River Police

[Hai-Etlik]

They Earth's rotation just distends the geoid, any effect on rivers is balanced out by the land over which they flow being distended too. So they flow down, whatever that is in their location and it can just as easily be away from the equator as toward it.

[Juggernaut1981]

@Jax: "Centripetal Force" is a fictitious force that makes it easier to explain inertia.
@NeonKnight: If we could stop the rotation of the earth, sea levels to the north and south of the equator would rise. But there is a bulging effect of the underlying landmass by the earth's rotation as well. I suspect that the show has been taken at least a little out of context but could also do with a good researcher.

As I've always said (and if you look further up), height above sea level will be a stronger effect than the rotation of the earth on river-paths.

[Hai-Etlik]

As I've always said (and if you look further up), height above sea level will be a stronger effect than the rotation of the earth on river-paths.

It isn't so much that that sea level (the geoid) is 'stronger' as that it already incorporates the effect of rotation.

[FarsightX3]

Obviously he's been chewing on this cud for quite some time and is still angry with Bartmoss for saying that he'd have trouble suspending his disbelief to accept "rivers as veins" and just about everyone here would back Bart up on that. The "offending" post is two months old so it's time for Farsight to drop that and get over it. Not everyone is going to accept your "veins" idea - the physics doesn't support it and the magic excuse stretches our beliefs and knowledge of the subject. Lashing out and saying that other maps with bad rivers don't get policed is flat out wrong and childish as we always point out those things. It's our job to help folks get their rivers correct; whether they accept it or not we point it out. Every map gets seen by us and sometimes one thing might slip through but 99% don't. Most of the time people get mad at us as well so you're not alone there. They also start trying to throw out every unnatural thing they can find on wikipedia to support their claims only to be pointed in the direction of what actually forms that unnatural thing and how their thing is different. Usually this is lakes with multiple outflows (it happens but only for a short time) or lakes having no outflow (these are lakes below sea level so water can't flow uphill to get out) or rivers connecting two oceans (only via man-made canals) or rivers splitting and not reconnecting (not going to happen outside of a delta). Lastly, no one ever said anything about rivers flowing north - you put that into your reply to Bart so your supporting evidence of the Mississippi River does nothing but support an offense that you, yourself, created in your own mind...go back and read the posts. Bottom line, learn to accept criticism like a grown-up...keep the rivers the way you want them but accept the fact that people in the know won't accept them the way that they are. It's your world so do with it as you will. Many folks who know nothing of this matter will accept your rivers without question and will think you to be elite or whatever slang is the new cool. Stomp around, break stuff, and get huffy but then read up on the subject and you'll calm down and maybe someday get to be a deputy. For what it's worth, the rest of the map looks okay (the climates are off but if the rivers are going to use the magic cop-out then so can the climates). I'm sure that I'm offending you as well but I know that I'll get over it...will you?

How did you tie my map to this post? I didn't even mention that. Do you read minds and know peoples intentions? I posted this because I always see someone complain about someones river being badly designed. "Because it flows northward or they don't come from mountains ect. It was just a post I thought I had and would like to share that many people criticize on here without knowledge. This thread has nothing to do with my world. But I really appreciate the personal attack. I am not here to impress anyone or not. I don't care if I am a "river police" on this forum. So next time, be mature and don't assume and insult me. Your post is words without knowledge.

[Redrobes]

If we can have a little calm... Farsight, can you post a link to the thread / post that said about the rivers running northwards being a problem. If the River Police have said that then I think we should have a look and comment there more than here in this thread. Which map is at the center of this issue ???

[LonewandererD]

Off Topic: Farsight, you realise by atacking a post by calling it immature and a personal attack is in itself immature and a personal attack. The River Police are here to help, they've called me out plenty of times and I've evolved my practice because of it, they are not law they are advisory you can always choose not to listen. Please, someone call me out if I've overstepped myself, I just felt like it need to be said.

On Topic: From the point of view of person who has a rather limited view of physics I sort of understand and support the idea of water on a rotating globe moving away from axial points and towards the equator but sinse the world is so big and moving at a slower steady rate this effect would be easily trumped by topography and other environmental factors. Though I suppose the idea that rivers don't flow north might have been born form the pseudo-practice that many people seem to draw their maps from a northern hemisphere point of view and naturally draw their rivers going south, I'm guilty of this on many accounts as I find the idea of a river flowing "up" a page or north on a northern hemisphere map as being slightly unnatural. That's just my opinion.

-D-

[NeonKnight]

Actually the Earth DOES bulge at the equator, it's not a sphere. (This is not "from the water" but because of the centrifugal force of the planet's rotation.) It's just that the effect is totally negligible for most purposes, and certainly for the flow of rivers.

About that show, well... yeah, sounds like a time waster. Otoh without having actually watched it, who knows, might be a fun thought experiment.

That's what the AFTERMATH series is: Fun Thought Experiments. What of the Earth Stopped Spinning (Based on actual Scientific fact, the earth IS Slowing down, this program is a WHAT if instead of millenium it took 6 years instead.)

Other programs in the series, is WHAT IF ALL THE OIL SUDDENLY RAN OUT, and WHAT IF THE SUN SUDDENLY TURNED INTO A RED GIANT, and WHAT IF WE GOT HIT BY A MASSIVE SOLAR FLARE.

The programs are interesting and put things of the BILLIONS OF YEARS into the Span of a few.

[Jaxilon]

Off topic:

@Jax: "Centripetal Force" is a fictitious force that makes it easier to explain inertia.

Right on, except I think you mean "Centrifugal Force" is the fictitious one used to explain inertia.
Reality is that everything moving wants to travel in a straight line and unless there is some force manipulating it that's what it will do.

On topic:
I'm a fantasy cartographer.

[Juggernaut1981]

It isn't so much that that sea level (the geoid) is 'stronger' as that it already incorporates the effect of rotation.

In this case, gravity and friction beats the rotational forces (i.e. height above sea level and finding the shortest least-resistant path).

Soak a tennis ball in water, spin it say through a stick and the ends closest to the stick will dry fastest. The rotation will cause the liquid to gather at the point of greatest distance from the stick before it is flicked off and by liquid tension draws the rest of the liquid down to that same place where it will be flicked off. If you covered the ball in all sorts of bumps, then you'd have some 'above sea level' aspect, but the force of the rotation would trump the friction and gravitation of the ball.

[RobA]

Hehe, total hi-jack but there's an interesting conversation: is centrifugal force a fictitious force?

'Nuff said.

-Rob A>