I'm aware that I'm likely coming across as curmudgeonly. My other half is a science educator, so I'm also very aware of the problems of getting kids (or even a

I'm aware that I'm likely coming across as curmudgeonly. My other half is a science educator, so I'm also very aware of the problems of getting kids (or even adults) excited about science. On the other hand, I don't like the pseudo-science cruft the media and our society is full of, and I suspect there's some vague links between misrepresenting what the scientific method actually looks like, and people taking advantage of that growing murkiness. I'm not questioning the credentials of these guys. Just the validity of this ersatz experiment. > ... gotten some sensor experts to see if they could quantify the "stillness" of the water, etc. They did have some archetypal (glasses-wearing) geek do a quick sound bite towards the beginning describing the effect being observed at small scales as 'bunk', but that's all we get from that side of the argument. Interestingly in the video you can clearly see there's direct sunlight hitting one side of the indoor pool, and parts of the outdoor one. And during the time lapse section of the video, you can see surface debris on the indoor pool swirling around. If the Coriolis effect worked at this scale, then you'd see consistent circular motion of water in these sized tubs even without emptying.