The French scientist, engineer and physicist Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis described the effect in 1835, which was later named after him. The essence of this effect is that in a frame of reference that rotates, for example, the surface of the earth, it will seem to the observer that all bodies move along a curved path.
However, Christopher Granny of Louisville Tech and the Jefferson Society was able to figure out that the discovery was outlined two hundred years earlier. In 1651, the Italian astronomer Giovanni Riccioli published 77 arguments about the inconsistency of Copernicus' theory. In them, he tried to prove that the motion of celestial bodies is of a different nature than the rotation of the Earth around the Sun and its axis. He argued that in this case, Hell would not be in the place where it should be, and the whole "aesthetics of space" would be violated.
In addition, Riccioli described that if the planet Earth really rotated, then its speed at different latitudes would be different. He argued that if Copernicus were right, then the cannonball that was fired from a cannon at the equator towards the north or south would in any case deflect to the west or east, since during the flight of the projectile the earth underneath it would move. A similar effect was not known then, and therefore Richolli was mistaken, believing that the Earth does not rotate.
Of course, the merit of Coriolis is undeniable, since, unlike Richolli, he explained the existence of such a phenomenon. Of course, it will not be possible to see this effect on the flight of the nucleus, since it manifests itself only in large systems such as ocean currents and weather conditions.
In addition, Coriolis was able to understand that in addition to shots from the equator, objects that move in any direction, and not only to the south or north, should be deflected.
According to Mr. Granny, Ricolli is often undeservedly ignored by historians because of his anti-Copernican theory. Although, in the absence of accurate measurements, the Italian scientist made quite reasonable arguments. Apparently, the author of the "New Almagest" was a real scientist, and not a stupid obscurantist who blindly denied the heliocentric model of the world.