The Coriolis Effect

A rotating Round Earth model predicts that bodies which move through the air will be appear to be deflected Eastwards or Westwards in their path of movement due to the rotation of the earth. This effect has been termed the "Coriolis Effect."

The Coriolis Effect, however, appears to be a fictitious effect that is not, and has never been, properly demonstrated with experimental evidence. Its proponents are unable to show that this effect has ever been detected or that it is truly necessary to account for in various operations. The evidence for this effect appears to be based entirely on 'common knowledge', on how things 'should be', and by authors who make 'predictions'; but all articles and documents presented in favor of the "Coriolis Effect" are without reference to, or demonstration of, the critical and necessary experimental evidence to directly prove the matter.

=Origin of the Coriolis Effect=

In an article titled History of the Coriolis Force the origin story of the "Coriolis Effect" is described:

=Artillery=

It has been alleged that the Coriolis Effect plays a part in the ballistic trajectory of artillery, and that artillerymen must account for it for accuracy. We are presented with military range tables for accounting for the Coriolis Effect, and so, it is speculated, the Coriolis Effect must be a real effect.

U.S. Army Artillery Coriolis Table Example
We are directed to the table from following document:

The Production of Firing Tables for Cannon Artillery (1967) http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/826735.pdf

Pg 103, Table H, Corrections to Range, in Meters, to Compensate for the Rotation of Earth:



When Coriolis Effect proponents are challenged on the accuracy or validity of this table, the proponents proclaim that if it were incorrect then artillery and artillerymen would be routinely inaccurate and miss their targets, and how could that be the case?

Artillery Ballistics Not Accurate
From the the introduction of the above paper provided to us we read that military artillery, which is purported to require adjustments for the "Coriolis Effect," is indeed, routinely inaccurate. The first round generally misses its target. Only after missing a number of times, and then adjusting the alignment of the cannon to compensate, does the artilleryman hit his or her target.

From the above 1967 artillery paper we read:

In another artillery paper from 1973, we read a similar quote:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/909704.pdf

In 2016 a claimed expert named Guy Schuchman says that, despite GPS and modern improvements, the same problems exist today:

A 2017 paper by Australia's Armament Research Service admits the same:

https://www.icrc.org/en/download/file/36109/ares-icrc-report-indirect-fire.pdf

=Sharp Shooting=

It has been alleged that the Coriolis Effect also plays a part in accurate sharp shooting over long distances. However, we find several online references where claimed sniper veterans have stated that they have never taken the Coriolis Effect into account when shooting. We point to the U.S. Marine Corps Sniping Manual, which does not mention the Coriolis Effect anywhere in the text at all.

U.S. Marine Corps Sniping Manual
U.S. Marine Corps Sniping Manual 1981 Version Full Text 2016 Version Full Text

The sniper must know the general principles of: perspective, vanishing point, perspective drawing, delineation, and geographical areas of intelligence operations. However, the words "Coriolis" or "Coriolis Effect," do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Marine Corps Sniping Manual.



The curious reader might ponder why the U.S. Marine Corps does not teach this allegedly important effect to its snipers.

Misleading References
The internet is rife with references that the Coriolis Effect is actively used, but this is an assumption without demonstration.

The World’s Longest Sniper Kill: The Enemy Shot Dead at 3,871 Yards (Over 2 Miles Away) https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-worlds-longest-sniper-kill-the-enemy-shot-dead-3871-24141

This quote actually says "these are the factors that will affect the bullet," rather than "these are the factors that the sniper accounted for." One is a commentary by the author and the other is a depiction of process. The reader should be able to see and understand that there is a difference.

=Deflection of Falling Bodies=

From the 17th century well into the 19th century the deflection of falling objects was a hotly debated subject, and numerous experiments were conducted to study the landing path of bodies when dropped from high distances. To protect from the wind and elements the experiments were conducted within towers, high churches, and down underground mines and shafts.

From the History of the Coriolis Force piece there is only one experiment which author of the article references in favor of the Coriolis Effect. All other papers referenced in the article appear to be theoretical analysis'.

This is one of the Deflection of Falling Body Experiments. From 'The Report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the British Association of the Advancement of Science' we find an analysis of Dr. Benzenberg's experiments:

In the book Earth Not a Globe, the author Samuel Birley Rowbotham devotes an entire chapter to the Deflection of Falling Bodies experiment saga.

Earth Not a Globe: Deflection of Falling Bodies by Samuel Birley Rowbotham http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za54.htm

In this chapter Rowbotham walks us through numerous experiments, the inconsistencies among them, and concludes his chapter with:

=Water Currents=

Small Scale Water Currents
The rotation of small scale liquids in opposing hemispheres was debunked by Snopes.

Large Scale Water Currents
We find the assertion that large scale water currents rotate in accordance with the "Coriolis Effect" to be untrue. See Coriolis Effect (Weather)

=Wind Currents=

We find the assertion that the wind currents generally rotate in accordance with the "Coriolis Effect" to be untrue. See Coriolis Effect (Weather)

=Addendum=

Many of these discussions against the Round Earth Theory are often and trivially won with a simple request of evidence. 'Mountains' of evidence are claimed to exist for phenomena such as this, yet when the Round Earth proponent is questioned in a simple and polite manner on the necessary demonstration, we find that the response is generally, to any reasonable standard, woefully insufficient. It is quite curious that this effect cannot be clearly demonstrated, and is so easily defeated with such simple questioning, despite our opponent's access to the vast collection of human knowledge that is the internet.