[Curiosity File]

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:

I'm sorry, I made same mistake Humble B did. I forgot to add "without using the spinning ball" formula.

[juner]

I think sandokhan's point is pretty clear. If you all want to argue the validity of it, go ahead, but stop asking the same question over and over when it has been answered. It is clear that sandokhan is saying that there is no difference in observed Coriolis whether you are using his model, or the RE model, therefore the equation is the same. Again, feel free to debate/argue the validity of his position.

[sandokhan]

I forgot to add "without using the spinning ball" formula.

The Coriolis force exists only when one uses a rotating reference frame.

You don't need a speeding ball: the rotating distant stars or the rotating ether drift will do.

That is why a physical effect, just like the Coriolis force or Foucault's pendulum, cannot be used to distinguish between heliocentrism and geocentrism.

The RE used to have a mighty weapon in this debate: the Michelson-Gale experiment (1925).

A very simple formula.

You have the measured fringe shifts, the area of the interferometer, the speed of light; then, the angular velocity of the Earth can be found.

The proponents of aether theory have tried to argue saying that the MGX measures the flow of ether, but they were helpless when faced with the fact that Michelson claimed that the formula presented by him in 1925 is actually the Sagnac effect formula.

Since the Sagnac effect measures both linear/uniform/translational and rotational motion, there was nothing (up until this year) the proponents of aether theory could do.

This has always been the easiest way for heliocentrists to win each and every debate since 1925: simply use the MGX formula to justify that the Earth rotates around its own axis.

This is the reason I fought so hard since the summer of 2017 to prove that the formula used by Michelson is actually the Coriolis effect formula.

But that wasn't nearly enough.

I had to produce the CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA, something no one else has been able to do since 1913, not Michelson, Lorentz, Post, nor Langevin, not anybody else.

[Tom Bishop]

Question for Sandokhan: Where can we see controlled experimental evidence of the Focault Pendulum or the Coriolis Effect?

Focault Pendulum has mixed results. There is no control. I have never seen a control for the Coriolis Effect, either.

When I speak of CONTROL, I am referring to, for example, a test where someone shoots a rifle at a target Eastwards, observes drift, and then shoots at a target Westwards, where the bullet drifts to the opposite direction. That tests the matter more conclusively than seeing some drift in one direction. My concern is that in your work you are taking these phenomena for granted, without the proper evidence that they exist at all.

The last few times we have talked about the need for controlled experimentation, you seemed to dismiss the need entirely. I would like to see your sources that these phenomena have been properly tested.

As we know, Round Earthism is full of people who will make deceptive conclusions form bad science to get the result they need for their government funding, or to maintain their belief system. As far as I am concerned, if there is no control, it is trash science and should not be granted any credibility or consideration.

[Mysfit]

It took me all of 30 seconds, but I found a video to, hopefully, help Tom



It was the first one that came up when i searched "coriolis effect, bullet shot east and west"

[sandokhan]

Foucault's pendulum can easily be debunked:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg944125#msg944125

However, the Coriolis effect on light beams is real, and so is its formula.

As for the Coriolis effect on projectiles, especially bullets, if that is a deceptive conclusion, so much the better.

But you cannot assume this to be a fact: you need to address the best case scenario for the RE, just like I have always done.

And this is how it's done: you need a rotating frame of reference to put to rest the RE's claims re: the Coriolis force.

Remember it is not the Coriolis effect you have to worry about, but the conclusions of the Michelson-Gale experiment. If you want to argue that the MGX was not performed properly, or that the equation they used is not the correct one, you need to produce/prove the correct formula in order to address this issue.

[Tom Bishop]

It took me all of 30 seconds, but I found a video to, hopefully, help Tom

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:



On the West target:



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?

[sandokhan]

The author of the video is confusing the Coriolis effect (a horizontal deflection) with the Eotvos effect (a vertical displacement).

If he is shooting due east or due west, he is going to measure the Eotvos effect, and not the Coriolis effect.

Please find a video which measures the Coriolis effect in both directions north-south, south-north.

[sandokhan]

Two viewers have correctly pointed out the same thing:

This isn't actually due to Coriolis, and he did not properly explain the Coriolis Effect anyway. The Coriolis Effect is due to a difference in the speed of rotation of the Earth at two differing points of latitude. The rotation speed of the Earth is greater at the Equator than it is at the poles. The Earth isn't rotating beneath the bullet. The rotation of the Earth is imparted to the bullet. Conservation of momentum. The bullet shifts because the Earth is rotating more slowly, or more quickly, at the destination latitude than the firing latitude.

What he is explaining here is the Eötvös Effect. It is also due to the rotation of the Earth, and also varies with latitude, but it is caused by the centrifugal force that is imparted to the bullet by the Earth's rotation, which is why it is apparent in East-West shooting.


This explanation is wrong. Coriolis effect does not effect a bullet east west, only north south. The Coriolis effect comes from the Change in relative speed of the earth, relative to an object in motion above it. As a bullet fired north from the equator flies, it is travelling both north at 3000 feet per second, and east at 1500 feet per second, a target north of the equator is also traveling east, but at a slightly slower speed, since the bullet is moving both north and east, but east faster than the target, it will, in the same time, travel further east than the target does while in air, striking to the right. In reverse, if you fire from the slower moving target south towards the equator, the target at the equator is moving faster east than the bullet, so it the bullet fired this direction will also strike right. When firing from the equator south, the bullet is traveling east faster and will hit left (in both cases, when firing from a faster moving point on earth, to a slower one, the bullet strikes further east, when slower to faster, further west.)

When firing East / West, a different thing happens, the shooter and the target are moving at the same speed. So when in flight, the target does not actually move up and towards the bullet, when firing west, or down and away when shooting east as depicted in the video. This is just plain 100% false, not arguments about it. Something else is happening to cause the results shown above. When firing east, the bullet is moving in the same direction as the earth, so, relative to the center of the earth, it is moving at a higher degree of rotation around the fixed point in terms of degrees per hour. This causes a greater amount of centrifugal force, which "slightly" counteracts the effect of gravity, essentially making the bullet "lighter" and it will follow a flatter arc, causing a higher "hit". When firing west, the angular velocity or speed of rotation around a fixed point is lower, causing less centrifugal force, and allowing gravity to take more effect, essentially making the bullet heavier, causing a lower hit. This is the Eotvos effect, something tangentially related, but different than the Coriolis effect.

Now, someone should call the author of the video and ask if the bullets were fired EXACTLY due east or due west. If that is the case, the slight horizontal deflections were caused by the wind.

However, if the author of the video says that the bullets were not fired exactly due east or west, then the RE have a huge problem: as has been pointed out, on the western trial the bullets just drop downwards, no Coriolis effect has been measured.

[Curiosity File]

It took me all of 30 seconds, but I found a video to, hopefully, help Tom

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:



On the West target:



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?

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.
To the wast they low of the center.
If there was only gravitational pull they would always hit low.
This is physical proof that to the east the target drops and to the wast the target raises. 

[Tom Bishop]

- The vertical distance drift is not complimentary. The Eastern shots drift vertically nowhere near as much as the Western shots.

- We can see that two of his Eastern shots are lined up with the target vertically, whereas none of the Western shots are.

- The author of the video actually says that the shots were low because he was shooting at a mirage.

[Humble B]

Therefore, distant rotary masses can cause local inertial forces, like the Coriolis and centrifugal forces

No, that's impossible. Maybe distant rotary masses can cause forces, but not inertial like the Coriolis and centrifugal force.

Q- Why not?
A- Because inertial forces like the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force do not exist. I repeat: They do NOT EXIST. They are so called "fictitious forces" or in plane English: "fake forces". A bullet flying over a rotating surface does not move in a curved trajectory, no matter what the surface underneath the flying bullet is doing, it will always go in a straight line (only bend downwards by gravity) And when the bullet is following a straight trajectory there is no such force as a Coriolis force pushing it left or right. The curved line observed in the trajectory of a bullet which we attribute to the Coriolis effect is an optical illusion.

This optical illusion is caused by a rotating reference frame and an observer who is rotating with this reference frame. And because the observer and his reference frame are all rotating in a curved direction while the flying bullet is not, the observer will see the straight trajectory of the bullet as curved.

Here in this video a computer simulation of the Coriolis effect showing clearly the straight trajectory of the moving object and the optical illusion of a curved line:




When the theory of sandokhan would be true, and the surface of the earth does not rotate but the projectiles are pushed into a curved trajectory by a force, we can not do that with an inertial or fictitious force (because non-existing forces can not change the motion of objects with mass)
When that force would come from external rotating masses, then we need a real force, a force that can be detected and measured and used to create new and better formula's to calculate the effect of that force on bodies with mass.

Maybe sandokhan has found those formula's, but apparently he is still searching for a way how to use them on flying objects with mass.

[Curiosity File]

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.

I think this is absolute proof that the earth is not a spinning disc.

#3 We all agree we can see the sky moving from east to west.
This is absolute poof something is moving.

 The sky it what's moving and everything in it, the sun the moon the stars , and this what FET claims, and this is what sandokhan claims is the force that pushes a bullet off target as it's moving one direction. Sandokhan also claims that it's this force that pushes down on the bullet that's flying east and not so much flying west.

So we've established, hypothetically, that there is a force in the sky pushing from east to west.
Wouldn't that push the bullet to the left(west) fired to the north?

Some FET say the earth moves too. Sandokhan indicated that the earth is moving from west to east, which increases or decreases the "downward force from the sky", depending on direction,(east or west), you're shooting.

I can't see how on a FE with a dome and a wall encompassing it with everything in the sky no more than 3,000 miles away spinning in a circle,(not circling the earth), allow the earth to move anywhere. It would have to be two different objects not connected to each other allowing one to move separate one another.

Also if they were separate one another, and moving in opposite direction, as verified, hypothetically, by sandokhan, the forces would cancel each other.

Now to really throw mud on the works is move to the southern atmosphere and everything reverses direction in regards to the bullet.
Also what seems to be the most mind boggling thing to the FE believers, and what they don't have an answer to, is the fact the bullet ALWAYS hits to the right of the target no mater shooting to the north from the south or from the south to the north on the northern hemisphere, and again reverses when you move to the southern hemisphere.   

   


 

[Tom Bishop]

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?

[Curiosity File]

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?

You know exactly what it proved.

I'm sorry Tom I misread your question.

Those two particular quotes are stated as everybody, at least on this thread, have agreed that this takes place and is physically observable in the real world.

If you disagree with that tell us why.

[stack]

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

[Curiosity File]

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

Thanks stack for bringing these facts up.
I not only have friends and family the have been and still are in the military from as far back as my dad being the gunners mate in WWII. Served on battle ships as well smaller vessels.
I have read a lot of ballistics material over many years and I have a great deal knowledge and understanding of the complicated formulas needed to calculate trajectories of non propulsion projectiles as well as missiles with their own propulsion systems.
Thanks for the link
     

[Tom Bishop]

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.

The U.S. Marine Corps Sniping Manual does not make mention of the Coriolis Effect at all. Snipers are not taught to account for it.

U.S. Marine Corps Sniping Manual

https://archive.org/details/milmanual-fmfm-1-3b-sniping-u.s.-marine-corps/page/n0

The sniper must know the general principles of: perspective, vanishing point, perspective drawing, delineation, and geographical areas of intelligence operations. However, the words "Coriolis" or "Coriolis Effect," do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Marine Corps Sniping Manual.

[stack]

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.

From the US Army Material Command Ballistics Research Laboratories

“The Production of Firing Tables for Cannon Artillery"

Table H, pg 103

“Corrections to Range, in Meters, to Compensate for the Rotation of Earth"



http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/826735.pdf

[Tom Bishop]

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.

From the introduction of your paper:

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.

Enough said.

The famous astronomer Tycho Bahe 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.pdf

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.

Riccioli concludes with:

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.