David Tombe, May 6, 2008:

to Thierry de Mees:
Recently we had a debate on the issue of whether or not the Coriolis force on the large scale, as induced by the Earth's rotation, was actually having any effect on the direction of the cyclones.

At that time, my argument was based on the principle that a fictitious force could not have real effects. As such, I attributed the cyclonic behaviour in the weather patterns and ocean currents to a real Coriolis force that is going on at microscopic level within the Earth's magnetic field.

I have now reviewed the matter. I now consider that the Coriolis force on the large scale, as induced by the Earth's rotation, is actually a real effect and not a fictitious effect.

I have studied the equations in detail and it has become clear to me that the Coriolis force is a very real hydrodynamical effect which applies to the radial motion of an element of fluid relative to the larger body of that fluid when that larger body is in a state of rotation.

If you study the derivation of the 'inertial force' equations in rotating frames of reference, you will see that the angular velocity term is in fact physically connected to the tangential velocity of any particle that the inertial forces would act upon, and that the velocity term refers exclusively to the radial component of the velocity of that same particle.

Does this make any difference to your objections to my former position? I look forward to hearing from you.

Thierry de Mees, May 9, 2008:
I am happy you understand the Coriolis Force better now. Your revision is now closer to the mainstream vision about the Coriolis effect acting on the air and on the sea flows, which I fully support.

By the way, I suggest you would revise your opinion on the Centrifugal Force as well (cfr. discussions page at Wikipedia). See my talks at http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1201555500/Centrifugal+%26amp%3B+Centripetal+Forces%3B

David Tombe, May 9, 2008:
Thanks for your reply. My dispute with the mainstream interpretations of both centrifugal force and Coriolis force still remain. The mainstream line is that these are purely fictitious effects. My position is that they are real effects. The situation with Coriolis force is slightly more complicated than that of centrifugal force by virtue of the fact that the latter is a radial effect whereas the former is a tangential effect. This means that tangential artifacts can be induced in rotating frames of reference, whereas radial artifacts cannot. Until I re-examined the issue recently, I had been assuming that the large scale Coriolis force was a tangential artifact and that as such it couldn't be contributing to actual effects in the atmosphere. I have now concluded that the Coriolis force is actually a very real hydrodynamical effect, and so the large scale version of it that is associated with the Earth's rotation can indeed have real effects. This revision of viewpoint on the Coriolis force still leaves me in opposition to the established viewpoint since they believe that the Coriolis force is a purely fictitious effect.

Thierry de Mees, May 9, 2008:
No, the establishment doesn't believe that the Coriolis force is a purely fictitious effect. They just say that the name "Coriolis force" is fictitious, since the Newtonian definition of force is F=dp/dt (F and p are vectors). And the dimension of the Coriolis force is "Newton" although the Coriolis force has nothing to do with F=dp/dt. However, the Coriolis effect is real because it really happens.

David Tombe, May 9, 2008:
We both believe that the Coriolis force is real. But I'm pretty sure that either,

Thierry de Mees, May 10, 2008:
I sincerely hope that the establishment isn't confused. That would be harmful for their job! But many non-professional scientists are confused in that domain I'm sure! The same happens with the fictive "centrifugal force" that is said to be elementary physical stuff, but that is not so evident to understand after all, for many people. David Tombe, Dec. 6, 2006:

Click for: Open Letter to the Royal Society

David Tombe, Oct. 27, 2006:
The 1922 Stern-Gerlach experiment is often cited as being one of the two major pieces of evidence (the other being the Zeeman Effect) that demonstrates to us that electrons possess magnetic spin moment. Here is an example of a modern web link that claims that cathode rays exhibit duality,

Stern-Gerlach, University of Toronto

There does however remain a serious problem with trying to explain this duality in terms of magnetic spin moment. The primary action of a magnetic field on a magnetic dipole is to align it. After that, the dipole will move towards the region of greater magnetic intensity.

There should be no duality based on magnetic spin moment.

In my recent article, Archimedes Principle in the Electric Sea, I explained how the duality of silver atoms in Stern-Gerlach might be explained in terms of diamagnetism and paramagnetism. However the explanation given would not easily extend to a beam of electrons.

The question remains, 'Are we being told the truth as regards whether or not electrons exhibit duality under the Stern-Gerlach experiment?'