THE CORIOLIS EFFECT
DECONSTRUCTED

by Miles Mathis

First posted February 14, 2011
Abstract: I will analyze another modern theory by looking closely at a page from Wikipedia. As I did with tides, I will go from top to bottom, analyzing the math, the diagrams, and all the logic (or lack of it) contained in them. I will then show that it is once again the charge field causing the phenomena, not the Coriolis Effect.

This is another phenomenon that has been badly misconstrued. We are told that bathtubs drain one way north of the equator and the other way south, and that weather patterns spin this way, too, whether in water or air. I will not question the data here, I will question the explanation, which is woeful in its lack of power and logic.

It is admitted that the Coriolis Effect is not a real force. It is only an outcome of circular motion. A line that looks straight from one position will look curved from another position. Again, I am not doubting that. I accept both the data and much of the math. However, I think it is clear that the Coriolis Effect is only an effect of pre-Einstein relativity. That is, it is an outcome of position and motion, not of forces or dynamics.

Many physicists will agree with that, but I will go further. When it is used to explain vortices on the Earth, it is false. It cannot logically explain them. To explain these vortices, we require the charge field.

Some will stop me here before I get started, telling me that I don't need to go to the trouble. We can solve this very simply without either a longwinded mathematical analysis of the Coriolis Effect or of the charge field. At a Penn State University website called "Bad Coriolis", the author, while critiquing some of the current uses of the Coriolis motion, simplifies the argument into this: The Earth is spinning counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere, and so are the hurricanes: nuff said. While I admit that explanation is preferable to the current mainstream one in many ways, it still begs the big question: WHY is the Earth spinning counter-clockwise, or to the east? Why not to the west? As it happens, the Penn State explanation is only partially correct, and of course it doesn't even try to answer the big question. The charge field is required to answer it because it underlies the spin of the Earth itself, as well as the spins of hurricanes and so on. As I will show below (and as I have already shown in previous papers), the ambient or Solar charge field determines all the local fields in the Solar System, and by doing so, determines the spin direction of all the planets and moons. I have shown how it causes tilt, eccentricity, and other variables, and here you will begin to better understand how it causes spin. If you have been following the titles of my papers this past twelvemonth, you will have seen that the charge field causes almost everything.

No, vortices on the Earth cannot be caused by the Coriolis Effect alone. The easiest proof of that is this: if the vortices were caused by the Coriolis Effect, and switched at the equator, then there should be some point on the equator where water drained with little or no spin. We have never found that place, therefore the theory is falsified by data. The theorists are required to explain the negative data, and they cannot do it.

The simplest way to visualize the current assignment of the Coriolis Effect to the Earth is to imagine a merry-go-round or carousel spinning in a zero gravity field. With no gravity, we could put polehorses both on top and below the spinning carousel. The children could spin upside down or rightside up. They could just crawl under the carousel and spin on a second ride. This is the way physicists now imagine and explain the Coriolis Effect. If the children on top see the ride moving clockwise, the children on bottom see the ride moving counterclockwise. Drain problem solved. The children also see curves from center to edge reversed. Large weather curves solved.

I admit that is somewhat ingenious, which is why I accepted it for years (without really looking closely at it). But we encounter big problems if we let a child stand on the edge of the carousel, right on the equator. He doesn't see any curve at all, or at least not in the same plane as the other children. If two children stand on the edge and throw a ball to one another, the second child will see the ball mysteriously rise (the Eötvös effect). The curve will be up. But the Coriolis effect proper is gone. Do we find this in studying drains on the Earth's equator? No. Do bathtubs drain up or fail to drain on the equator? No. Do they drain without spin. No. Do they even drain with less spin? No.

The Coriolis Effect also fails to explain the tight curve of drains and cyclones and so on. The children on the merry-go-round see curves that correspond to the curvature and speed of the ride. They do not and could not possibly see little vortices at spots on the ride. Nor would making the ride into a sphere rather than a circle create these little vortices. Yes, we find these little vortices on the Earth, but they cannot be caused by gravity, the Coriolis effect, centrifugal forces, or all three combined. Inertial circles, as they are called, cannot be the outcome of inertia, or of any of these forces or pseudoforces, as I will show below.

Another big problem can be seen by studying the animation above. Notice the top of the animation, which shows the effect from off the wheel, as if we are above the pole. Well, we can go to either pole of the Earth and look at weather from there. We can take planes and helicopters well above the poles, or put cameras in high flying balloons or satellites. Do they see curves in weather straighten out? Do they see cyclones and hurricanes stop spinning? No, these curves are real curves whose curves do not depend on your perspective. The various vortices in weather and drains are not caused by relativity or by position or by pseudo-forces like the Coriolis Effect. They are caused by something else entirely.

Here's another problem. The Coriolis Effect is used to explain the deflection of a cannonball in various thought problems.

Unfortunately, that illustration contradicts the animation below title, since we can see there is no real deflection. In other words, it takes no force to deflect the cannonball, since it is not really deflected. It only appears to be deflected due to the position of measurement. If we are looking at the cannonball from off the turntable, we won't see the Coriolis curve; and yet in this illustration we are off the turntable and we do see it. The illustration is falsified. [The authors admit this, yes, but the visuals are still confusing.] We aim ahead of the target not because the cannonball curves, but because the target moves toward the line. The cannonball is not accelerating, the target is. And there is no gain in energy from the curve either, since no force was used and no acceleration was present. Again, the acceleration is only apparent, due to position of measurement. We think a curve must require an acceleration, but in this case it doesn't. The force is pseudo so the acceleration must be, too. Well, that is a problem for hurricanes, since hurricanes don't have pseudo-energy. They have a real energy gain from the vortex. That being so, the cause of the hurricane cannot be the Coriolis Effect.

Yes, the spin of the Earth creates weather patterns. It creates latitudinal currents which, when they meet longitudinal currents, create curves and vortices. I am not denying it. I am not here to analyze or critique all of meteorology. I am only pointing out that the longitudinal currents, when curved by Coriolis Effects alone, cannot have any real power beyond their straight-line velocity (or their centrifugal power). They cannot be the cause of the tight curve even in the largest hurricane, because Coriolis curves don't curve that much. And they cannot be the cause of the energy of the hurricane, because Coriolis curves don't have any real energy. The curve of the cannonball in the illustration can't have any more energy than the straight line in the animation, since they are the same.

We can see this again by looking more closely at a hurricane. This "low pressure system" is over Iceland.

Notice that we have more than a Coriolis curve here. We have three or four complete circles. Why does that matter? Because when the curve is moving up from lower latitudes to higher, it is actually moving against the spin of the Earth. To put it another way, it is anti-centrifugal. A real Coriolis curve always moves out from the center or the pole, since that is the “force” of the spin. Put a marble on a record player near the center hole and then let it go. It moves out. If you put a marble on the outer edge, it will fall off. It will never move toward the center. Yes, if you push it hard, it will go to the center, and will create a Coriolis curve in reverse. But you must push it. That push is a real force. You have to counter the centrifugal force or motion. Some force is counteracting the centrifugal motion of the Earth in this hurricane, and it isn't the Coriolis force. We are told that the centrifugal force of the Earth isn't that high, but that is false. In this case, it is very high. The Earth has a lot of angular momentum, and to get anti-centrifugal motion on this scale and at this speed requires real forces, not pseudo-forces.

We see the same problem when we look at the motion of the hurricane latitudinally, or parallel to the equator. Neither centrifugal motion nor Coriolis motion can move that way. Centrifugal motion is always away from the pole, and Coriolis motion is, too. Anytime the air in the hurricane is not moving away from the pole, we require another explanation for both its motion and its curve. With centrifugal and Coriolis motions, we can explain motion south (in the northern hemisphere) and west, but we cannot explain motions north and east. Just consult the animation under title once more. The disk is spinning east, like the Earth, and the ball is curving west.

And this brings us to the killer punch. Look again at our hurricane over Iceland. Now look at the animation below title. Now look at the last sentence of my last paragraph. Do you see a contradiction? The hurricane is backward. The Coriolis Effect should cause a curve east to west, as you go south. The hurricane is spinning the other direction! This is a picture of a hurricane that is anti-Coriolis and anti-centrifugal. The subtext says it "spins counter-clockwise due to balance between the Coriolis force and the pressure gradient force." False. The Coriolis force is in the other direction, so it cannot balance any pressure gradient like this, no matter where it is coming from. We are told that "Low pressure systems rotate in the opposite direction, so that the Coriolis force is directed radially outward and nearly balances an inwardly radial pressure gradient." Criminy, these people are shameless. They expect you to believe that! Just look at their own diagram for this:

Study the red arrows, which we are told represent the Coriolis acceleration. Notice that we have red arrows pointing north and east. Impossible. The Coriolis motion cannot be north or east. Period. Ever. These diagrams are simply matched to the data, and then the geophysicists or meteorologists just attach whatever tags they like to the vectors, with no concern for whether they make sense or not. They figure no one is going to study this stuff closely, so why bother making sense.

Inertial circles also cannot be explained by the Coriolis effect, for the same reason, and this dooms all of current meteorology. You need inertial circles to explain low pressure circles, according to the current math and diagrams, so if inertial circles are a fudge, the whole thing is a fudge. In the northern hemisphere, only the south and west motion of the circle can be attributed to the Coriolis effect. But since there is no possible north and east motion, we cannot complete the circle. The Coriolis effect might be able to create half circles, but it cannot create full circles. I draw your attention to this quote from Wiki:

An air or water mass moving with speed v subject only to the Coriolis force travels in a circular trajectory called an 'inertial circle'.

Subject only to the Coriolis force. They just said it themselves. They are not creating these circles with any other force or motion. Impossible. These circles are also too small to be curves caused by the spin of the Earth. The Coriolis motion doesn't work that way. Again, they are just matching the diagram to data. They know that circles this size are needed to explain the low pressure systems they see, so they create them in the math. This is the math used:

R = v/2πf

Where R is the radius of the circle and f varies with latitude. Unfortunately, that math is pushed as well, since on a spinning planet where gravity was the only other force, you couldn't get f to give you these small circles. This is because gravity doesn't vary over the surface, so it can't give you a variation with latitude. And the Coriolis effect can't either. The Coriolis motion can only give you a greater curve as you get closer to the equator, but it can't give you multiple curves. The fact that the Earth is a sphere rather than a circle isn't enough to create these breaks at latitude, where the Coriolis motion becomes flat and then begins curving back up. For instance, what causes the break at the two tropic lines? Why circles below, then a line, then smaller circles above? The math is pushed to match weather data, as I said, but it doesn't match pure physics.

You will say, "You have admitted that the Coriolis motion creates a curve. Does the 'force' really have to apply all the way round the circle? Can't it just push for part of the circle? If you push someone on a circular swing, you don't have to push all the way round. You just push once for each rotation, right?" Yes, but that example is not analogous to this problem, since in a circular swing the swing is tied to the center. We don't have any such constraint here. If the rotation were already defined, then one push could keep it going, but physicists are using the Coriolis force to define the circle itself. That can't work with one push, or even a push during half the circle.

The biggest problem is the small size of the inertial circles they are trying to create. You see, the curvature of those circles is much greater than the curvature of the Coriolis curve at that latitude. The Coriolis curve is really just one big curve running from pole to equator (center to edge, same thing), as in the first animation under title. The curvature at a given latitude is defined by that one curve, and it can't be any other curve. Nor does it matter where you start. If you start at 60 degrees north, for instance, and let the Earth spin 10 degrees east, the Coriolis curve will move an object 10 degrees west and some smaller amount south. So what it really creates for an observer on the Earth is a spiral. But the observer can't even observe the spiral, since the sphere will be blocking his view most of the time. The observer won't see inertial circles, he will see the object in Coriolis motion move pretty much directly away from him to the west and then disappear over the horizon. About 23 hours later or so the observer will see the object come over the eastern horizon, fractionally further south than it was before. So the only circles the object is creating are latitudinal circles, and that only because the Earth is creating them. Neither the Coriolis motion nor the centrifugal motion is really creating the circles. The centrifugal motion is due south, with a curvature that matches the curvature of the Earth; the curve of the Coriolis motion is measured in how much the spiral increases each day. So the only circle is the circle that motion makes around the Earth each day. The observer could not possibly see that circle as an inertial circle, since nothing he sees ever goes north or east. In fact, he couldn't see it as a circle at all, since he only sees the object when it is passing him by in a nearly straight line. I hope you can see that no hurricane could ever hope to be created that way.

What no one seems to understand on these pages is that the Coriolis force is mechanically linked to the centrifugal force. You can't have a Coriolis force without a centrifugal force, and they are tied to eachother at all times. This is because they are both outcomes of spin. Therefore, the Coriolis motion is always going to be to the south in the northern hemisphere, because that is the direction of the centrifugal force. The Coriolis motion can never have a northern component, because if it did it would be anti-centrifugal. If it were anti-centrifugal, it would be anti-spin. The Coriolis motion cannot be anti-spin. That would be like weight being anti-mass. It conflicts with the definitions of the words. The same applies to an eastern component. There is no possible eastern component to the Coriolis force, by definition. This means that no observer can possibly see the Coriolis motion make a circle, except a latitudinal circle around the Earth over the span of 24 hours. If the Coriolis motion is never moving north, no possible observer can see it move north. The only observer that could see a Coriolis motion move north is an observer moving south, without knowing it. But that is not the case here. We do not have ignorant south-moving observers cataloging hurricanes, with hurricanes invisible to everyone else.

Another huge problem is encountered when we look at friction. The Coriolis curve can only be caused when the object making the curve has no friction. That is why "frictionless" or very low friction turntables are used when showing the effect at small scales. The reason we need no friction is that the curve is caused by the difference between an observer on the turntable moving with it (WITH friction), and an observed object moving without friction. The difference between no friction and friction causes the appearance of the curve. The observer spins and the observed object does not. Therefore, if the observer defines himself as motionless, he will see the object appear to curve. That is what the Coriolis motion is. But this means that whatever is claimed to be in Coriolis motion on the Earth should be frictionless or of very low friction. That isn't what we find. Water and air have lower friction than solids, but they are far from frictionless. We already know that both air and water are carried along to a large degree by the spin of the Earth, for if they weren't it would be quite obvious. The oceans would swamp all the Eastern shores, and the atmosphere would move to the west at a constant and high velocity. On the equator, the wind would always be blowing 1670 km/hr, which would be pretty hard to miss. It is true that friction isn't the only thing that prevents this, but it doesn't matter here. What matters is that the air and water are NOT moving like a frictionless ball moves south on a turntable. The air and water are moving with the Earth to a large degree, which means they are moving along with us spinning observers, which means we observers would not be expected to see much of a Coriolis effect. To the degree that the water and air spin with the Earth, the Coriolis effect is nullified. If the air is mostly moving along to the east with you, you cannot see it move to the west, can you?

To see how confused contemporary physics is once more, just look at the math they have included for Coriolis effect. This is the diagram:

As you see, they have their planet spinning east, and they are diagramming a point in the northern hemisphere. But they have the Coriolis force divided into vectors north and east! That is upside down. The Coriolis motion in the northern hemisphere is south and west. Actually, what they do is even nuttier than that. These vectors they have drawn are not Coriolis motions or forces at all, they are just samples of positive motion. They are letting east equal +x and north equal +y. Then they find that motion east creates an acceleration to the south and motion north creates an acceleration east. If you aren't confused by that, they haven't done their job, for the whole point of this math is to make your head spin. If you are dizzy enough, you will accept anything they say.

Ask yourself this: Why don't they just solve for a particle placed at that point, instead of creating these stupid initial motions? Because if they did that, you would discover that the Coriolis acceleration on that particle was south and west, the opposite of their drawn vectors. You would understand what the Coriolis force really was, and then all their other diagrams and explanations would begin to crumble in your mind. You see, this math and diagram are misdirections. They not only very cleverly hide from you the fact that the Coriolis motion must be south and west, they actually fool you into thinking it is or might be north and east. Most people won't pull apart the math like I did, they will just look at the drawn vectors, and they will think that the Coriolis acceleration can be north or east. If they think that, they won't question the other diagrams or math.

Again, consult the animation under title. The Coriolis motion is away from the center of the circle or away from the pole. That is the centrifugal part of the motion. The curve is opposite the direction of motion of the spin. So if the Earth is spinning east, the motion must be west. The Coriolis curve must be south and west in the northern hemisphere. It can't be anything but south and west, and it can't create little circles to suit these people.

To counter this, we are shown circles created on a parabolic turntable, as if that is to the point. It isn't to the point, since the Earth is not a parabolic turntable. But again, I don't have to do any math, I only have to point out that the Earth cannot be analogous to the parabolic turntable because we can now get off the Earth quite easily. We can look at the Earth from an inertial frame of reference just by hovering over one of the poles, and when we do that neither the inertial circles nor the opposite spinning weather supposedly created by them revert to straight lines. At Wiki we get very little on the parabolic turntable, but you can go here* to see how it works. To the scientist watching the turntable, the circles don't appear. You would have to go onto the turntable to see the circles. We know they are there by using a camera above the turntable, rotating with it at the same speed. Playing back the film, we see the inertial circles. But two things may be said against this, 1) I repeat that extending the poles of the Earth creates an inertial frame relative to the Earth. If you are off the Earth watching the Earth spin, you are like the scientist off the turntable watching it spin. You shouldn't see the circles or the weather they create. However, you do see the weather, therefore the theory is false. The circles aren't created that way. 2) Even if I can't convince you of that—because you believe (wrongly) that Einstein proved that no frames of reference are inertial—you should see that these inertial circles on the parabolic turntable aren't analogous to any possible motion on the Earth's surface, simply because they are caused by simple harmonic motion. You see, to create the circles, the physicists had to create harmonic motion. They needed a closed circuit, and that is what harmonic motion is. The ball on the parabolic turntable goes up and back, so it creates a closed circuit, both in the inertial frame and the non-inertial frame. But the Earth's surface isn't like that. They tell us that the Coriolis curve is parabolic in that the curvature increases with distance from the center or pole, but that is the curve of the moving body, not the curve of the Earth. The curve of the Earth is not parabolic, any more than the curve of a normal record player is parabolic. But if they were going to turn the flat record player into a parabola, to match it better to the math somehow, they should have built a convex parabola, not a concave parabola. The concave parabola, with the center lower than the edges, creates harmonic motion and a closed circuit. But the convex parabola can't do that, for obvious reasons. The object accelerates to the edge and then flies off. The thing is, the Earth is analogous to the convex parabola, not the concave parabola. We can see that just by looking at where the greatest velocities are. With the concave parabola, the greatest velocities are at the center. With the convex parabola, the greatest velocities are near the edges. The Earth is obviously a convex parabola, in that sense, in that the greatest velocities are near the equator. The least velocities are near the poles. And that is true both of velocities caused by spin and velocities due to the Coriolis motion. Therefore, the real Coriolis motion on the Earth cannot create a closed circuit. It gains velocity as it goes south until it reaches the equator, and then the acceleration stops (because the curvature of the Coriolis curve stops curving). The particle does not fly off the Earth, as it would the convex parabola, but it stays at the equator. It does not curve back up, because nothing is compelling it to do so. All this is very clear I hope, so you should see that the deflection into a concave parabola, and all the math included in that, is just another hoax. It allows these people to create a closed circuit where there logically cannot be one.

Wikipedia addresses this in only one sentence:

On a rotating planet, f varies with latitude and the paths of particles do not form exact circles. Since the parameter f varies as the sine of the latitude, the radius of the oscillations associated with a given speed are smallest at the poles and increase toward the equator.

Funny that these authors of a science information site have the time to include the math for the rotating sphere, the fictitious force, the Rossby number, the flight of the cannonball, the tossed ball, and the bounced ball, and have time to mention the Eötvös Effect, the parabolic turntable, ballistic missiles, and molecular physics, but do not have time to give us more than one sentence on this. All the other math and physics depends on this, but this is hidden from sight! Do you not find that the least bit strange? Well, I have shown it was not an oversight. This is all they have to say, because this is false. "They do not form exact circles" is hedging in the extreme, since I have shown that they do not form circles at all. And "the radius of the oscillations...are smallest at the poles and increase toward the equator" is also misleading, since, although it is true, it applies to one big curve, not a lot of isolated ones. If you do the math on the Earth, instead of on the parabolic turntable, you get one big Coriolis curve and no little inertial circles. That is precisely why they divert you off into the parabolic turntable. If the math and diagrams for the Earth showed you what they wanted you to believe, they would have just shown you that, right? Ask yourself why you need to be shown the parabolic turntable, when you can just as easily be shown the Earth. Instead, they have a section on the parabolic turntable, and no section on how the inertial circles are created on a sphere.

It is interesting to note that tornados are not explained by the Coriolis force, since it seems clear that such a small tight curve cannot be explained that way. Wikipedia says, "while tornado-associated centrifugal forces are quite substantial, Coriolis forces associated with tornados are for practical purposes negligible." But this doesn't prevent even tighter curves like drains from being explained by the Coriolis force. We don't get a Rossby number for drains, we just get some bad and limited experiments and the assurance that it must be the Coriolis force once again.

And this brings us back to the drain problem. Notice that drains in the northern hemisphere drain counter-clockwise, like the hurricane but not like the Coriolis motion. We should find that curious, because we now need a lot of low pressure system, gradient force gobbledygook to switch the direction there, too. We need a lot of very tiny inertial circles in your bathtub, surrounding areas of low pressure, like little gears and cogs. This would act to switch the clockwise Coriolis motion to the counter-clockwise drain motion.

Yes, I have uncovered another big farce. Meteorology and geophysics contain some good math and good models. They also contains a lot of very bad math and very bad models, as we have seen. The problem is that the theory under these vortex models, like the theory of tides, conceals a big hole. In the case of large weather patterns, we have the Coriolis Effect substituted for the charge field. Current physics doesn't have the charge field to work with, so it has to fill that hole somehow. In celestial mechanics, it fills that hole with Lagrangians and other fancy math. In these curves in wind and weather and water, it fills the hole with the Coriolis Effect. Likewise with many smaller effects, like the vortex of a drain. Without the charge field, physicists can only fall back on the Coriolis Effect. But I have shown that it doesn't work.

Notice that we would expect the charge field to act differently north and south, since the Earth is a sort of dipole. I have denied that charge is dipole by the old definitions, but I have not denied that the Earth acts as a dipole, with different charge motions at one pole than the other. These motions are not caused by repulsions and attractions, but they are real. In a nutshell, the spin of the Earth causes low charge pressure at the poles (by mechanical means only: see my other papers, most recently the ice age paper), which causes an intake of charge photons at the poles. But one pole intakes photons and the other intakes anti-photons. The Earth then recycles this charge, flinging it off most heavily at the equator (due simply to angular momentum peaks there). Although charge is heaviest at the equators, it is emitted everywhere. The photons and anti-photons remain semi-sorted, however, with one being emitted more heavily north and the other being emitted more heavily south. Again, this sorting is done strictly mechanically, with the division being caused by their initial velocities into the poles. They are diverted by existing charge fields in the Earth (electric and magnetic), but since they are coming from different directions, they are diverted in different arcs. This is what causes the split to remain split.

Now, the difference between photons and anti-photons is only a difference of spin. One is upside-down to the other. And it is this spin of the photons that causes magnetism, as I have shown in detail elsewhere. So the fact that you have more photons in one half and more anti-photons in the other means that the magnetism north and south will be reversed.

We already know that, in part. We don't know the cause, but we know the effect. We know the magnetism is reversed north and south, since that is what we mean by north and south poles. If the magnetism weren't reversed, both poles would be north, and a compass could point to either one, depending on your latitude. But the magnetism isn't just reversed at the poles. It is split from the equator out.

Because the charge field is different north and south, we would expect vortices to be different north and south. And this would apply to vortices of every size, large and small. Since the curves are not caused by position or by Coriolis pseudo-forces, there is no need to explain the vortices by lots of difficult math. Magnetism is caused by a real spin of a photon, so we can explain angular momenta all the way down to the size of a photon. Small vortices give us no theoretical problem. And larger vortices are just collections of smaller ones. Because the charge field is ubiquitous and quite strong everywhere on the Earth, every point on the Earth will have a predisposition to vortex one way or the other, depending on the phenomenon. But because friction and gravity are even stronger, these predispositions show themselves only in limited circumstances. They would be most likely to show themselves in liquids and gasses, of course, where friction is limited. And they would be most likely to show themselves in the presence of ions, the heavier the better. This is why they show themselves in weather: storms are strongly ionic. Water is also known to be a good conductor, especially salt or mineral water, so it is no surprise to find these vortices in water.

I would say that the interesting experiments have not yet been done in regards to this phenomenon. Vortex experiments should be done at equator and pole, and compared, not only for direction but speed. Then magnetic fields should be applied, to see how these affect the speed at both places. Then ions should be introduced in varying amounts, to see how this affects the speed of the vortex. Various liquids should be introduced as media for the vortices, using liquids of high and low conductivity. I expect the liquids with higher conductivity would create quicker vortices. Any or all of these experiments would immediately doom the Coriolis explanation, since the Coriolis Effect could not possibly be increased or decreased with ions, magnetism, or varying amounts of conductivity.

In closing, let us look at the actual curves. Current theory is forced to do a complete switch, since the Coriolis force would show hurricanes spinning clockwise and they actually spin counter-clockwise. Same with drains. This shows that data is never a very high wall to climb, given the right math. These mathematicians can turn night into day when they like. But with charge, we don't need to do that. Our charge photons are already spinning counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere, so we don't need to finesse pressure gradients to explain hurricanes. Photons spin counter-clockwise, they come in at the south pole, and they are emitted more heavily at the equator and in the north. Since they are always present, they predispose the entire unified field to spin with them, in the right circumstances. In most cases, the predisposition is only potential, but given enough ions and a lack of friction, it can be expressed. Since the cause is the actual field particle itself, we can explain any size vortex, even molecular or atomic vortices. We would expect material vortices to have a lower limit above the size of the ions present, since matter is normally driven by ions. That is, charge is normally expressed in the baryonic field via electricity and magnetism, which require ions. But at smaller scales, we would expect vortices caused by the photons directly.

I have shown that current Coriolis theory can't explain draining at the equator, so I should have to answer it myself. With the Coriolis explanation, there is no good way to explain draining near the equator, which is why it is the one question never asked or answered by the talking heads. Go ask it to your Google search engine. I did and I got nada. With Coriolis and Eotvos and the rest, we would expect drains to drain poorly on the equator and to have very little or no spin either way. That isn't what we find. How does my theory answer data? If we have a switch from CW to CCW photons, we should still have a line where the switch is made, right? Not really. With my theory, we can explain local variations somewhat more easily. Like this:

Some have thought that according to my theory of recycled charge, the equator must show more magnetism than other points on the Earth. Their reasoning was this: if more charge is being emitted there, and assuming no lack of ions there, we should see stronger magnetic fields. That is a logical conclusion, but it fails for this reason. We have more charge, yes, but we have both photons and anti-photons. Both are being emitted, and both are being emitted in large quantities. So unlike with Coriolis theory, the equator is not a zero line or a minimum line, it is a maximum line. It is the maximum for both photons and anti-photons. Well, since spins cancel, this would mean that the magnetism would cancel. So by this way of looking at it, we should have more electrical effects on the equator and less magnetism. In fact, the two mechanisms offset: high charge means more magnetism and the high presence of both spins damps this added magnetism back down to normal levels. So the equator is neither much more nor less magnetic than other points on the Earth. It has more charge, and so we would expect stronger electrical fields, but not magnetic fields. Since it is the magnetic fields that cause curves, we wouldn't expect drains to act differently on the equator.

You will say, "But if we have equal amounts of photons and anti-photons, the magnetism should be zero, right? That is how you are explaining the lack of magnetism of Venus, if I remember." That is right. So we don't have equal amounts of photons and anti-photons. The Earth is not recyling equal amounts of each. The strong magnetic fields here tell us that we have a predominance of one over the other, and that is because the ambient field from the galaxy and Sun is unbalanced. As we have seen from studying Venus, it is the fact that she is upside down that causes the lack of magnetism. She recycles plenty of charge, it just gets cancelled in terms of spin when it meets the ambient charge field.

So why is the galaxy producing more of one than the other? Because the galaxy is spinning one way and not the other. Why is the galaxy spinning one way and not the other? Because that is the way it happens to be positioned relative to other nearby galaxies. That is the way the "gears" set up here. And, yes, it could be otherwise. Not all galaxies spin the same way.

But back to the Earth. This must imply that the northern hemisphere should have more charge. Do we have any indication of that? Yes, we have many hurricanes in the North Atlantic, and almost none in the South Atlantic. Local magnetic fields hit a minimum in the southern hemisphere, in South Africa and South America.** We have more storms to the north overall, and although this used to be explained due to less detection in the south, this is no longer true. With satellite coverage of the entire Earth, we have found that there is indeed more "weather" in the north. This has also been attributed to greater landmasses in the north, but it may be that both the greater landmasses and the greater weather is caused by the same thing: more charge. Just as the planets inhabit the plane of greatest charge in the Solar System, it is probable that the land inhabits the area of greatest charge on the Earth. I will give you more reasons for that as my papers on charge continue to unfold.

I have said in many papers that celestial bodies emit more charge near the equator and less near the poles. In previous papers I provided a link from NASA of actual footage of the spinning Sun, and it is clear from a glance that more charge is being emitted near the Solar equator. Do we have any similar glaring evidence on the Earth? Yes. We have known since the 1960's that the ionosphere is considerably weaker near the poles. As just one example, we are told in a paper† by Grote Reber (a pioneer of radio astronomy) that

Since these long waves must get through the ionosphere, the best locations for observing will be where the electron density is lowest. Examination of a vast amount of ionospheric data disclosed that there are two bands of about 35o latitude radius centered on north and south magnetic magnetic poles that meet this requirement.

I have said that charge drives ions, and here we have direct and longstanding data that we have fewer electrons being driven near the poles. That is direct proof that we have less charge at the poles. The only way to deny it is to say that E/M isn't driven by charge. That would be novel, since all of QM and QED and QCD is based on the idea that E/M IS based on charge. I have never disagreed with mainstream theory in this, I have simply given charge a real presence, rather than a virtual presence. And I have given it a real presence at both the quantum and macro levels. We know from data of these charge holes at the poles, but they have never been explained. I have never seen an explanation attempted. But, as you see, it is a natural outcome of my theory of charge recycling. We have less charge at the poles because charge is coming in there, not being emitted there. So we wouldn't expect ions to be driven up. They would be driven down at the poles, if anything. And these ions moving toward the Earth would not impede incoming cosmic radiation like ions moving up.

More evidence we have for more charge in the north is that the Earth's magnetosphere is imbalanced to the south. The magnetosphere is not the same size top and bottom, as it would be with a true dipole. I have seen this attributed to the tilt of the Earth and other factors, but obviously it can't be tilt, since the Earth is sometimes tilted toward the Sun and sometimes away. If the tilt were the cause, the shape of the magnetosphere would switch every six months. Again, imbalanced charge (parity violation of the entire field) is the most logical answer.

For now, we will return to the spin of the Earth. I said near the top that charge not only caused the spin of hurricanes and so on, it also caused the spin of the Earth itself. How does it do that? Simple mechanics, as usual. All my photons, including charge photons, have real mass and angular momentum. Even standard-model photons have real momentum, for if they didn't we wouldn't have a photoelectric effect. Well, during this recycling of the charge field, the photons have to be curved or redirected by the interior of the Earth. I said above that this was done by fields, but that was shorthand, of course. In my theory, fields like this are collision fields. The entire charge field is a collision field, when you get right down to it. Just as with Feynman's sumovers, what you have with photons is a stupendous amount of field collisions, and you sum them to get your overall motion. Some photons will go right through the Earth without a collision. Some will crash head-on into an anti-photon, losing spin and energy and being "demagnetized". But the median or defining photon will appear to create a nice curve, going from south pole to just above the equator, say. The many collisions this photon encounters will sum into this curve, and the bulk of the photons will follow that curve, more or less. It would take a lot of math to show that curve, and this paper is already overly long, but I think that curve is fairly intuitive, once you understand the mechanics. If you have a spinning Earth and spinning photons, and a dipole configuration with opposite spins coming in at opposite poles, you are going to get curves. I hope you can see that without all the math.

And so, given that, you only need to add the fact that these collisions in the Earth's interior transfer momentum and angular momentum. When the photons collide with matter in the Earth, that matter feels a tiny push. If we sum all the collisions, the Earth feels a force. It feels a force in the direction of motion of the photons, it is that simple. We don't have to do any mathematical switcheroos. So, due to linear momentum, charge coming in at the poles tends to make the Earth a bit smaller, and charge going out at the equator tends to make the Earth a bit larger. That is the answer to that question, not the given one. The radius at the equator is greater due to photon pressure from within. And the Earth is flatter at the poles due to photon pressure from without. The angular momentum of the photons is transferred to the Earth in collision as well, causing spin.

This would create spin even if we only had photons coming in at one pole, but photons coming in both poles doubles the effect. Since I have shown we have more photons than antiphotons, we must have more flattening at one pole than the other. In fact, this is precisely what we find. The south pole has a fraction more flattening than the north pole, and this is the cause. The south pole is being flattened by the same cause that obliterates the nearside crust of the Moon: charge photon bombardment. Interestingly, I predicted this flattening before I knew of it. I wrote it into this paper, and only then Googled on it. Fortunately, I found this and much more. If you prefer the current answer to greater radius at the equator, consult the current answer for an explanation of more flattening at the south pole. The Earth's angular momentum obviously can't answer that one, nor can centrifugal forces. And gravity from the Moon can't answer it either. Charge is the pretty obvious answer, to this as well as to many other questions.

If you take that last link, you will find that we also have a small bulge at the north pole. Can current theory tell you why? No. But I saw the answer immediately. Since the ambient or Solar field is not balanced in terms of charge (see also my paper on parity violations), this causes an imbalance in matter/anti-matter. Yes, the Earth has more matter than antimatter (though it does have antimatter). This means that anti-photons are coming in at the north pole, there meeting a body composed of matter. This is not disallowed, but it does create a local field response. The incoming charge cancels the local charge, as a matter of spin, and the flattening that would normally take place is damped down locally. The flattening effect of the incoming particles is lessened, since they don't have an angular component to their momentum. This makes the local surface seem to rise relative to the area around it.

Because we have more charge entering the south pole, we should find that the aurora australis is more intense than the aurora borealis. I have no data on this. We should also find less local magnetism at the north pole than at the south. Again, I have no data on this.

For more on related topics, you can visit my paper on why warm air rises. Low pressure systems are currently explained by warm air rising, but there has never been a clear mechanical explanation of why warm air does rise. Again, I show we need the charge field to explain it. Other comments on weather and meteorology may be found in my paper on how various structures, including lightning rods, mountains, and pyramids, focus the charge field and thereby influence weather. My paper on atmospheric pressure may also interest some readers, since it is there that I do the math proving the presence of the charge field in the atmosphere.

*http://www-paoc.mit.edu/labweb/lab5/inertial%20circles/inertial_circle.pdf
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field#Field_characteristics
†http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/BigBang_Bunk.pdf p.3

If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.