Curvature effects = DePalma spinning effect on ballistics.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2029817#msg2029817 (part I)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069 (part II, formula)
For artillery projectiles spin rates in the order of 20,000 revolutions per minute are needed, rifle bullets are an order of magnitude greater.
The rotation of the projectile (its spinning rate) will radically alter both its mass and its inertia.
The rotation produces a TORSION FIELD which will attract the Whittaker potential waves (ether longitudinal waves) thus forming an ether vortex around the projectile which will impart antigravitational properties.
The magnitude of this effect is totally unaccounted for by modern science, in fact it is attributed to curvature calculations.
The high spinning rate of the projectile will be subjected to the Coriolis effect of the ether drift.
The Coriolis force exists only when one uses a rotating reference frame.
Either the Earth's supposed rotation, OR the ether drift's rotation above the surface of the Earth.
The high spinning rate of the projectile will be subjected to the Coriolis effect of the ether drift.
Next we can look at the fact shooting west to east or east to west there is no sideways drift of the neither launch site, projectile or target location.
There is on raise or drop of the target depending on which direction you shoot.
Shooting east the target drops so you hit high.
Shooting west the target raises so you hit low.
How does the FET and models explain this?
Yes, this is the Eotvos effect.
This is not the centrifugal RE force at all.
It has everything to do with the direction of both the laevorotatory scalar telluric longitudinal waves (antigravitational) and the dextrorotatory waves (gravitational).
Few scientists understand that the Eotvos effect cannot be explained by attractive gravitation.
The gravitational anomalies discovered by Roland Eotvos remain completely unexplained by modern science:
http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02054/html/onehund.html
Next we can look at the fact shooting west to east or east to west there is no sideways drift of the neither launch site, projectile or target location.
There is on raise or drop of the target depending on which direction you shoot.
Shooting east the target drops so you hit high.
Shooting west the target raises so you hit low.
How does the FET and models explain this?
Yes, this is the Eotvos effect.
This is not the centrifugal RE force at all.
It has everything to do with the direction of both the laevorotatory scalar telluric longitudinal waves (antigravitational) and the dextrorotatory waves (gravitational).
Few scientists understand that the Eotvos effect cannot be explained by attractive gravitation.
The gravitational anomalies discovered by Roland Eotvos remain completely unexplained by modern science:
http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02054/html/onehund.html
The gravitational anomaly discovered by Roland Eotvos is not the same as the Eotvos effect (vertical displacement of the projectile), yet they are caused by the same phenomenon.
E.T. Whittaker proved the existence of the longitudinal waves:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059
In comparison the force of gravity is so strong you can watch stuff fall to the earth while it has limited effect on seeding bullets.
Here is a force which is stronger than the force of gravity: the Biefeld-Brown antigravitational effect.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2031282#msg2031282
Or the Allais antigravitational effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382
Once that "fifth force" is activated (a very strong electrical field, sound, double torsion) it becomes much stronger than the force of terrestrial gravity.
"Well gentlemen, we will undertake this, although my conviction is strong that we shall prove only that the earth rotates on its axis, a conclusion which I think we may be said to be sure of already."
A. Michelson
This is the formula published by Michelson in 1904 and 1925:
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image004.png)
However, this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA for circuital light beams.
Here it is:
Δt = 4AΩsinΦ/c^2 (where Φ is the latitude)
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
The same formula was derived by Dr. Ludwik Silberstein in 1921:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289
That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
It is a physical effect, it deflects the path of the light beams.
By constrast, the rotational Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect, it modifies the speed of the light beams.
Michelson and Gale ONLY recorded the Coriolis effect of the ether drift upon the light beams; no rotational Sagnac effect was detected.
Here is the derivation of the rotational Sagnac effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070082#msg2070082
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070907#msg2070907
The Sagnac effect formula is proportional to the radius of the Earth, while the Coriolis effect is proportional to the area of the interferometer and thus thousands of times smaller in magnitude than the Sagnac effect.
snadokhan this is the stuff you're trying to apply as evidence to confirmation of some kind kind of effect on ballistic. It does not in any way have anything to do with ballistics and the Coriolis effect.
Sandokhan, you keep referencing the ether. As far as I know, the ether has no scientific evidence to support its existence, and in fact has been proven to not exist. But, by referencing it, you must have some evidence that supports its existence, right? May I see it?
Sandokhan, you keep referencing the ether. As far as I know, the ether has no scientific evidence to support its existence, and in fact has been proven to not exist. But, by referencing it, you must have some evidence that supports its existence, right? May I see it?
The problem with information sandokhan shares is it's basically antique and like the Ether drift theory has been disproved by modern equipment, technology and higher educated scientist.
All of the experiments, tests, hypothesis theories, formulas, etc come from 50 to 400 years ago.
The Ether Drift theory has been disprove multiple times and to my knowledge had never been replicated by any other scientific experiment throughout history other than the one that was flawed in the first place.
An Explanation of Dayton Miller’s
Anomalous “Ether Drift” Result
https://arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0608/0608238v2.pdf
Here is the formula for the Coriolis deflection of a projectile:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a010816.pdf
Use it appropiately.
Here is the formula for the Coriolis deflection of a projectile:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a010816.pdf
Do you understand now?
Great, I love to be disappointed.
Now disappoint me again by demonstrating how you use this formula:
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
to solve this problem without any help of a spinning earth:
We have 2 canons, one on 30°0′N and the second exactly 50 miles north of the first one
The two canons are pointed at each other and loaded with a shell that will rotate with 20,000 r/minute.
They are aimed to hit each other with their shell, but the Cannoneers did not yet take the Coriolis effect in account because they do not know how to calculate it.
Show us how you use this formula and calculate for them how many inches or feet they have to aim their canons to the right, or left (or up or down) to get a direct hit.
Sandokhan this is, well, wow, your really smart.
"Here is one of the most sought-after formulas, which no other physicist, not even Nobel prize winners, was able to derive it. But I was."
You should be able to solve Humble B's puzzle with a simple formula and explanation that an 8th grader can understand
Sandokhan this is, well, wow, your really smart.
"Here is one of the most sought-after formulas, which no other physicist, not even Nobel prize winners, was able to derive it. But I was."
You should be able to solve Humble B's puzzle with a simple formula and explanation that an 8th grader can understand
Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
to solve this problem without any help of a spinning earth:
If you disagree, you are going to have to disprove Mach's principle.
Please post a formula that solves Humble B's puzzle that I, with only a high school education from 45 years ago, can understand.
I already did, even twice already.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a010816.pdf
Please try and understand.
You are attempting to use the Coriolis force as some kind of an argument to prove heliocentricity.
And you cannot do that: it cannot be done.
The Coriolis force, involving rotation, is a valid argument for BOTH heliocentrists and geocentrists.
Mach's principle, which has been shown to be true by both Thirring and Born, shows that "the two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS".
One valid formula to be used by both heliocentrists and geocentrists.
The Coriolis effect is a physical effect.
To distinguish between heliocentricity and geocentricity you need the Sagnac effect, namely my formula, the best ever in the field:
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
It took me all of 30 seconds, but I found a video to, hopefully, help Tom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs)
It was the first one that came up when i searched "coriolis effect, bullet shot east and west"
It is clear to me the east target they hit high high of the center, with exeption of one that hits near center but not bellow.It took me all of 30 seconds, but I found a video to, hopefully, help Tom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs)
It was the first one that came up when i searched "coriolis effect, bullet shot east and west"
On the East target:
(https://i.imgur.com/mSnBGDV.png)
On the West target:
(https://i.imgur.com/0Zl4kWr.png)
I do not see that the bullets drifted to the opposite direction. On the Western trial the bullets just seem to drop downwards, with bullet holes appearing very slightly to both the left and right sides of the target.
How does this support or demonstrate a Round Earth model?
Therefore, distant rotary masses can cause local inertial forces, like the Coriolis and centrifugal forces
There's a number of things we are all in agreement of.
#1 there's a force that causes a projectile to hit to the right(to the east) of the target when fired from the equator northward in northern hemisphere.
#2 there is no lateral deflection in either direction shooting to the west or to the east.
There's a number of things we are all in agreement of.
#1 there's a force that causes a projectile to hit to the right(to the east) of the target when fired from the equator northward in northern hemisphere.
#2 there is no lateral deflection in either direction shooting to the west or to the east.
Where did you prove any of that?
There's a number of things we are all in agreement of.
#1 there's a force that causes a projectile to hit to the right(to the east) of the target when fired from the equator northward in northern hemisphere.
#2 there is no lateral deflection in either direction shooting to the west or to the east.
Where did you prove any of that?
Thanks stack for bringing these facts up.There's a number of things we are all in agreement of.
#1 there's a force that causes a projectile to hit to the right(to the east) of the target when fired from the equator northward in northern hemisphere.
#2 there is no lateral deflection in either direction shooting to the west or to the east.
Where did you prove any of that?
Just for the record, sniper ballistics software takes into account the Coriolis effect. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps use handheld ballistic computers (PDA’s) loaded with Horus Vision targeting software. The software takes into account, as well as many other factors, the Coriolis Effect as a part of its calculations.
"These formulas take in all the factors governing bullet flight from the point of launch to target strike. Included amongst these are bullet weight, shape, and drag contributors, muzzle velocity, rifling twist rate and direction (as viewed from the chamber end of the barrel). Atmospheric considerations such as air density, humidity and range-wind are addressed, along with Earth ‘rotation effects’ (coriolis) and, of course, the location and behavior of the target."
https://www.horusvision.com/download/manual_Horus_ATrag-v385.pdf
Just for the record, sniper ballistics software takes into account the Coriolis effect. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps use handheld ballistic computers (PDA’s) loaded with Horus Vision targeting software. The software takes into account, as well as many other factors, the Coriolis Effect as a part of its calculations.
"These formulas take in all the factors governing bullet flight from the point of launch to target strike. Included amongst these are bullet weight, shape, and drag contributors, muzzle velocity, rifling twist rate and direction (as viewed from the chamber end of the barrel). Atmospheric considerations such as air density, humidity and range-wind are addressed, along with Earth ‘rotation effects’ (coriolis) and, of course, the location and behavior of the target."
https://www.horusvision.com/download/manual_Horus_ATrag-v385.pdf
Just for the record, sniper ballistics software takes into account the Coriolis effect. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps use handheld ballistic computers (PDA’s) loaded with Horus Vision targeting software. The software takes into account, as well as many other factors, the Coriolis Effect as a part of its calculations.
"These formulas take in all the factors governing bullet flight from the point of launch to target strike. Included amongst these are bullet weight, shape, and drag contributors, muzzle velocity, rifling twist rate and direction (as viewed from the chamber end of the barrel). Atmospheric considerations such as air density, humidity and range-wind are addressed, along with Earth ‘rotation effects’ (coriolis) and, of course, the location and behavior of the target."
https://www.horusvision.com/download/manual_Horus_ATrag-v385.pdf
Please provide actual evidence that this effect actually exists. What you have provided is not actual evidence. It is not actual evidence because you have provided no experimental evidence that this effect exists, or that this software accurately predicts it.
Ideally, a firing table enables the artilleryman to solve his fire problem and to hit the target with the first round fired. In the present state of the art, this goal is seldom achieved, except coincidentally. The use of one or more forward observers, in conjunction with the use of a firing table, enables the artilleryman to adjust his fire and hit the target with the third or fourth round fired.
VIII. Tycho also argues that if the cannon experiment were performed at the
poles of the Earth, where the ground speed produced by the diurnal motion is
diminished, then the result of the experiment would be the same regardless of
toward which part of the horizon the cannon was fired. However, if the experiment
were performed near the equator, where the ground speed is greatest, the result
would be different when the ball is hurled East or West, than when hurled North or
South.
The form of the argument is thus: If Earth is moved with diurnal motion, a ball fired
from a cannon in a consistent manner would pass through a different trajectory when hurled
near the poles or toward the poles, than when hurled along the parallels nearer to the Equator,
or when hurled into the South or North. But this is contrary to experience. Therefore, Earth is
not moved by diurnal motion.
If Tycho is to be believed, experiments have shown this to be correct. Moreover,
if a ball is fired along a Meridian toward the pole (rather than toward the East or
West), diurnal motion will cause the ball to be carried off [i.e. the trajectory of the
ball is deflected], all things being equal: for on parallels nearer the poles, the ground
moves more slowly, whereas on parallels nearer the equator, the ground moves more
rapidly.7
The Copernican response to this argument is to deny it, or to concede it but claim
that the differences in trajectory fall below our ability to measure. But in fact the
argument is strong, and this response is not.
None of the above examples of what should happen if the Earth moves are in
accord with what we see. Therefore, the Earth does not move with diurnal, much less
annual, motion.
Where are the artillery experiments with and without this very slight adjustment?
There is no evidence. You are posting heresy and hypothesis, not evidence.
The famous astronomer Tycho Bache and his research organization, which was the largest astronomical organization of his time, financed with 5% of the federal budget of the Danish Government, conducted artillery experiments and found no effect due to the rotation of the earth.
Astronomer Giovanni Riccioli describes here:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.3642.pdfQuoteVIII. Tycho also argues that if the cannon experiment were performed at the
poles of the Earth, where the ground speed produced by the diurnal motion is
diminished, then the result of the experiment would be the same regardless of
toward which part of the horizon the cannon was fired. However, if the experiment
were performed near the equator, where the ground speed is greatest, the result
would be different when the ball is hurled East or West, than when hurled North or
South.
The form of the argument is thus: If Earth is moved with diurnal motion, a ball fired
from a cannon in a consistent manner would pass through a different trajectory when hurled
near the poles or toward the poles, than when hurled along the parallels nearer to the Equator,
or when hurled into the South or North. But this is contrary to experience. Therefore, Earth is
not moved by diurnal motion.
If Tycho is to be believed, experiments have shown this to be correct. Moreover,
if a ball is fired along a Meridian toward the pole (rather than toward the East or
West), diurnal motion will cause the ball to be carried off [i.e. the trajectory of the
ball is deflected], all things being equal: for on parallels nearer the poles, the ground
moves more slowly, whereas on parallels nearer the equator, the ground moves more
rapidly.7
The Copernican response to this argument is to deny it, or to concede it but claim
that the differences in trajectory fall below our ability to measure. But in fact the
argument is strong, and this response is not.
Riccioli concludes with:QuoteNone of the above examples of what should happen if the Earth moves are in
accord with what we see. Therefore, the Earth does not move with diurnal, much less
annual, motion.
I'll just post this again. I would direct you in particular to page 211 and the section marked '2. Impeded Fall' as the best location for an experiment that repeatedly showed a deflection concurrent with the Coriolis force, to within a probability error of within 0.03. As well, before Tom can crow about it again, the notation in there discussing 'no experimental proof' is clearly referring to the claimed S/N drift they also tested for, but whose probability error was close to 0.10, outside a suitable confidence interval to claim they had measured it.Why? They discuss the same effect. The distance being by necessity much short, and the object being fired much larger. I see nothing about either experiment that require their conclusions, rather than the fact the distances and etc they are using will not produce a noticeable enough effect for instruments at that time. Let me see if I can dig up the source and info I used last time you posted this.An yet every long range shooter is taught how to take both the Coriolis Effect, and the Eötvös effect into account for firing of ballistic weapons. The horizontal difference of a shot fired at a pole (where the Coriolis effect is strongest) is in the range of 4 inches for a shot at 1000 yards. Why continue with this teaching if there's no such thing to account for? Is this another group that is 'in' on the conspiracy? The distances done in most of these experiments fall well within the error range of the ability to measure the change as I recall the last time this was brought up. But sure, claiming the expected movement isn't an appreciable amount at the distances tested 'isn't a strong case' is where you prefer to lay your chips. Sounds good.
Maybe they are taught to account for some slight effect. We tends to describe the Coriolis Effect as a result of slight gravitational pull from the moving stars in some of our models.
But the effects and maths Tycho and Riccioli discuss are different and should be more pronounced if the earth were rotating, and the analysis directly asses the concept of a rotating earth and what it should produce.
EDIT: Ah, here we are. Apologies, this doesn't reference Tycho specifically, but it does mention cannon experiments in general and how they are wholly inadequate and too inaccurate to measure the effect. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1913PA.....21..208R
I would also once again point out Tycho would have had an inherent bias in regards to wanting to believe/prove the Earth doesn't rotate due to beliefs at the time.
I'll just post this again. I would direct you in particular to page 211 and the section marked '2. Impeded Fall' as the best location for an experiment that repeatedly showed a deflection concurrent with the Coriolis force, to within a probability error of within 0.03. As well, before Tom can crow about it again, the notation in there discussing 'no experimental proof' is clearly referring to the claimed S/N drift they also tested for, but whose probability error was close to 0.10, outside a suitable confidence interval to claim they had measured it.
Guglielmini at Bolgona in 1790 was the first to experiment with bodies falling from a height. He used lead balls accurately turned and polished. He suspended each one by a thread attached to that point of the ball which was on top when it was floated in mercury. He cut the thread with a knife and allowed the ball to fall 90 feet. Unfortunately it was only after six months that he suspends a plumb line at the place in order to find the deviation of the balls from the vertical. He neither tells us from what point of the compass the threads were cut, nor the bearing of the sides of the tower.
Benzenberg repeated these experiments at Hamburg in 1802, using generally a fall of 235 feet. He observed during the day time, while his predecessor worked after midnight. But he took the precaution to suspend his plumbline immediately before and after each set of falls, and to cut the thread half of the time from the north and the other half from the south. The median was found by means of a compass needle. The balls were an alloy of lead and zinc. As the extreme deviations of his balls from the vertical are nine times the mean distance of all and, as according to his own statement, the sun, coming out of the clouds at noon, upon one occasion, warmed the south side of his wooden tower so much as to throw his plumb line 1.5 lines towards the north, Benzenberg's results, like those of Guglielmini, cannot be considered to offer even a qualitative proof of the earth's rotation. [Read: "He said documented something odd that happened on one occasion, which changed a marker that he could see moving, so that means that all of the trials are invalid!!"]
P. 210
Benzenberg also dropped 40 balls in a mine at Schebusch from a height of 262 Paris feet, but gives the results of only 28 of these. Gilbert says that neither of these two attempts of Benzenberg's have any scientific value. [Read: "I need to give no reason, it's obviously an invalid experiment!"]
...
Hooke's trials before the Royal Society in London in 1680 have only an historic value. He affirmed that the fall of a heavy body would be more to the south than to the east. As the height used was only 27 feet and the theoretical easterly deviation less than half a millimeter, Gilbert declares him to be under an illusion. [Read: Ignoring that Hooke was a Royal Astronomer and knew what the results should be, his experiments dismissed because it just sounds like too small of a drop]
Similar judgments must be meted out to other minor experimenters, whose names and results are scarcely worth mentioning. [ie. "I judge a whole range of experiments which I will not even describe here to be insufficient!"]
EDIT: Ah, here we are. Apologies, this doesn't reference Tycho specifically, but it does mention cannon experiments in general and how they are wholly inadequate and too inaccurate to measure the effect.
I would also once again point out Tycho would have had an inherent bias in regards to wanting to believe/prove the Earth doesn't rotate due to beliefs at the time.
"FM 4-15 Coast Artillery Field Manual, Seacoast Artillery, Fire Control and Position Finding 1943"
https://i.imgur.com/hxcnuGw.jpg
https://archive.org/details/Fm4-15/page/n371
Search on ‘rotation’ and you’ll find dozens more references to the rotation of earth.
"FM 4-15 Coast Artillery Field Manual, Seacoast Artillery, Fire Control and Position Finding 1943"
https://i.imgur.com/hxcnuGw.jpg
https://archive.org/details/Fm4-15/page/n371
Search on ‘rotation’ and you’ll find dozens more references to the rotation of earth.
We know that there are a lot of people who think it exists and write about it. However, it would be a much stronger argument to show that there have been artillery experiments on reality to directly demonstrate the matter, rather than words about theory or supposition of what slight adjustments should be made.
Dismissing experiments for some made up reason is the very definition of bias. In fact, cherry-picking what you want to see, without mentioning the results of the scores of experiments you dismiss, makes you a liar.Dude, that's pretty much your MO. You do this all the time.
Yeah...errr...wait...what!?!?
Do you understand now?
Yes, now I understand that you do not understand your own theory yourself, and that you try to hide that by burying those who question it under mountains of irrelevant scientific and pseudo-scientific wrangling and studies of which only people with a PhD in Quantum Physics and General Relativity can tell if they make any sense or not.
When you know that "The Coriolis effect is just a physical effect" of one body moving over the surface of an other body, you ought to understand that just plain classical mechanics is sufficient to explain and calculate this Coriolis effect, and that referring to all those non-related studies you are referring to only serves the goal of blurring the picture to hide the truth that your "drifting aether theory" did never surpass the low level of useless phantasies.You offer up judgment again having nothing to justify your supposed point.
Because in physics the difference between accepted scientific theories and useless phantasies is that the first ones have delivered a bunch of new formula's that can be used and tested and have proven to be reliable and useful in the real world of real physics. While the latter, the useless phantasies, never give birth to new formulas that can be tested and used to prove the phantasy more than just a phantasy.sandokhan has provided relevant topical content to this OP and your failure to understand it is not his problem.
That's why that as long as your "spinning aether phantasy" does not deliver any new formula's that successfully can and will be used to calculate the Coriolis force, or the torque and precession of a spinning gyroscope without the help of a spinning ball, your phantasies will never be accepted as theory, but always be mocked as a useless phantasy haunting the dark caverns of junk science.Oh, I see...
That maybe more difficult to perform than you are willing to accept.Sandokhan this is, well, wow, your really smart.
"Here is one of the most sought-after formulas, which no other physicist, not even Nobel prize winners, was able to derive it. But I was."
You should be able to solve Humble B's puzzle with a simple formula and explanation that an 8th grader can understand
Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
Warning excepted.
Sandakhan you've shown a high level of intelligence and education..
Please post a formula that solves Humble B's puzzle that I, with only a high school education from 45 years ago, can understand.
- The vertical distance drift is not complimentary. The Eastern shots drift vertically nowhere near as much as the Western shots.I like it when I can refute something complicated.
- We can see that two of his Eastern shots are lined up with the target vertically, whereas none of the Western shots are.
Wouldn't both targets be at mirage distance? Do we account for this for only one target? That ain't scientific.
- The author of the video actually says that the shots were low because he was shooting at a mirage.
These aren't just people that simply think and write about it. They actually build devices to calculate for the Coriolis effect for long range ballistics, projectiles ranging 1000m or more.
So your logic is that military builds into their ranging devices calculations factoring for the rotation of the earth just because they "think it exists"? If that were an incorrect assumption on their part, I suspect they would never hit a target.
Ideally, a firing table enables the artilleryman to solve his fire problem and to hit the target with the first round fired. In the present state of the art, this goal is seldom achieved, except coincidentally. The use of one or more forward observers, in conjunction with the use of a firing table, enables the artilleryman to adjust his fire and hit the target with the third or fourth round fired.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.3642.pdf"
It's all supposition and hearsay. I'm providing 20th century military documentation that shows when it comes to long range artillery ballistics they definitely factor in the rotation of the earth. You're posting non-experimental 17th century stuff like, "Suppose that a very large cannon ball, weighing 60 or 80 pounds, traverses 250 paces in 2 human pulsebeats, or 2 seconds..." Nonsense. Get some real evidence.
Given that there is a few inches difference on the targets, I would consider the effect a waste of time to account for at shorter distances.
Arguing that snipers do not use Coriolis does because it is a 'waste of time' does not help the Round Earth argument that snipers account for Coriolis when sniping. That significantly weakens the argument that this effect actually exists.The effect is small, even over the sorts of distances snipers operate at
That maybe more difficult to perform than you are willing to accept.
You might want to enlist the help of a more educated friend to read the papers sandokhan has provided in order to get up to speed.
I am confident that approach can help you.
The Coriolis/Eotvos effects terms are a minor contribution to the calculations of the correct trajectory of a projectile (from a few centimeters to a few meters).
The biggest term, by far, the major contribution comes from the curvature equation.
]This is the RE formula for a ballistic trajectory:
R = [vo2sin(2θo)]/g x {1 + [vo2/gRe][cos2θo]}
This is the FE formula for a ballistic trajectory (limit as Re goes to infinity):
R = [vo2sin(2θo)]/g
The derivation can be found here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069 (part II, formula)
The difference amounts not to a few centimeters/few meters, but is in the range of kilometers.
This is the reason why no other FE has dared to touch this subject, not any of the youtube FE, or anybody else.
They simply cannot explain this phenomenon.
Ideally, a firing table enables the artilleryman to solve his fire problem and to hit the target with the first round fired. In the present state of the art, this goal is seldom achieved, except coincidentally. The use of one or more forward observers, in conjunction with the use of a firing table, enables the artilleryman to adjust his fire and hit the target with the third or fourth round fired.
When today's field artillery firing tables are used with today's approved delivery techniques [as described in VM 6-401], accurate fire can be brought to bear on targets.
Such a statement can only be made because today's approved delivery techniques recognize that many errors (both precision and bias errors) exist and those techniques arc designed to minimize these errors. The techniques are not designed to produce first round hits, nor does the statement above infer that such hits can be achieved.
It's extremely rare for the first round to hit the target. It's just too much data which not all of it can be measured in 100% accuracy and human errors are quite common: small offsets in calculating the coordinates of the target or the gun, small errors in calibration, humidity of the explosive propellant, etc.. The first round is just a test round. When it falls near the target it's the artillery observer's job to see how far and in what offset did it hit away from the target and provide the FDC with the data.
Even though great effort is made to calculate the effect of environmental and ballistic variables, an unguided artillery projectile will not reliably strike the exact point at which it is aimed. Although artillerymen strive for first round accuracy, this will still be measured in tens of meters, and in deliberate targeting or combat engagements this introduces a degree of uncertainty when assessing the safety of friendly forces and non-combatants. Properly employed, artillery gun and mortar projectiles and rockets land in a predictable area (accuracy) in a non-predictable fashion (precision), and in common with small arms fire (especially machine guns), the employment of artillery systems yields a ‘beaten zone’ or field of fire into which rounds will fall. This zone is generally cigar-shaped with the long axis falling along the line from the gun to the target, as deviation tends to occur in range rather than azimuth. The length and breadth of the zone is range dependent, as with greater range, external factors have more time to exert influence on the projectile flight.
These aren't just people that simply think and write about it. They actually build devices to calculate for the Coriolis effect for long range ballistics, projectiles ranging 1000m or more.
So your logic is that military builds into their ranging devices calculations factoring for the rotation of the earth just because they "think it exists"? If that were an incorrect assumption on their part, I suspect they would never hit a target.
According to the Artillery paper you posted on the previous page they do not hit their targets!
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/826735.pdf
From the Introduction:QuoteIdeally, a firing table enables the artilleryman to solve his fire problem and to hit the target with the first round fired. In the present state of the art, this goal is seldom achieved, except coincidentally. The use of one or more forward observers, in conjunction with the use of a firing table, enables the artilleryman to adjust his fire and hit the target with the third or fourth round fired.
So yes, this shows that what you are proposing absolutely needs demonstration.Quotehttp://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.3642.pdf"
It's all supposition and hearsay. I'm providing 20th century military documentation that shows when it comes to long range artillery ballistics they definitely factor in the rotation of the earth. You're posting non-experimental 17th century stuff like, "Suppose that a very large cannon ball, weighing 60 or 80 pounds, traverses 250 paces in 2 human pulsebeats, or 2 seconds..." Nonsense. Get some real evidence.
You have it wrong. From the article: "If Tycho is to be believed, experiments have shown this to be correct."
Tycho performed experiments. What you have provided are not experiments.
The Coriolis/Eotvos effects terms are a minor contribution to the calculations of the correct trajectory of a projectile (from a few centimeters to a few meters).
The biggest term, by far, the major contribution comes from the curvature equation.
Projectile Flight Dynamics
A 6-DOF rigid projectile model is employed to predict the dynamics of a projectile in flight. These equations assume a flat Earth. The 6-DOF comprises the three translational components describing the position of the projectile’s center of mass and the three Euler angles describing the orientation of the projectile with respect to the Earth. Figures 1 and 2 provide a visualization of the degrees of freedom.
(https://i.imgur.com/Rxwbu47.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/0peIurA.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/142rSGq.png)
But where is evidence that they are even using a 'curvature equation' in artillery?
From the U.S. Army Research Laboratory we read the following from an artillery paper:
Where are the artillery experiments with and without this very slight adjustment?
There is no evidence. You are posting heresy and hypothesis from an paper called "Production of Firing Tables for Cannon Artillery" which gives predictions for various situations and their associated assumptions, not evidence.
Because inertial forces like the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force do not exist.
Completely wrong.
The author of this statement has no knowledge of the original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations, which do include the Coriolis term/vorticity.
Dr. Frederick Tombe explains:
The RE equation is valid and accurate, while the FE equation with a fixed g is inaccurate.
Within science this is called: "Evidence for a spinning globe".
You will be disappointed again.
The FE equation with a fixed g is the WRONG formula.
g is a variable.
As such, we can immediately obtain the correct value for the entire calculation.
Spinning globe you say...
But there is no curvature whatsoever across lake Michigan.
Grand Haven Daily Tribune April 3, 1925
COAST GUARDS SEE MILWAUKEE LIGHTS GLEAM.....
Given that there is a few inches difference on the targets, I would consider the effect a waste of time to account for at shorter distances.
Unless the sniper is 100% on all other hard-to-predict variables, a few inches can be the difference between a kill shot and a miss.
Arguing that snipers do not use Coriolis does because it is a 'waste of time' does not help the Round Earth argument that snipers account for Coriolis when sniping. That significantly weakens the argument that this effect actually exists.
I'm to understand that without Coriolis inertial force created by the earth moving causing the bullet to go right or left of the target, we have a stationary earth? That leave us to believe there is a force pushing the bullet off target?Because inertial forces like the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force do not exist.
Completely wrong.
The author of this statement has no knowledge of the original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations, which do include the Coriolis term/vorticity.
Dr. Frederick Tombe explains:
Not at all completely wrong.
The authors and papers you are referring to do not dispute the fact that the Coriolis force is an inertial force, and that the path of a bullet over the surface of the earth is straight, not curved.
My point was that if the earth is not spinning, and the bullets trajectory is curved, then this curve can not be the result of an "inertial force" as you claim, and the curved trajectory of the bullet above a stationary earth has nothing to do with the Coriolis effect.
Even if science would change their mind about the fictitious status of inertial forces, you (those who claim the physical the earth is not spinning) still need another force than an inertial one to prove your case, because above a stationary surface a curved trajectory has nothing to do with the Coriolis effect.
I think you can step away from the maths for a short while.Your facts are incorrect.
Let's say you fire a bullet North from the equator. RET states that bullet will miss its target and go a few inches to the right as the bullet went straight and the earth moved left.
Now consider an aircraft flying North. The aircraft goes North and the earth moves left. In fact the earth moves so far left, it wouldn't be possible to land at the airfield to the North as the earth moves away faster than the aircraft can fly.
So, you seem to want it both ways. You insist a bullet must be affected by Coriolis and that an aircraft isn't. Which is it? They both fly through the air (they can both be doing comparable speeds), the aircraft has a longer time in the air and travels further so should be more affected. But the aircraft has no affect at all ... and yet the bullet somehow does. This is picking and choosing. The thing you know to be true (an aircraft isn't affected by Coriolis as it flies North) you ignore as it doesn't fit your theory ... and the thing you haven't checked (firing a bullet North accurately) you take as read because Hollywood makes a thing about snipers being so good they even take into account the spin of the earth when they fire.
I'd like to know why Coriolis affects bullets and why aircraft are immune to its power, please? FET has this covered ... no Coriolis. Neither affected. How to you end up with selective Coriolis?
Your facts are incorrect.
#1 on average bullets fly twice the speed of commercial jets.
#2 Lateral Inertial forces on the bullet are greater at the equator than the lateral movement of the target to the north, is why it hits to the right of target.
But shooting from north of the equator to the equator the lateral inertial force of the bullet is slower than the target is moving to the east. Again causing it to hit to the right.
Aircraft are affected less due to mass and many other factors including propulsion, ability to adjust direction of path while in flight and wings that cause them to be highly influence by air pressure.
https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/askexpert/physics/motion-planes-influenced-rotation-earth
Planes and bullets are both affected by Coriolis effects. The bullet will be more affected than the plane, because it's velocity is higher, but that's only the tiniest part of the story.
Bullets are unguided projectiles. They go where the physics says they go. Any effects due to Coriolis are unabated. Also, bullets which are fired at distances where Coriolis really start to matter are also trying to hit a very small target. Small effects are very noticeable.
Planes are controlled. There is a guidance system (such as a pilot) which is trying to keep it on course. This is important because there are forces that will deflect the plane off course which are orders of magnitude more powerful than the Coreolis effect. If there was not active correction, those other forces would virtually guarantee that we never arrived at our destination.
Because there's a guidance system in play, we rapidly trim the aircraft to counteract the Coreolis effect as a side effect of trying to trim the aircraft for all of the much bigger forces at play. There may be a slight deflection of the rudder associated with the Coreolis effect, but you would be hard pressed to identify it amidst all the other forces.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/171048/coriolis-force-on-bullet-vs-airplane
What's there to not understand about how hugely everything is affected differently by different velocities.QuoteYour facts are incorrect.
#1 on average bullets fly twice the speed of commercial jets.
#2 Lateral Inertial forces on the bullet are greater at the equator than the lateral movement of the target to the north, is why it hits to the right of target.
But shooting from north of the equator to the equator the lateral inertial force of the bullet is slower than the target is moving to the east. Again causing it to hit to the right.
Aircraft are affected less due to mass and many other factors including propulsion, ability to adjust direction of path while in flight and wings that cause them to be highly influence by air pressure.
https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/askexpert/physics/motion-planes-influenced-rotation-earth
Planes and bullets are both affected by Coriolis effects. The bullet will be more affected than the plane, because it's velocity is higher, but that's only the tiniest part of the story.
Bullets are unguided projectiles. They go where the physics says they go. Any effects due to Coriolis are unabated. Also, bullets which are fired at distances where Coriolis really start to matter are also trying to hit a very small target. Small effects are very noticeable.
Planes are controlled. There is a guidance system (such as a pilot) which is trying to keep it on course. This is important because there are forces that will deflect the plane off course which are orders of magnitude more powerful than the Coreolis effect. If there was not active correction, those other forces would virtually guarantee that we never arrived at our destination.
Because there's a guidance system in play, we rapidly trim the aircraft to counteract the Coreolis effect as a side effect of trying to trim the aircraft for all of the much bigger forces at play. There may be a slight deflection of the rudder associated with the Coreolis effect, but you would be hard pressed to identify it amidst all the other forces.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/171048/coriolis-force-on-bullet-vs-airplane
This is the most ridiculous understanding of physics I have encountered. Why should it matter whether the bullet or airplane is moving faster or slower, as to be affected by the Coriolis Effect? Is there some kind of speed detector where this effect turns on?
Given that there is a few inches difference on the targets, I would consider the effect a waste of time to account for at shorter distances.
Unless the sniper is 100% on all other hard-to-predict variables, a few inches can be the difference between a kill shot and a miss.
Arguing that snipers do not use Coriolis does because it is a 'waste of time' does not help the Round Earth argument that snipers account for Coriolis when sniping. That significantly weakens the argument that this effect actually exists.
I think you misunderstood my point, I was specifying that the effect is negligible enough at ranges of 100 to 1000 yards that it would still guarantee an effective hit.
I acknowledge that below 1000 yards, it would likely not be worth mentioning in the manual. The snipers are likely being asked to calculate the most important factors. In war, an injury is much more useful than a kill, it affects morale, takes time and resources to treat and still, effectively, takes them out of the fight.
Given that the fellow in the video is trying to sell a more accurate system, it would be in his best interest to focus on the Coriolis minutia. Especially if his market is for folks who shoot more than 1000 yards or are fascinated with every bit of gun they can get.
I’m glad you’re not arguing that the guy in the video was being deceptive or the results were skewed for some reason. I wouldn’t be able to argue against it, but it would make any further attempts at truth seeking pointless.
Also, I don’t care about Coriolis proving a round world. I know it exists and am happy for your model to be an interesting thought experiment. I also think I can bring it into the fold of a non-spinning disc without relying on ether/aether (working on it for a diff post).
A couple things I would like point.The manual indicates that simply hitting the target, even if just to injure, is a success. An assassin would need to guarantee a kill.
#1 one main component of their job is the "kill" shot. they are assassins.
# I also think Tom misunderstood, but I'd still like to point out that using the minute measurable deflection at such short distances absolutely strengthens the argument of this effects existence..
Snipers aren't just military and even military snipers have been given orders to take out high profile non military targets. One or more snipers assassinated JKK for example.A couple things I would like point.The manual indicates that simply hitting the target, even if just to injure, is a success. An assassin would need to guarantee a kill.
#1 one main component of their job is the "kill" shot. they are assassins.
# I also think Tom misunderstood, but I'd still like to point out that using the minute measurable deflection at such short distances absolutely strengthens the argument of this effects existence..
Soldiers aren’t assassins. That’s a horrible thing to call them. They are way less accurate.
The manual only covers US marine snipers. If you have a manual for other snipers, I would love to know if it mentions the Coriolis effect.The manual indicates that simply hitting the target, even if just to injure, is a success. An assassin would need to guarantee a kill.Snipers aren't just military and even military snipers have been given orders to take out high profile non military targets. One or more snipers assassinated JKK for example.
Soldiers aren’t assassins. That’s a horrible thing to call them. They are way less accurate.
The manual only covers US marine snipers. If you have a manual for other snipers, I would love to know if it mentions the Coriolis effect.The manual indicates that simply hitting the target, even if just to injure, is a success. An assassin would need to guarantee a kill.Snipers aren't just military and even military snipers have been given orders to take out high profile non military targets. One or more snipers assassinated JKK for example.
Soldiers aren’t assassins. That’s a horrible thing to call them. They are way less accurate.
Soldiers have been known to be ordered to kill civilians, but this is going off topic and I don't know who JKK is and don't care unless it was done at long range and required knowledge of the Coriolis effect.
Please stop trying to make this about people, the manual is clear and the video is undisputed evidence. We are doing well.
We know that there are a lot of people who think it exists and write about it. However, it would be a much stronger argument to show that there have been artillery experiments on reality to directly demonstrate the matter, rather than words about theory or supposition of what slight adjustments should be made.
The JETS is this computerized spotting device on a tripod:
(https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/zjD7sB6GvWmbRIUYKEubMSuV9os=/1200x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/M73GMTSB4ZDZNIEYI7WUFRA224.jpg)
I have do doubt at all that the calculations that such a device can make attempt to account for the supposed "Coriolis Effect."
The forward observer transmits the target information to the artilleryman, and then the Artilleryman fires on it and proceeds to miss the target! (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect#Artillery_Ballistics_Not_Accurate) As we have documented, military artillery is not accurate. JETS is merely a computerized version of the Artillery Coriolis Table that we saw.
If the location data is transmitted to a weapon with guided munitions, such a guided missile, then the missile will seek the target coordinates regardless of wind, weather, trajectory, imperfections in flight, or the "Coriolis Effect".
Can't say that it does exactly, but your 'doubt' is based on nothing and really means nothing.
"The PAVAM uses the spin of the earth to help the JETS provide accurate targeting information.”
QuoteCan't say that it does exactly, but your 'doubt' is based on nothing and really means nothing.
I said that I have no doubt that is does what it claims to do and can make the calculations that it claims to perform."The PAVAM uses the spin of the earth to help the JETS provide accurate targeting information.”
This U.S. Army Artillery Coriolis Table (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect#U.S._Army_Artillery_Coriolis_Table_Example) also attempts to provide target information to account for the supposed rotation of the earth. What is your point? Is your point that someone was able to put it onto a computer and sell it to the government for lots of money?