Claim register
Claim Evaluation
Every claim is stated exactly, traced to its origin, and evaluated against the best supporting and the best opposing case. Scientific claims must expose their full reasoning chain — observation, measurement, calculation, prediction, physical test, result, replication — and declare per-model predictions BEFORE the result is shown. Appeals to authority (“science says”, “experts agree”, “the math proves it”, “settled”) are not evidence. Confidence is authored, not tallied. Preserve disagreement rather than force a conclusion.
- Incomplete — primary sources not yet ingestedThe universal comparison scaffold below is a placeholder. Do not treat empty sections as evidence.
Coriolis deflection in artillery, ballistics, and weather
UnresolvedLong-range ballistic trajectories and large-scale atmospheric flows show a deflection consistent with a Coriolis parameter f = 2 Ω sin(φ).
Origin: Topic acknowledged; primary sources not yet ingested into this record.
Best supporting case
Awaiting primary-source ingest before an authored comparison.
Best opposing case
Awaiting primary-source ingest before an authored comparison.
Evidence
Universal comparison · who claims what, and how each model explains it
ExperimentalWho makes the claim: Ballistics tables of major militaries; standard meteorology.Scope: See exact wording for scope and definitions; further scoping to follow with primary sources.
Flat / enclosed model
What it says: Observed deflections are explained by wind, aerodynamics, and target motion without a rotating Earth.
Required assumptions: earth-oblate-spheroid
Strongest objection: Awaiting primary-source ingest.
Falsifier: A ballistic dataset spanning multiple latitudes whose deflection tracks f = 2 Ω sin(φ) after wind correction.
Globe model
What it says: Ballistic and meteorological corrections match Coriolis with Ω ≈ 7.29e-5 rad/s.
Required assumptions: earth-oblate-spheroid
Strongest objection: Awaiting primary-source ingest.
Falsifier: A well-instrumented long-range firing programme finding zero latitude-dependent deflection after wind correction.
Circular-reasoning check
No circular-reasoning risks identified in the authored evidence chain.
Knowledge library · claim → equation → law → assumptions
Laws / principles
Theories / models
Assumptions
Hidden assumptions
— none recorded —
Missing evidence
- Primary sources for the flat-model explanation.
- Primary sources for the globe-model explanation.
- At least one reproducible physical test with independent replication.
Contradictions
— none recorded —
Reproducibility
- Not yet documented in this record.
Confidence · not_rated
This record is a structural placeholder. Confidence will only be rated once primary sources and reasoning chain are authored.
Confidence is authored, not tallied. It reflects primary vs. secondary evidence, source independence, methodology, conflicts, and reproducibility — not the count of sources.