Re: Military take Earth rotation into account when firing shells
« Reply #20 on: February 16, 2019, 07:38:01 AM »
The global acceleration equation includes at least four components; Newton only introduced to the public one of them, the radial term.



The other three components come into play ONLY when an object is subjected to the forces of TORSION.

That is why long range artillery ballistics is one of the best proofs that the Earth is flat.

Here are the precise calculations:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2029817#msg2029817 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2106204#msg2106204 (part III)

That is why no other FE, ever, has been able to address this most important issue; until now...

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Military take Earth rotation into account when firing shells
« Reply #21 on: February 16, 2019, 07:44:02 AM »
None of the experts ever mention any Coriolis corrections in airplanes.

Sure they do. You just didn't read far enough down.

Again, for the umpteenth time, Coriolis is a factor, it's magnitude of such is utterly dependent upon the object it is affecting. Projectile v Plane. In planes, it's factored into Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) that are built into the planes you travel in. There are a lot of factors that dictate what a plane can do and what a projectile can do. Do some googling.

I love to learn more about all things airplane, could you perchance provide a link explaining that the INS systems for airplanes factor in Coriolis?
(Or if you haven't that, I'd be interested it hearing where you heard it!)

From my research, the gyroscope sensors, whether spinning mechanical or MEMS type, have so much inherent drift already that it  dwarfs coriolis, and all has to be manually (old style) or automatically corrected for by the system, but generally is just corrected for as "drift and error" without any specific model which ties into coriolis.
However I suppose if they were using a good 3 axis laser ring gyro  that had drift far below coriolis then they could model it rather than just correct for drift.

Anyway, I'd be most grateful to know how you came by that information! I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to expand my knowledge!

I love these old vids. Thought you might appreciate it too.


*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Military take Earth rotation into account when firing shells
« Reply #22 on: February 16, 2019, 03:09:07 PM »
None of the experts ever mention any Coriolis corrections in airplanes.

Sure they do. You just didn't read far enough down.

Again, for the umpteenth time, Coriolis is a factor, it's magnitude of such is utterly dependent upon the object it is affecting. Projectile v Plane. In planes, it's factored into Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) that are built into the planes you travel in. There are a lot of factors that dictate what a plane can do and what a projectile can do. Do some googling.

I love to learn more about all things airplane, could you perchance provide a link explaining that the INS systems for airplanes factor in Coriolis?
(Or if you haven't that, I'd be interested it hearing where you heard it!)

From my research, the gyroscope sensors, whether spinning mechanical or MEMS type, have so much inherent drift already that it  dwarfs coriolis, and all has to be manually (old style) or automatically corrected for by the system, but generally is just corrected for as "drift and error" without any specific model which ties into coriolis.
However I suppose if they were using a good 3 axis laser ring gyro  that had drift far below coriolis then they could model it rather than just correct for drift.

Anyway, I'd be most grateful to know how you came by that information! I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to expand my knowledge!

I love these old vids. Thought you might appreciate it too.



Thanks! I love these old videos too! Such a hoot!

This one raises some interesting questions though: (Here's a link to a specific part), see below video for my question

It says the metal weight is suspended at neutral buoyancy in a dense liquid.. I'm having trouble with understanding how that works as a linear accelerometer. 
If the metal weight and the liquid have the same density at 1g, and the same density at 2g, the metal weight isn't going to "float"  or "sink" with linear acceleration, like they show.

Also notice they are only showing two accelerometers. It's most likely that the two accelerometers are just used to constantly adjust the gyros to keep them level to local level -- which would compensate for Coriolis if it exists as well as gyro drift which most certainly exists.

Even modern mechanical artificial horizon gyros have little weights that gate airflow generated by the spinning weight which cause it to constantly seek local level to compensate for drift and possible Coriolis. (But generally, gyro drift far exceeds the proposed maximum Coriolis even for a high speed plane.)

Of course the modern solid state ones use gyros and accelerometers together to constantly correct for local level as well, using the gyros for short term angle accuracy and the accelerometers for long term accuracy.

So yeah they show and say the plane's going around the earth and claim that as the source of error in their gyros, but they don't cover gyro drift,  gimbal lock, or the fact that their little stabilized platform would theoretically turn up on its edge if the plane was in the air for 6 hours. (Remember, if the earth turns 360 degrees in  24 hours, it would turn 90 degrees in 6 hours.) 

I suspect the guys making the video weren't highly technical but it's still a great old video! Thanks!