Claude Dechales anti-Copernican arguments question

[theo1234901]

in the july 2017 edition of Physics today, there's an article on "Early Description of Coriolis Effect" which show Claude Dechales anti-copernican argument have shown the coriolis effect before Coriolis state the coriolis effect.

LINK:
http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/PT.3.3610

My problem with this article is I can't figure it out why this arguments is wrong. Does this effect really happens in real life or are there something I'm missing?

 

[rumborak]

His arguments are sound, but his conclusion rests on the statement that the effect has not been observed. Who knows what he tried, or what his expectations of the magnitude were. It isn't the most easily demonstrated effect, and Foucaults Pendulum came about much later.

 

[theo1234901]

His arguments are sound, but his conclusion rests on the statement that the effect has not been observed. Who knows what he tried, or what his expectations of the magnitude were. It isn't the most easily demonstrated effect, and Foucaults Pendulum came about much later.

So what you are saying we don have any clue that this is true?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Coriolis is a 'geometrical effect' that can be said to have the same effect as a force. It is alive and well and can be observed in the fact that weather systems all produce winds that go in curves. You need vast distances for the Coriolis Effect to be noticeable.
People talk about the escaping bath water down the plughole following clockwise or anticlockwise spirals, depending on which hemisphere you're in but it's not a big enough effect to overcome the errors of any experiment that's been done.

 

[rumborak]

So what you are saying we don have any clue that this is true?

Not sure what part you think wouldn't be true. As sophiecentaur says, the Coriolis effect obviously is real and happening; it can be observed every day in numerous things.

Maybe you're confused what the article is saying. All the article shows is that there was an individual who predicted the existence of the Coriolis effect long before Coriolis himself. However, in a historical oddity he actually tried to use it to *disprove* that the Earth is rotating. Whether he actually made any experiments, or whether he stopped at a quick "I can't see it, so it's not happening" thought, hard to tell. The guy was a Jesuit, so he may have been a bit quick to accept any counter argument against Copernicus.