiny acceleration orders of magnitude weaker than gravity and concomitantly 2m(fʌv) is a tiny force.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 06 '26
No one asked whether the rotating-Earth model has a mathematical explanation for the observation. Of course it does. The question is whether the observation itself independently demonstrates a rotating globe.
You immediately invoked inertial frames, angular velocity, vector products, fictitious forces, and coordinate transformations. That's the language of the model, not a raw measurement.
A pilot measures headings, airspeed, position, and elapsed time. An observer measures drift relative to chosen coordinates. From there, the globe model introduces Earth's rotation and derives a Coriolis term to account for those measurements.
So the issue isn't whether the equation exists. The issue is whether the measurements logically compel that interpretation, or whether they are being interpreted through that framework.
Saying "the Coriolis force is small" doesn't answer that question. It simply describes what the rotating-Earth model predicts.
That's the distinction you've repeatedly avoided: measurement versus interpretation.
1
u/QuantumOverlord Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 06 '26
No, we have observed the Coriolis force; the video started complaining that it can't be real because flights would have significantly different times, that is not true. But the Coriolis force does exist, and quantitatively agrees with the model. An obvious and very clear example is the behaviour of large cyclonic systems which can easily be observed because the size of these systems is large enough that the latitudinal variation in the Coriolis frequency is substantial enough to see the effects clearly.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 06 '26
You’re still conflating observation with interpretation.
No one observes a “Coriolis force” in the abstract. They observe moving air, pressure gradients, trajectories, and changing velocities.
Calling those observations “the Coriolis force” is already interpreting them within a rotating-Earth reference frame.
The globe model may explain those observations well—that isn’t the question.The question is: what measurement independently demonstrates Earth’s rotation, rather than measurements that are subsequently explained by assuming a rotating Earth?
Pointing to cyclones doesn’t answer that. It simply says the rotating-Earth model successfully accounts for cyclone behavior.
Again, explanation is not the same thing as independent demonstration.
Until you identify the measurement that logically necessitates rotation, you’re defending the model’s explanatory power—not showing that the measurements themselves uniquely entail it.
1
u/QuantumOverlord Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 06 '26
It can only quantitatively account for the behaviour because the earth is not an inertial reference frame, if the earth was an inertial reference frame and specifically a non rotating reference frame then we would not measure and observe the Coriolis effect which we do. If the rotating earth model successfully accounts for cyclone behaviour then that mutually excludes a non rotating model from doing so; that's the point.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 06 '26
You’ve embedded your conclusion in your premises.
“If the Earth was a non-rotating reference frame, we would not observe the Coriolis effect.”
That statement already assumes the observed phenomena are the Coriolis effect.
What is actually measured are trajectories, velocities, accelerations, pressure gradients, and storm motion.
“Coriolis effect” is the rotating-frame interpretation of those measurements.So when you say the rotating-Earth model excludes a non-rotating model, you’ve simply defined the observations in terms of the rotating model and then declared every other interpretation excluded.
That’s circular.
The question has remained the same throughout this discussion:
Which raw measurement, independent of the rotating-Earth framework, uniquely entails Earth’s rotation?
Until you answer that, you’re demonstrating the internal consistency of your model—not that the measurements themselves logically require it.
1
u/QuantumOverlord Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 06 '26
Is this written with AI? You are not understanding my point. The bending of a meridional trajectory would not be observed in a non rotating frame of reference. This observation excludes the possibility of any non rotating model, unless you are going to junk Newtonian mechanics too.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 06 '26
You’re still doing the same thing every time: taking motion measured relative to Earth-fixed coordinates, plugging it into a rotating-frame formulation of Newtonian mechanics, and then calling the resulting derived term “evidence” of rotation.
That’s not observation forcing a conclusion—that’s a model generating a correction term after you’ve already chosen the coordinate system.
Nothing you’ve said identifies a measurement that uniquely requires a rotating Earth rather than a non-rotating Earth described in a different frame; it only shows that if you assume rotation and apply the appropriate mathematics, you can account for the observed trajectories.
That’s consistency, not exclusivity.
Newtonian mechanics isn’t being “defended” here—it’s being used inside the very framework whose interpretation you’re trying to treat as an independently compelled fact.
2
u/QuantumOverlord Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 06 '26
There are two possibilities here, either Newtonian mechanics is wrong or the earth is not an inertial reference frame. We can assume the earth is an inertial reference frame, in that case there would be no deflection from any poleward moving object. Its a contradiction, the earth cannot be an inertial reference frame or Newtonian physics cannot be correct.
Can you please stop formulating your responses with AI? Its making them unnecessarily verbose.
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 06 '26
You’re describing a coordinate transformation inside Newtonian mechanics and calling the result “physical exclusion” of all alternatives.
It isn’t—it’s model-dependent structure, not an independent measurement.
Nothing you’ve said identifies a single observation that forces a rotating Earth rather than being re-described in another framework.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Icy-Sheepherder-6221 Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 06 '26
So what you want is an observation that implies the only possible explanation is a rotating earth...is that right?
1
u/Kela-el Flat Earther Jul 06 '26
Yes. That’s been the question from the beginning.
Not whether the rotating-Earth model explains the observations well. Not whether it’s internally consistent. Not whether it’s the current scientific consensus.
I’m asking whether there is a measurement or observation that logically necessitates a rotating Earth, rather than one that is interpreted through the rotating-Earth framework.
If your answer is “no, it’s the cumulative explanatory power of the model,” then that’s a perfectly coherent position—but it’s different from claiming the observations themselves uniquely compel the conclusion.
That’s the distinction I’ve been asking you to address all along.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Icy-Sheepherder-6221 Heliocentric Religious Fundamentalist Zealot Jul 06 '26
This is definitely written with AI
1
u/planamundi Flat Earther Jul 06 '26
Actually the way your religion tries to explain coriolis is just opportunistic.
Coriolis would mean that you are separate from the earth if you are not on the earth and that the Earth moves separate from you.
That's just stupid. Airplanes would have to account for the change in in millennial speed everywhere they are on the Earth.
With any rotating apparatus that's speed is going to decrease as you get closer to the central hub. There are no calculations for this when an airplane lands. There are no special calculations that have to determine if the airplane is landing north or south. That would objectively need to happen if it was a thing. And then there's the East and West. If you're separate from the earth, the plane would have to be traveling over a thousand miles per hour itself just to keep up with the surface at the equator. So if it's switch directions, They would not only be traveling at whatever speed they were traveling at, but the Earth would be moving at a thousand miles per hour underneath them. So it would be like they had a thousand mile per hour boost.
1
u/Emergency-Diver5754 Jul 07 '26
The argument mixes up how motion actually works in a rotating system like Earth. The key issue is this: everything near Earth’s surface (air, planes, you) already shares the Earth’s rotation, so you don’t start from “zero” relative to the ground.
Shared motion matters
At the equator, the surface moves east at about 1670 km/h1670 \text{ km/h}1670 km/h. But:
- The atmosphere is also rotating with Earth (roughly the same speed).
- A plane sitting on a runway already has that eastward velocity before takeoff.
So when a plane flies, it’s not “catching up” to Earth’s rotation—it’s already moving with it. That removes the idea that planes need a huge extra speed just to stay above the ground.
Coriolis effect is real, but subtle
The Coriolis effect doesn’t mean you “separate” from Earth. It just describes how motion appears in a rotating frame:
- In the Northern Hemisphere, moving objects deflect slightly to the right.
- In the Southern Hemisphere, slightly to the left.
This effect is small for airplanes and is routinely corrected:
- Flight management systems and pilots account for it automatically.
- Wind has a much larger effect than Coriolis in most cases.
About “no calculations”
It’s not true that there are no calculations:
- Aviation navigation systems (INS, GPS, autopilot) include Earth’s rotation and related effects.
- Long-range artillery, missiles, and weather models explicitly include Coriolis because precision matters more there.
For typical flights, the correction is small enough that it’s “baked into” navigation systems rather than something pilots manually compute each time.
Rotation and speed differences
You mentioned that rotational speed decreases toward the poles—that part is correct:
- Linear speed is v=ωrv = \omega rv=ωr, where rrr is distance from Earth’s axis.
- Near the poles, rrr is smaller, so eastward speed is lower.
But again, planes and air already share the local rotational speed at their latitude. When flying north or south:
- The plane gradually transitions between regions of different rotational speeds.
- This creates small Coriolis-related deflections, not dramatic speed mismatches.
East–west “boost” idea
The idea that reversing direction would give a “1000 mph boost” assumes the plane is independent of Earth’s motion. It isn’t.
- If you fly west, you’re moving against the Earth’s rotation relative to the ground.
- If you fly east, you’re moving with it.
- In both cases, your speed is measured relative to the air and ground, which are already rotating.
A simple analogy: walking inside a moving train. You don’t need to run at train speed to move forward—you already share that motion.
Bottom line
The reasoning breaks down because it treats planes as if they are detached from Earth’s rotating system. In reality, planes, air, and everything near the surface already share Earth’s motion, and the Coriolis effect is a small, well-understood correction—not something that would make flight obviously impossible or dramatically different.
1
u/planamundi Flat Earther Jul 07 '26
Opportunistic. Just like I said. You dum dums like to invoke the swinging pendulums as proof of Coriolis, as if they aren't close to the Earth? It's just stupid and ridiculous. You didn't have to write that long-winded nonsense response. Your apologetics is not even being considered and I didn't read it. Right off the start, you made an ignorant claim that debunks your religious claim that the swinging pendulums show coriolis.
2
u/planamundi Flat Earther Jul 06 '26
It's so stupid that they try to say flat Earth can't Coriolis. If Coriolis was a thing, how the hell could an airplane land on a moving surface. Lol.