I think that it the last message here because I am now criticizing a 42k member, but at least my heart is now lighter.
The reason: Water swirl according to hemisphere: video
You see how someone purportedly demonstrate the inversion of the water swirl direction if you move over the equator. I tried to demonstrate in this article that it is a fake: The demonstrator imparts the desired rotation by pouring in water from the correct corner, so it has nothing to do with switching from North to South, but only with the will of the demonstrator.
I added also a theoretical argument that due to Polar motion the equator is not fixed: It could move several meters so by moving only a few meters you could be still on the wrong hemisphere.
The moderator firstly added the standard sticker "unreferenced claims". Ok. Being wonderful unspecific, I asked for clarification.
a) He claimed that my explanation does not fit the specific video when it fact it does ?? b) He claimed in the second paragraph that it is unclear that the Coriolis effect has any relevance (??), what is exactly what I am saying (??).
I said that to him and his "answer" was deleting my answer to avoid conflict.
His behavior is also apparent in the "dress question": Several people pointed out that the perception effect is real (Some people see it really as white-gold due to ambigous lighting and color-constancy), but if you read his replies it seems that he simply does not understand this:
"I see no claim that it changes color anywhere." or "I've removed the speculative part. Note that the answer is trivial. The pixels of the image are blue. One just needs to find someone that has done the analysis."
and even decry people with:
"The problem with the "change color" claim is that I see it red and pink. Sometimes it's actually rainbow colored. I am lying, but you can't disprove me."
His claim: "No, but it's clearly unanswerable beyond anecdotal evidence/opinion/hearsay. Even beyond that, the question is clearly about a current unresolved event."
is bullshit. It is color-constancy in action, a well-known, proven and reproducible effect .
He misreads question and answers, belittles people and if challenged tries to choke discussion and I have yet find a case where he said: "I am very sorry, I was completely wrong".
If I need to be thrown out of skeptics to say that, be it.
ANSWER TO RESPONSE BELOW:
I need some length to explain and visible quotations.
Your first claim "Your claim that it's a trick and how it works. The OP is asking specifically about this video." does not reconcile with your claim here "I agree that this is probably the correct answer". The first claim indicates that it is not answering the specific question, the second claim admits that it is a correct answer ? Are you actually aware that they are contradictory statements ?
And if it was a correct answer, why did you delete it ? You removed it after I answered your claims in the comments and this move was denying me the opportunity to answer in the public so I needed to bring it up here.
Your accusation "however you need to provide evidence that pouring water from a corner provides enough angular momentum" is also incorrect.
There is a priority list what constitutes evidence.
One of the weaker things is a reference in the journal. The journal could be phony, the author could be in error or lying and the conclusions could be errornous because you have not the complete overview. In fact, you are trusting.
Experimental evidence in contrast beats references hands down. You are trying to replicate the findings of the journal or find something out about nature, you do not need to "trust" anyone, nature himself gives you the answer.
If people now cannot reproduce your findings easily, it constitutes "original research". You have no idea how trustworthy the source is, so it not a reliable source. If on the other hand you (and everyone) can reproduce the claim at once, it is the best evidence one can ask for.
And this is one of the rare, but not too rare instances where people can check a claim for themselves (like the Arago spot, the oil film to find out the approximate size of atoms). Pouring water in different corners will induce the desired rotation (Did you do the experiment, for curiosity ?).
If you try to raise trouble by denying that and insisting on references, I bring up the question on physics and innocently ask without telling names or the article: "Hey, I have this guy who believes that references are worthier than direct experimental evidence. What do you think of it ?". I may be wrong, but you should really ask other people if my stance has a certain amount of merit.
For the dress: Your remark about the "Note that the answer is trivial. The pixel colors are blue" came after the changes and in the comment section with coleo it is evident that you are fighting tooth and nail with comments like "not even a truly notable claim" and dismissing expert opinions as speculation. I cannot see the original question, but the dress actually changes color in perception so the original question may be right and eglible. It turns for some people (including me) from white-gold (first time) to black-blue.
