HEY, MISTER CORIOLIS: YOUR ANOMALIES ARE SHOWING!

SYMPHONY

2006-10-04T04:55:00.000-05:00

Here are a few things anyone can understand:
Horizontal movement along Earth's surface is directly affected by the energy expended. It's one example of the principle of Conservation of Energy Attach a small crossbow to the roof of your van, pointing sideways. Paint a line (your firing line)across the deck of the Royal Gorge Bridge. Get some arrows of different colors. Drive across the bridge at 20MPH and fire an arrow when you reach the firing line. Then repeat at 30MPH. Then at 40MPH.
The arrows will land on a line parallel to the direction the van was moving, and spaced out based on the forward speed of the van.
All earthly movement must be bought and paid for with earthly energy.

Different rules apply to team players in our solar system, namely the planets. Earthly motion is finite, and the energy bill for any movement can be precisely tallied. On the other hand, planetary motions do not follow any similar rule of Conservation of Energy.

It is impossible for us to build a true-to-life working model of our solar system here in earth. And it seems nearly impossible for many to appreciate the distinction between rules of motion in different worlds-- or dimensions. But it is simple, plain , elementary & obvious. Planetary motions do not represent the expenditure of energy. Created as spinning, orbiting satellites of the Sun, Earth and her sister planets know no other way of life. Inside the gravitational field of a planet, an object has an assigned place, a state of rest which serves as the benchmark for any subsequent movement. But the gravitational field itself, the planet, has no comparable assigned place or state of (Earthlike) rest.

The 'state of rest' of Earth is a state of daily rotation. The assigned place of Earth is her assigned place along the assigned path of her annual orbit of the Sun, and at her assigned velocity. At any given moment in time, past, present and future, Earth's role calls for her to be proceeding in a precise direction along a precise orbital path at a precise forward velocity-- while rotating in a precise direction and at a precise velocity. That's Earth's norm. It's as basic to Earth's makeup as DNA is to a human.

Wave, thunder, wind and explosion are words which inherently involve motion. 'Earth' similarly includes an inherent property of motion. The distinction is that EARTH'S MOTIONS DON'T REPRESENT EXPENDITURE OF ENERGY.
Our solar system is a huge symphony, with all the parts scripted, timed & harmonized. To play its particular part does not represent an acceleration for any respective planet. The only ACCELERATION for a planet would be if it broke stride, played off key, lost rhythm (ceased rotating and orbiting on schedule).

Therefore all Earthly cars, boats, airplanes and racehorses share a common nature:
the baseline for any and all movement by them is the assigned planetary motion of mother Earth (rotating 360 degrees per day, orbiting the Sun once a year).

Why not the Truth? Why indeed?

VIVA LA REVOLUCION, COMPADRES !!

2006-09-06T05:49:00.000-05:00

If the Coriolis Effect was part of your scientific education, you might as well save your time. Hold it. Stop. Don't go any further. You will never see any anomalies in the Coriolis beliefs (paradigm) which have been part of "normal science" since 1835. You won't see them-- because your mind will be incapable of any critical analysis.

Most of you are probably familiar with the work of Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

"...a law that cannot even be demonstrated to one group of scientists may occasionally seem intuitively obvious to another." (p150)
"That professionalism leads, on the one hand to an immense restriction of the scientist's vision and to a considerable resistance to paradigm change." (p 64)

I'll bet you never thought he was talking about you. Well here's a news flash: HE WAS.
He was-- if you have the Coriolis Paradigm burned into the hard drive of your brain. Once a paradigm takes root, it is part of YOU, part of your own sense of self-worth, your persona. It is a trusted tool you have relied on all your life. It is a permanent condition.

It took an "outsider" like myself to look at Coriolis and Foucault with an unbiased critical eye. Which reveals them both as incompetents. For ten years I have been trying to get ANYONE to take a fresh look at Coriolis' world. The results have been ENTIRELY as predicted by Dr. Kuhn.

"... the standard that distinguishes a real scientific solution from a mere metaphysical speculation, word game, or mathematical play. The normal-scientific tradition that emerges from a scientific revolution is not only incompatible but often actually incommensurable with that which has gone before." (p 103)

"The source of resistance is the assurance that the older paradigm will ultimately solve all its problems, that nature can be shoved into the box the paradigm provides." (p 151)

"...Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (p 151)

After ten years of struggling in vain, I am about ready to concede the truth of these words. Go to anyone you choose and attempt to open a critical discussion about Coriolis' extrapolations from the fact that Earth rotates. I can guarantee that 99.9999999999999% of the people will fall into one of two categories: 1) scientists who have believed Coriolis to be "normal science" for all their lives-- (and thus are pathologically unable to rethink it) , or 2) those who don't know Coriolis but who steadfastly believe that such complicated issues ought to be left to scientists who are already schooled in that speciality. (If you have a toothache you don't go off to dental school--you make an appointment with a dentist, for crying out loud.)

So in all probability I will not see any paradigm shift on Coriolis in my lifetime--or even any recognition of the obvious anomalies. All I can realistically hope is that I can leave a trail that some future generation of scientific thinkers might pick up.
Perhaps the Coriolis paradigm will be overhauled by my grandson's generation. Or perhaps it will be HIS grandson's. But it WILL happen. It is just a question of time.

Like the man said, "The truth will out".

This is a "message in a bottle", which I am tossing out into the current: WHY NOT RETHINK CORIOLIS??

Why Indeed

BEHOLD THE MYSTERIOUS PENDULUM

2006-08-27T04:36:00.000-05:00

All you need is:
1)a pendulum
2)a brain
3)some curiosity.

Come and Let Us Reason Together

2006-07-23T04:44:00.000-05:00

This is Dewey.

He enforces our House Rules,
including this one borrowed from
Walt Whitman:

"Re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul".

If this simple rule of intellectual integrity had been applied, Coriolis would have never gotten his silly hypothesis off the ground.

From the beginning of science, the thinking on Earth's continually changing relationship to other heavenly bodies, particularly our Sun, had always gone like this:

1) Either the sun circles around earth or vice versa, & since
2) ALL forensic (terrestrial) evidence says that Earth is stationary:
3) Ergo: the logical conclusion is that the Sun moves around a stationary Earth.

But eventually Copernicus and Galileo came along and discovered hard astronomical evidence that this conclusion was false. Earth is actually a multi-tasking (orbiting / rotating) player in a heliocentric system. After these discoveries, the next logical question ought to have been:

Why, then, does Earth not reveal forensic evidence of her rotating / orbitting behavior? *

But people who should have known better ignored this question. There was (and still is) a world-wide breakdown in post-Galileo thinking. Mass hysteria. Mob mentality. Sheep mentality. They "reasoned" that since the earlier conclusion was false, then their basis (no forensic evidence of Earth as moving platform) was also false. The new rationale went like this:

1) Since earth moves around a stationary sun,
2) There MUST be forensic/ terrestrial/ local evidence accordingly.

That forensic evidence became a Holy Grail for scientists everywhere, and they threw themselves into the Quest with body, mind and soul. They were absolutely convinced of the existence of their evidence / Holy Grail. They BELIEVED it into reality. Which was a cardinal sin of science. Which has infested the body of knowledge we call Physics down to this day.
Which could all have been prevented had cooler heads entered the fray. Where were they? Where have they been for 150 years?? AWOL, that's where. There has been just as much confusion AFTER Galileo as before. At least there was some passable LOGIC behind the pre-Copernicus theory. But the same can't be said for the Post-Galileo period. After Galileo this whole school bus of thought went off the road.

Still to this day, no one has found any terrestrial evidence of Earth's gallavanting ways. With all of the modern tools, there has still never been one scientific finding contrary to the appearance that Earth is a stationary platform.

The TRUTH about the Sun / Earth relationship lies between the old theory and the later one.
Despite the fact that
1) Earth is a rotating /orbiting body,
2) There is no forensic /terrestrial (non-astronomical) evidence of same.

Everybody BELIEVES that the Coriolis Effect is a long-since proven truth. But it isn't. It's more doctrine than science. More superstition that fact. A sick hypothesis resting on a sick premise (that space movement is like terrestrial movement).

* As discussed elsewhere on this site:
There are different Laws for Terrestrial motion and Space motion.
All terrestrial motion involves: force, matter & momentum.
Heavenly motion does not.
Just as a NASA space shuttle travels millions of miles after cutting its rockets (it's called the orbital insertion moment) , Earth and other planets move through space without the application of any Force.

No Force, No Momentum.
No momentum, no forensic evidence of motion.

Understand these facts.

Then go back and RE-READ the Coriolis "proofs".

Just what is a pendulum, anyway?

2006-04-12T05:59:00.000-05:00

Wolfgang the cat is smarter than Foucault (and Coriolis too). He understands that he is at rest.

He is well aware of the historical context of the Coriolis theory and Foucault's Pendulum. The intelligentsia of the 19th century were smugly certain that there MUST be Earthly evidence to go along with the astronomical evidence of Earth's rotation. Coriolis came up with a space-speed based theory, involving non-verifiable suppostions. Then along came Foucault, who knew a few things about gyroscopes, and thought he was a genius. He discovered that spherical pendulums cannot be made to vibrate in a plane, and twisted that information into his ticket into the statuary hall of sciencedom.

Wolfgang is not deceived about pendulums. They are not magical scientific instruments. They are nothing more than agitated plumb bobs.

He knows that in terms of measuring Earth's rotation, a Foucault's Pendulum is no better than a radio antenna. If you take a long CB car antenna and rig it with a ball- bearing swivel base mount, and put some weight on the tip, you'll have yourself an upside-down Foucault's Pendulum. They're essentially the same machine. Pull it back and let it fly. When the energy is used up the antenna (or bob) will return to its starting position. And it is impossible to make either one "vibrate in a plane". That failure is strictly due to the vagaries of the mechanics involved. It has absolutely nothing to do with Earth's rotation.

Because Earth is a gravitational field. If you are part of that gravitational field you simply go where that field goes. Movements of your mother field are part of your "own" very nature--and therefore do not in any sense represent an acceleration to you.

Wolfgang understands this. When he is at rest, he is at rest. Pressed for a comment about Coriolis and Foucault, he considered long and hard, and then stated, "Pfffffft aaaaaccccckkkkk aaaauuuuugggggghhh!"

2005-12-30T08:28:00.000-06:00

SPACE SPEEDS SCHMACE SPEEDS

2005-12-09T07:42:00.000-06:00

Meet Wolfgang the Cat. He is at rest. How is it that Wolfgang understands that he lives in an inertial world, while supposedly intelligent Physicists cannot grasp that simple concept? This question is tied closely to the BIG ISSUE--the title of this location: The Real Coriolis Mystery.

The REAL MYSTERY is how the nonsense known as the Coriolis Effect has taken root and survived for so long --within a group so proud of their intelligence, their skepticism, their probing, searching, their analytical prowess? It is "The Emperor's New Clothes" in spades.

NEWS FLASH!! Earth is an inertial environment. Newton's First Law is alive and well here, with one minor exception. When we say that objects in horizontal motion along earth's surface tend to remain in motion, and along a straight line, we don't mean that literally. The nature of horizontal earth-surface motion is to follow a geodesic line. But the natural line is straight in the normal, plane geometry sense of the word.

The Coriolis Effect, of course, is founded on the hypothesis that Earth, to a limited extent, is a
non-inertial world. Which is a corruption of an astronomical fact--that different Earth latitudes
move through space at different linear velocities (because Earth is a moving sphere).

NEWS FLASH!! A latitude's "space speed" has NOTHING to do with the Earth-physics of motion. I just invented that term. I recommend that all physicists be required to study that term: EARTH-PHYSICS. Maybe that would help physicists remember that the rules for space travel and Earth travel are different.

Earth's planetary motions (annual solar orbit and daily rotation) are space motions. Those motions do not represent the expression of energy. Space is a non-inertial environment.

An inertial environment is one where motion must be bought with energy. Earth's gravitational field constitutes an inertial environment. Space doesn't.

The different space speeds of different Earth latitudes are relevant only in the environment of space (space-physics).

The different space speeds of different Earth latitudes are irrelevant to the inertial environment of Earth (Earth-physics).

The Earth-physics value of any and all Earthly space speeds is zero--nil--nada.

The engine which runs the Coriolis Effect is a corruption, a perversion, a hoax--the hypothetical Earth-physics "application" of a Space-physics phenomenon.

Wolfgang the Cat gets it. Why can't a physicist?

STILLNESS

2005-12-06T06:10:00.000-06:00

How would
Coriolis
explain
STILLNESS?

If you fill a glass with water and set it on a table in your home, the natural behavior of the water will be a state of stillness.
If you fill a glass with water and place it on a moving train, the water will be disturbed. The glass is being carried along by the train, and the water is being corraled by the glass.
NOTHING being carried along on the train is actually AT REST.

Coriolis dealt with this pesky detail by ignoring it. Part of his conjuring trick was to state that the ONLY effects of different space speeds of different locations would ONLY be from very long range events along ONLY north or south azimuths. Sounds an awful lot like 'The Emperor's New Clothes' , doesn't it?

YES, IT IS ROCKET SCIENCE, ACTUALLY

2005-12-06T05:36:00.000-06:00

ONE of the most
popular 'applications'
for Coriolis is
in ballistics.

Holy Moses! Give me a break! Space Speeds (rotation-derived linear velocities of specific geographic locations) are not, never have been, and never will be a part of the PHYSICS of Earth-surface motion.

If you fire the biggest ICBM you can imagine on a due North azimuth, Coriolis hypothesized that Earth's rotation would cause the trajectory to curve, relative to fixed geographical points. Similarly, many otherwise sane and sober Physicists assure us that Earth's eastward rotation must be included in calculating the ballistics of launching rockets into Earth orbit. Horse manure.

Orbit is achieved by attaining sufficient horizontal velocity to escape the gravitational force of the gravitational field we fondly refer to as 'Earth'. It is PHYSICALLY irrelevant from what latitude you launch, or along what azimuth. Any geodesic will do as well as any other. It's all about the horizontal velocity. And between standing still and reaching that orbit velocity, your rocket will continue to faithfully rotate, every second, every meter, as every well behaved particle of any gravitational field will, exactly in synch with its gravitational field.

Physics and Coriolis ought never be mentioned on the same page.

Big Blow Torch

2005-12-06T05:07:00.001-06:00

The sun
is like
a big
blow torch
aimed at
Earth's
equator.

The 'space speed' of a given Earthly geographical point has NO PHYSICAL IMPORT, in and of itself. But since the energy which radiates out from the Sun is the major factor in the behavior of Earth's atmosphere, and since Earth rotates relative to the Sun, that rotation has definite (but complex) physical ramifications as far as Earth's weather.
Space is very cold. Sun is very hot. If you turned the Sun out, Earth would quickly become a big round rotating ice cube, with no wind, no rain, no tornados, no hurricanes, no ocean waves or currents. The Sun is like a big blow torch aimed at a Earth's Equator, and making one full circle per day. Which plays hell with our atmosphere.

Stand on the shoulder beside your local interstate highway. When a big truck goes
roaring by, the wind gusts will blow you off your feet. That's pretty similar to the effect the radiant heat from the Sun has on an otherwise still and ice-cold Earth.

All of those phenomena attributed to the 'Coriolis Weather Effect' are actually just roadside wind gusts from that big truck we call our Sun, as it goes roaring around Earth every day, headed West.

Train of Thought

2005-12-06T03:55:00.000-06:00

Nowhere in the encyclopedias or Physics textbooks will you find a realistic MODEL for the kind of Earth Coriolis was selling.
The closest thing is that pathetic, worthless 'rotating disk.

Coriolis' failure to include a cogent MODEL for his 'world' has no doubt been a key factor in the hoax going unexposed for all these years.

Could you, if pressed, produce a working model to illustrate Corilois' perception of rotating Earth?

How about this: Picture an Earth covered with train tracks running parallel to the Equator. Every track is completely covered with its own train. They all run Eastward. Each train completes one 'run' (360 degrees) every 24 hours. Thus they have a common angular velocity around a common axis. But no two train tracks in the same hemisphere have the same length. Which means that no two trains have the same LINEAR VELOCITY. The closer to the Equator, the longer the track. The longer the track, the greater the LINEAR VELOCITY.
So you could lay a plank due north or due south from any given train to any other--and the north-south alignment of the plank would be unchanged by the movement of the trains.
But if you rolled a ball along that plank, it would roll off. Doesn't this accurately represent Coriolis' world view? Yes. Is it a fair representation of the PHYSICS of Earth? No.

In Earth: If you take a perfectly round ball and drop it straight down onto a perfectly flat surface, it will bounce straight back up. Always.
But on our model train: A bouncing ball will migrate in a direction exactly opposite to the direction the train is moving. The higher it bounces, the more noticeable the migration would be. If you were in a closed train car you could calculate both the direction and the linear velocity of the train you were on, based on loss of momentum of a thrown or bounced or rolled ball.

Which illustrates the fundamental flaw in Coriolis' thinking. The Coriolis Effect is based on the different rotation-derived linear velocities of different geographical points (each latitude has its own special eastward linear velocity). But in the real Earth, those different linear velocities have absolutely NO PHYSICAL RAMIFICATIONS. They accelerate nothing. Inside that rotating gravitational field, the rotation might as well not occur. Seattle's 'space speed' has no physical effect on motion (or stillness) in Seattle.

FOUCAULT--UNINDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR

2005-12-04T07:26:00.000-06:00

How can I trick you into THINKING about something? I wish I knew. All I can do is keep trying.
If I had been exposed to Coriolis as a young student I am fairly sure I wouldn't be writing this now. I would probably have swallowed it, as one other bit of knowledge one was expected to absorb--like you did. It would have been like meeting someone at a family reunion and automatically accepting him as family. But my formal education had long since ended before I decided I wanted to really get to know Coriolis. So my perspective was rather different than it would have been as a teen-ager.
I was about 50 years old when my Coriolis quest began.
I had confidence in my own mind--my ability to reason. Back in Oklahoma,as a high school senior, I had won the most prestigious academic scholarship in the state. 4 years later, I had made a 726 on the LSAT.
My wife and daughter and I visited Washington about twenty years ago, including the basic whirlwind tour of the Smithsonian Museums. I was fascinated by the Foucault Pendulum exhibit. For some reason that pendulum got itself filed away with all the other unfinished projects in my cluttered mental basement. My favorite puzzles are the tough ones. When I find a NY Times crossword that I can't just sail through, it's like finding treasure. If I ever get 'stumped' I consider that a temporary condition. I save those puzzles and go back to them. I guess that same quirk is what made me file that pendulum away, and then drag it out a few years later. I resolved to work my way through that pendulum, the way Click & Clack work through a car malfunction. An old friend of mine climbed Mt. Ranier a while back. Glaciers. Snow storms. Serious danger. The whole bit. I thought to myself, " he's nuts".

But then I tackle a hugely complex Physics problem, investing thousands of hours and most of my spare energy, year after year, in something that to most people (such as my family) would seem just as nutty--if not moreso--as amateur mountain climbing. Go figure.

I was after that deep satisfaction you experience when you successfully work out an especially tough NY Times crossword. When you finally untangle all of last year's strings of Christmas lights. When you work and tinker and slave on an old car and then turn the key and WOW!--the engine starts and keeps running and purrs and throbs. That's the feeling I was after. But there was no such happy ending to be found in the world of Coriolis and Foucault. To understand them is to find utter disappointment--because they are frauds.

If you set out to understand Foucault's Pendulum, you will be sent down the hall to visit Coriolis.
You will soon find that Coriolis proves Foucault, and at the same time that Foucault proves Coriolis. It's all quite circular--and specious--by nature.

There is a helluva difference between the math and the physics of Coriolis. If you can't see the distinction, then you're wasting your time here--and you'll never get the point.

Coriolis declared that since Earth is known to rotate, it is proper to regard Earth-surface motion as occurring against the backdrop of a (very large) rotating frame of reference. His proofs were all hypothetical, but were accepted, nonetheless. Foucault found that a spherical pendulum ambulates. He married that phenomenon with the Coriolis hypothesis, and the world bought it:
the ambulating pendulum was taken as forensic evidence of the efficacy of the Coriolis hypothesis. Horse manure.

What Foucault's Pendulum proves is that a spherical pendulum does dot vibrate in a plane. No more. No less. The contrivances Foucault performed to "eliminate any deflecting mechanical influence on the vibration of the pendulum's bob" were impressive. Impressive enough to take the whole world in. But it was all just an elaborate conjurer's trick. Just a show. Isn't the simplest explanation supposed to be best? Well: A truly spherical pendulum does not vibrate in a plane. So the whole premise of Foucault's 'experiment' is faulty. It has nothing to do with anybody's frame of reference.

Furthermore, Coriolis' model of Earth as rotating frame of reference is totally inapplicable to Earth-surface motion. Earth is a spherical (aren't they all?) gravitational field which sails spinning through space. If a particle belongs to that gravitational field, then by essence it sails and spins along with the field. That sailing and spinning are an integral part of the very being (mass) of that particle. There is only one way around that physical fact--and that is to escape from the gravitational field (something we call attaining orbit velocity). It is ONLY when moving at (or above) orbit velocity that an Earth particle may properly regard Earth's rotating surface as an accelerator. Any particle moving at lesser velocities continues--by its very nature-- to rotate Eastward at a rate of 360 degrees per day. THAT is the proper frame of reference for the physics of Earth-surface motion. Earth--and every one of her particles--rotate Eastward at the rate of 360 degrees per day. Which sounds like the classic definition of rotation: An object is said to be in rotation if all of its particles circle a common axis at a common angular velicity.

So: the Physics lesson from Foucault's Pendulum is that spherical pendula roam. And the true
Physics lesson from Coriolis' rotating frame of reference is NIL. The physical value of Earth's rotation upon spherical pendula, weather, artillery, missiles and turtles is NIL. The mathematical value of the Coriolis Effect on any sub-orbital Earth-surface motion is, always has been and always will be: NIL.

The Real Mystery

2005-12-03T07:13:00.000-06:00

Instead of preening and smirking about how smart they were, Coriolis and his buddies would have been better served by acknowledging that maybe--just maybe--they weren't so much smarter than their scientific predecessors after all. If Galileo and Newton and Copernicus couldn't observe manifestations of Earth's rotation in Earth herself, maybe--just maybe--those manifestations were simply not to be found. What's so impossible about that idea?

Question: Why, after hurtling through space at great speeds for millions of years are planets still spherical? Why is there no centripetal--or any other rotational forces-- at play?
Answer: Because: while all known gravitational fields are in constant motion through space, those motions do not accelerate, influence, alter or effect any particles belonging to said gravitational fields.
What is a planet but a Gravitational Field? And can any individual particle belong to a Gravitational Field & yet not share in each and every planetary motion of the Field? No.
When a NASA shuttle leaves Earth and heads out, say, to the Moon, a major, fundamental change takes place. Earth-surface motion is entirely different than space travel. One involves expenditure of energy, one doesn't.
Earth's planetary motions (chiefly solar orbit and daily rotation) do not involve any expenditure of energy, no application of force. I doubt if we will ever know whether Coriolis' use of that so-called analogy of the rotating disk was a stroke of evil genius or simply blind-ass luck. Either way--there's no viable excuse for people like you letting him get away with the crime--FOR 170 YEARS!
Suggestion: pull down your dusty old Scientific Encyclopedia off the shelf and re-read about the 'Coriolis Effect'. Note how it can't be explained without that 'rotating disk'. Now then: after 170 years, do you think it's possible to wonder whether that rotating disk is actually analogous to rotating Earth?
Well, it isn't. Not even close. The fundamental difference is the involvement of Energy. As stated: Earth's planetary motions do not involve energy. They are perpetual motion phenomena (something we call 'space travel'.) But if you read about Coriolis in your encyclopedia, and follow along with the helpful illustration of the 'rotating disk', you'll see that the disk is very much a creature of expenditure of energy. The longer a particle's radius, the more momentum, which means more energy. Which is so unlike Earth-surface motion it stinks.
Which ought to make us all smack ourselves in the head and scream, "So what the heck does that disk have to do with Earth?"
Answer: "Not a cotton pickin' thing!"

2005-12-03T06:54:00.000-06:00

It started innocently enough with a visit to the Smithsonian Museum around 1986. The Foucalt Pendulum changed my life.

The Beginning

2005-12-03T05:48:00.000-06:00

How many card-carrying physicists remember WHY Coriolis introduced his famous theory relating to Earth's rotation, 170 years ago?

In those days, the way the solar system works was still very much in doubt. The astronomical proof of the heliocentric nature of the system had just recently gained wide acceptance. Those few who saw and understood the proof were awfully excited about it--and were awfully proud of themselves. This led directly to a belief among the intelligentsia that-- if you were smart enough--you could find proof of Earth's rotation in Earth herself--WITHOUT RESORT TO ASTRONOMICAL MEANS. The race was on! It was an intellectual footrace. To the winner would go laurel wreaths, fame, wealth, prestige--immortality. Enter Coriolis. This is the context. This was where Coriolis and his contemporaries were coming from. (In other words, they really convinced themselves that: "Dumb old Galileo had to use the stars to see that Earth rotates. We're smarter than that. Smarter than Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Archimedes--all those old dudes. As modern brains, we can make Earth give up the secret of her rotation. We're hot stuff.")

Maybe this atmosphere--this bubbling mixture of intellectual and personal ambition--helps explain the early acceptance of the Coriolis Effect as good science. But it hardly excuses it.

Coriolis was an idiot. Correction. He was either an idiot or an out-and-out con man.