The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Fig Newton on August 09, 2018, 03:36:26 AM
-
Hello!
My question is obviously about the Coriolis effect. Namely, what causes it in a Flat Earth model. I've seen the wiki, I've read some previous threads and it seems like there's no Coriolis Effect per se, it's just how the winds move? If that's a misrepresentation please let me know.
If that's true, that begs the question what causes wind movement. In a RE model, large scale wind patterns are driven entirely by heating. What's the mechanism in FE?
-
I am interested in this topic, and want to post what I consider fairly strong evidence for the Coriolis effect:
https://youtu.be/jX7dcl_ERNs
In that video, a manufacturer demonstrates how the Coriolis effect can affect a shooter's accuracy. The demonstration has them shooting at an eastern target at 1,000 yards, and then at a western target at 1,000 yards, and then compare the impact points.
The intent is for their customers to get more consistent (reproducible) results. I posit that it would not be in their best interest to mislead their customers about the Coriolis effect, so it is unlikely that this company is part of any conspiracy. Because of that, I trust that the shooter was doing his best to hit the center of the target. That is why I accept this video as fairly strong evidence of the Coriolis effect.
Having said all that, I am eager to learn how this could happen on a flat Earth, and why it behaves differently when shooting north and/or south vs. east and/or west.
-
Well riddle me this BigGuyWhoKills ...
If the earth spins whilst the bullet is off the ground for a second moving the place it hits ... what happens when an aircraft flies South to North?
According to your theory, the aircraft takes off and the ground moves underneath it ... at 1,000mph.
(https://i0.wp.com/timescavengers.blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/coriolis_rotation-01.jpg?ssl=1)
If I flew from Los Angeles to Seattle (due North), that flight takes 5 hours in a commercial airliners. Meanwhile the earth moved 5000 miles east under me. So when I come down to land ... I actually land in New York.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/US_Sanctuary_Cities_Map.svg/2000px-US_Sanctuary_Cities_Map.svg.png)
Or do aircraft not get effected by Coriolis, it only works on bullets?
-
Do bullets have engines, control surfaces, or any inbuilt means of navigation and/or directional control?
According to your theory, the aircraft takes off and the ground moves underneath it ... at 1,000mph.
And, with the exception of local weather systems, the atmosphere does the same. If it didn't, we'd have 1000mph westerly winds at the equator 24/7/365. No?
Bill Bryson did a good Popular Science summary of it;
The process that moves air around in the atmosphere is the same process that drives the internal engine of the planet, namely convection. Moist warm air from the equatorial region rises until it hits the barrier of the tropopause and spreads out. As it travels away from the equator and cools, it sinks. When it hits bottom, some of the sinking air looks for an area of low pressure to fill and heads back to the equator, completing the circuit. At the equator the convection process is generally stable and the weather predictably fair, but in temperate zones the patterns are far more seasonal, localized, and random, which results in an endless battle between systems of high-pressure air and low. Low-pressure systems are created by rising air, which conveys water molecules into the sky, forming clouds and eventually rain. Warm air can hold more moisture than cool air, which is why tropical and summer storms tend to be the heaviest. Thus low (pressure) areas tend to be associated with clouds and rain, and highs generally spell sunshine and fair weather. When two such systems meet, it often becomes manifest in the clouds. For instance, stratus clouds—those unlovable, featureless sprawls that give us our overcast skies—happen when moisture-bearing
updrafts lack the oomph to break through a level of more stable air above, and instead spread out, like smoke hitting a ceiling. Indeed, if you watch a smoker sometime, you can get a very good idea of how things work by watching how smoke rises from a
cigarette in a still room. At first it flows straight up (this is called a laminar flow, if you need to impress anyone), and then it spreads out in a diffused, wavy layer. The greatest supercomputer in the world, taking measurements in the most carefully controlled environment, cannot tell you what form these ripplings will take, so you can imagine the difficulties that
confront meteorologists when they try to predict such motions in a spinning, windy, large-scale world.
What we do know is that because heat from the Sun is unevenly distributed, differences in air pressure arise on the planet. Air can’t abide this, so it rushes around trying to equalize things everywhere. Wind is simply the air’s way of trying to keep things in balance. Air always flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure (as you would expect; think of anything with air under pressure—a balloon or air tank— and think how insistently that pressured air wants to get someplace else), and the
greater the discrepancy in pressures the faster the wind blows. Incidentally, wind speeds, like most things that accumulate, grow exponentially, so a wind blowing at two hundred miles an hour is not simply ten times stronger than a wind blowing at twenty miles an hour, but a hundred times stronger—and hence that much more destructive. Introduce several million tons of air to this accelerator effect and the result can be exceedingly energetic. A tropical hurricane can release in twenty four hours as much energy as a rich, medium-sized nation like Britain or France uses in a year.
The impulse of the atmosphere to seek equilibrium was first suspected by Edmond Halley—the man who was everywhere—and elaborated upon in the eighteenth century by his fellow Briton George Hadley, who saw that rising and falling columns of air tended to produce “cells” (known ever since as “Hadley cells”). Though a lawyer by profession, Hadley had a keen interest in the weather (he was, after all, English) and also suggested a link between his cells, the Earth’s spin, and the apparent deflections of air that give us our trade winds. However, it was an engineering professor at the École Polytechnique in Paris, Gustave-Gaspard de Coriolis, who worked out the details of these interactions in 1856, and thus we call it the Coriolis effect. (Coriolis’s other distinction at the school was to introduce watercoolers, which are still known there as Corios, apparently). The Earth revolves at a brisk 1,041 miles an hour at the equator, though as you move toward the poles the rate slopes off considerable, to about 600 miles an hour in London or Paris, for instance. The reason for this is self-evident when you think about it. If you are on the equator the spinning Earth has to carry you quite a distance—about 40,000 kilometers—to get you back to the same spot. If you stand beside the North Pole, however, you may need travel only a few feet to complete a revolution, yet in both cases it takes twenty-four hours to get you back to where you began. Therefore, it follows that the closer you get to the equator the faster you must be spinning. The coriolis effect explains why anything moving through the air in a straight line laterally to the Earth’s spin will, given enough distance seem to curve to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern as the Earth revolves beneath it. The standard way to envision this is to imagine yourself at the center of a large carousel
and tossing a ball to someone positioned on the edge. By the time the ball gets to the perimeter, the target person has moved on and the ball passes behind him. From this perspective, it looks like tops. The coriolis effect is also why naval guns firing artillery shells have to adjust to left or right; a shell fired fifteen miles would otherwise deviate by about a hundred yards and plop harmlessly into the sea.
-
Well riddle me this BigGuyWhoKills ...
If the earth spins whilst the bullet is off the ground for a second moving the place it hits ... what happens when an aircraft flies South to North?
According to your theory, the aircraft takes off and the ground moves underneath it ... at 1,000mph.
(https://i0.wp.com/timescavengers.blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/coriolis_rotation-01.jpg?ssl=1)
If I flew from Los Angeles to Seattle (due North), that flight takes 5 hours in a commercial airliners. Meanwhile the earth moved 5000 miles east under me. So when I come down to land ... I actually land in New York.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/US_Sanctuary_Cities_Map.svg/2000px-US_Sanctuary_Cities_Map.svg.png)
Or do aircraft not get effected by Coriolis, it only works on bullets?
1) It does not take 5 hours to fly from LAX to SeaTAc. It is less than 3 hours terminal to terminal. About 2.5 hours air time at an average speed of ~380 mph.
2) The aircraft is aerodynamically connected to the atmosphere which follows the earth around and can and will exert considerable side drag on the plane. Plenty to minimize any Coriolis effect as it flies north.
3) The speed or rotation at LAX 638 mph and at SeaTac it's 519 mph. A difference of only 119 mph.
You need to check your 'facts' before embarrassing yourself like this. Worked in the aircraft business as an engineer, eh? Right. ::)
-
Well riddle me this BigGuyWhoKills ...
If the earth spins whilst the bullet is off the ground for a second moving the place it hits ... what happens when an aircraft flies South to North?
According to your theory, the aircraft takes off and the ground moves underneath it ... at 1,000mph.
(image of a globe with trajectories and rotation)
If I flew from Los Angeles to Seattle (due North), that flight takes 5 hours in a commercial airliners. Meanwhile the earth moved 5000 miles east under me. So when I come down to land ... I actually land in New York.
(map of the US)
Or do aircraft not get effected by Coriolis, it only works on bullets?
IMO, the other replies suffice. But to recap:
1. Planes adjust their direction and speed, bullets do not.
2. Earth's tangential speed at LAX is closer to 850 MPH.
3. While the aircraft is on the ground, it is moving with the Earth at about 850 MPH. Do you claim that when it takes off, it loses that energy? If so, what force causes the loss of energy? Over what time frame is that energy lost? If it instantly loses that energy, how does this not cause catastrophic structural damage to the craft?
4. Let's presume that the aircraft does NOT lose that tangential speed when it takes off (since that is our reality). The Earth is still spinning, but so is the atmosphere. So the aircraft is not affected all that much.
Do you want me to explain why the airplane and the bullet are not comparable? I can, if you need.
-
Well riddle me this BigGuyWhoKills ...
If the earth spins whilst the bullet is off the ground for a second moving the place it hits ... what happens when an aircraft flies South to North?
According to your theory, the aircraft takes off and the ground moves underneath it ... at 1,000mph.
(image of a globe with trajectories and rotation)
If I flew from Los Angeles to Seattle (due North), that flight takes 5 hours in a commercial airliners. Meanwhile the earth moved 5000 miles east under me. So when I come down to land ... I actually land in New York.
(map of the US)
Or do aircraft not get effected by Coriolis, it only works on bullets?
IMO, the other replies suffice. But to recap:
1. Planes adjust their direction and speed, bullets do not.
2. Earth's tangential speed at LAX is closer to 850 MPH.
3. While the aircraft is on the ground, it is moving with the Earth at about 850 MPH. Do you claim that when it takes off, it loses that energy? If so, what force causes the loss of energy? Over what time frame is that energy lost? If it instantly loses that energy, how does this not cause catastrophic structural damage to the craft?
4. Let's presume that the aircraft does NOT lose that tangential speed when it takes off (since that is our reality). The Earth is still spinning, but so is the atmosphere. So the aircraft is not affected all that much.
Do you want me to explain why the airplane and the bullet are not comparable? I can, if you need.
1. So an aircraft flying North constantly steers left?
2. Ok, so 850MPh .... the earth is still moving underneath the aircraft right? You don't land where you intend any more than you hit the target where you intend. You miss.
3. While the bullet is in the barrel, it is moving with the earth at 850Mph. Do you claim when you fire the gun, it loses that energy? If so, what force causes the loss of energy? Over what time frame is that energy lost? If it instantly loses that energy, how does this not cause catastrophic structural damage to the barrel of the gun?
4. Let's presume that the bullet does NOT lose that tangential speed when it is fired (since that is our reality). The Earth is still spinning, but so is the atmosphere. So the bullet is not affected all that much.
It reads to me like you haven't noted any of my objections at all. You seem to assume bullets must be effected by Coriolis and aircraft not ... and in both cases purely because you have been told this. You don't actually know in either case. What makes a bullet and an aircraft different? Both travel through the air. If I choose Concorde, the bullet and aircraft can be doing the same speed. They both start at 850mph according to you. The both finish at 850mph. But the aircraft is in the air a lot longer. So it should be effected much worse. We don't see this. Before you say bullets aren't effected by drag, that would mean snipers don't adjust their shots for wind. We know they do, even in light winds.
A manufacturer claiming their weapons are so accurate that they pick up something imperceptible to you like the spinning earth is a marketing tool. And of course earth spinning is imperceptible because it doesn't happen. If you can change the course of a bullet by a foot travelling at mach 1.5 in just one or two seconds, you can knock a human over. Because that would require one hell of a tangential force. Coriolis is bunk. It does not appear anywhere we expect it to do so. Not toilets flushing, smoke rising, bullets firing or oceans spinning. Its a bodge of a theory to explain something that doesn't happen.
-
1. So an aircraft flying North constantly steers left?
Well, the way I see it;
No, it steers according to the route it intends to take, and to take account of local weather.
If Seattle and LA have moved (say) 1000 miles Eastward during (say) a one-hour flight section between LA and Seattle, the atmosphere has, in general, also moved in sync with those cities. Otherwise both would experience 1000mph winds 24/7/365
The Earth rotates and it has, over time, taken the atmosphere with it, such that both are to most intents and purposes, in sync.
2. Ok, so 850MPh .... the earth is still moving underneath the aircraft right? You don't land where you intend any more than you hit the target where you intend. You miss.
3. While the bullet is in the barrel, it is moving with the earth at 850Mph. Do you claim when you fire the gun, it loses that energy? If so, what force causes the loss of energy? Over what time frame is that energy lost? If it instantly loses that energy, how does this not cause catastrophic structural damage to the barrel of the gun?
Again, the way I see it;
Dontcha think the explosive force of the charge detonation behind the bullet sort of, you know, over-rides the 850mph energy? Don't bullets exit the barrel far faster than this?
So; the charge detonates, this accelerates the bullet, leaving the casing and the exhaust product of the detonation behind, as well as the gun. I have no data at present on when the bullet reaches max speed, nor where this occurs, whether that's in the barrel, or after it leaves, but one thing is for sure - there's no more power applied to it once the explosive charge in the round is spent. It's on its own after that.
Yes, the bullet will start to lose energy/momentum/inertia once its max speed has been reached. Air resistance and gravity will do that to it. If directed upward, it will reach a certain height, dictated by starting speed, weight, air density, height above sea level, and then it will fall back to Earth.
The aircraft differs in that it applies power to keep it moving forwards, and it has wings which generate lift from that forward motion. The bullet has neither. The aircraft also has control surfaces to modify lift and direction, all of which are lacking from the bullet
It reads to me like you haven't noted any of my objections at all. You seem to assume bullets must be effected by Coriolis and aircraft not ... and in both cases purely because you have been told this.
What's wrong with being 'told' something? That's how knowledge is acquired, verbally or textually. Do you automatically disregard everything that someone tells you, or everything you read?
What makes a bullet and an aircraft different?
One is actively powered during and throughout the flight, the other not. You know which.
Shut off the aircraft engines, and it will soon behave like a bullet, I assure you.
-
Shut off the aircraft engines, and it will soon behave like a bullet, I assure you.
So gliders have to constantly steer against the effect of Coriolis? They can be in the air for hours. Engage your brain.
-
Well, the way I see it;
No, it steers according to the route it intends to take, and to take account of local weather.
So no course correction for Coriolis.
If Seattle and LA have moved (say) 1000 miles Eastward during (say) a one-hour flight section between LA and Seattle, the atmosphere has, in general, also moved in sync with those cities. Otherwise both would experience 1000mph winds 24/7/365
Well why doesn't the atmosphere sync with the bullet?
The Earth rotates and it has, over time, taken the atmosphere with it, such that both are to most intents and purposes, in sync.
[/color]
Again, why does the same thing not happen to the bullet? Concorde flew faster than a speeding bullet. It was in the air for hours. If a bullet moves a foot in 1 second, why doesn't concorde, and if concorde is in the air for hours, how many miles is it missing airports by?
Again, the way I see it;
Dontcha think the explosive force of the charge detonation behind the bullet sort of, you know, over-rides the 850mph energy? Don't bullets exit the barrel far faster than this?
Don't the afterburners on Concorde override 850mph? Concorde travels faster than a speeding bullet. Stop making strawmen.
So; the charge detonates, this accelerates the bullet, leaving the casing and the exhaust product of the detonation behind, as well as the gun. I have no data at present on when the bullet reaches max speed, nor where this occurs, whether that's in the barrel, or after it leaves, but one thing is for sure - there's no more power applied to it once the explosive charge in the round is spent. It's on its own after that.
So what?
Yes, the bullet will start to lose energy/momentum/inertia once its max speed has been reached. Air resistance and gravity will do that to it. If directed upward, it will reach a certain height, dictated by starting speed, weight, air density, height above sea level, and then it will fall back to Earth.
The aircraft differs in that it applies power to keep it moving forwards, and it has wings which generate lift from that forward motion. The bullet has neither. The aircraft also has control surfaces to modify lift and direction, all of which are lacking from the bullet [/color]
So the aircraft is steering left when it travels north? If the aircraft travels 600mph and the earth is moving 600mph to the left underneath it, it literally heads 45 degrees from where it wants to go in order to get there. Are you sure?
What's wrong with being 'told' something? That's how knowledge is acquired, verbally or textually. Do you automatically disregard everything that someone tells you, or everything you read?
Well I'm telling you that the idea a bullet moves with Coriolis and that an aircraft doesn't is ridiculous, and when you think about that, you would probably agree ... judging by these poor rebuttals. But you are sticking to your guns because you've been given a ropey theory and you WANT to stick to it.
-
Shut off the aircraft engines, and it will soon behave like a bullet, I assure you.
So gliders have to constantly steer against the effect of Coriolis? They can be in the air for hours. Engage your brain.
Well, as I see it;
Gliders rely on thermal currents; rising areas of warm air; to stay up, and on a far, far bigger wing in relation to the body size of the craft to generate more lift. If the glider can't find a thermal, it soon comes down. Have you ever seen a commercial, multiple-passenger glider? Or do they typically carry one or two people, max.?
(Since you mentioned it, I have now read that the world record glider flight for a single-seat craft stands at just over 1000 miles, and was set in 1983; the record for a dual-seat craft is far less. Hardly a sound basis for commercial flight. But should I disregard this as something that I've been 'told'? )
Aircraft with engines do not share these design traits. Smaller wings, larger body, far heavier payload. This source suggests that a typical airliner will only last 130 miles, IF it is already at 40,000 feet or so.
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-passenger-airplane-glide-if-all-engines-fail-If-so-do-planes-with-tail-mounted-jet-engines-also-glide (https://www.quora.com/Can-a-passenger-airplane-glide-if-all-engines-fail-If-so-do-planes-with-tail-mounted-jet-engines-also-glide)
The Space Shuttle was a glider, with a stubby delta wing format, and a large body in relation to the wing size, and that only went in one direction after re-entry - down.
Again, as with the powered craft (but this time the warm air provides the 'power') the glider negotiates the local conditions, but in general is still moving along with the atmosphere, which is moving at broadly the same pace as the Earth below.
-
There is a round earth answer to his, but you are a million miles from it.
Speed isn't the key. Aircraft can travel faster than bullets.
Time is in favour of the aircraft, much more time to move with Coriolis.
Distance is also favouring the aircraft.
Powered flight is irrelevant ... that's a force pushing forward which will not cancel lateral movement (the resultant vector).
Both experience drag ... otherwise bullets would not stop and snipers wouldn't adjust for wind.
Right now the earth does not spin unless you can fix this issue.
-
I love problems like this. I googled on the internet, checked pilots forums, physics forums ... no one knows the answer. Its actually very simple ... but google is going to be no help to you. You are going to have to reason the problem for yourself. And when you get there, you'll have learned something. ;D
-
There was a heated debate on this subject back in 2004 between G. Shelton (one of Dr. Neville Jones' disciples) and the RE from the forum.cosmoquest:
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?13590-The-Singular-Nature-of-the-Atmosphere-Proof-of-Geocentrism
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/archive/index.php/t-13591.html
-
I love problems like this. I googled on the internet, checked pilots forums, physics forums ... no one knows the answer. Its actually very simple ... but google is going to be no help to you. You are going to have to reason the problem for yourself. And when you get there, you'll have learned something. ;D
The question seems to have a reasonable answer here:
http://www.askacfi.com/3494/coriolis%E2%80%A6earth%E2%80%99s-rotation%E2%80%A6and-the-airplane-oh-my.htm
-
Both an airplane and a bullet experience the Coriolis effect. The effect isn't caused by the "rotation of the earth" it's caused by the "change in angular rotation of the earth". Both the plane and the bullet start out in the frame of reference at the point on the earth where they separate contact with the earth, wile traveling it moves over a different point on the earth with a slightly different frame of reference. When traveling straight north/south the different angular velocity of the earth causes the plane/bullet to shear right or left, when traveling straight east/west the angular difference doesn't change so it doesn't shear to the side, however, the Eötvös effect then becomes an issue, causing upwards or downwards shear. The Eötvös effect is what was actually demonstrated in the video when the presenter mistakenly called it the Coriolis effect, though they both tend to get lumped together often.
Planes do steer against the Coriolis effect. This is quite small in comparison to the other forces a plane steers against. It doesn't need to be pre-calculated, just compensated for as the plane's flight is often adjusted. No pilot would notice.
Long range projectiles must take into account several factors, such as drop due to gravity, wind shear, air resistance changes because of density caused by different air temperature, thermal expansion due to barrel heating, etc. The Coriolis effect is one of the smaller factors for light projectiles like a bullet. Typical bullet ranges are not enough to matter in comparison to the other factors. However, heavy artillery have much longer ranges and are affected by the Coriolis effect more. This is enough of a factor that the military has tables for artillery:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/826735.pdf
In particular page 102 provides a compensation table for long ranges at 30 degrees north latitude.
The Coriolis effect cannot be seen in a sink or toilet, they are too small and there are too many other effects that are stronger. Hurricanes, on the other hand, are affected. Opposite spins in opposite hemispheres.
Thork, you can claim it doesn't exist, but you have a lot of evidence and documentation to unseat first. This is a well explored topic and has been demonstrated for many years. This seems similar to when you claimed the power poles across Lake Pontchartrain didn't exist at all or when you claimed Mt. Rainer was next to the ocean. It just makes you look like a nutter when you claim something doesn't exist when it does. The Coriolis exists and must be explained for in the flat earth model.
-
Planes do steer against the Coriolis effect.
They do not.
The Coriolis effect is one of the smaller factors for light projectiles like a bullet.
Not true.
There is something very fundamental about bullets. And no one has put their finger on it yet. Why do bullets get effected and planes don't? Its a simple one sentence answer if you know why.
Until you know, the earth is stationary because no evidence to the contrary has been provided.
-
There is something very fundamental about bullets. And no one has put their finger on it yet. Why do bullets get effected and planes don't? Its a simple one sentence answer if you know why.
I'm guessing that you're referring to the spin stabilization imparted by the rifling. I bet that you're going to say something like the right hand twist of the rifling causes the bullet to drift to the right and is often mistaken for the Coriolis effect.
Until you know, the earth is stationary because no evidence to the contrary has been provided.
Umm... If you say so.
-
There is something very fundamental about bullets. And no one has put their finger on it yet. Why do bullets get effected and planes don't? Its a simple one sentence answer if you know why.
I'm guessing that you're referring to the spin stabilization imparted by the rifling. I bet that you're going to say something like the right hand twist of the rifling causes the bullet to drift to the right and is often mistaken for the Coriolis effect.
Actually no. But it is the spin. Aircraft don't spin. So they follow the air and fly straight relative to earth but not free space. An INS on an aircraft doesn't though ... because it has gyroscopes. And that's what a bullet does. Rifling makes the bullet go straight and like a spinning top, it doesn't want to deviate from its direction in free space so they do bend right when fired North in respect to the earth. Adding in rifling made bullets less susceptible to things you can't control such as gusts and tiny manufacturing imbalances, but made them susceptible to predictable things like Coriolis. This is why meteors don't make a curve in the sky, bombs don't fall to the right, missiles don't compensate for it, and aircraft don't need to adjust. Just bullets.
The one sentence answer is "bullets suffer from gyroscopic rigidity and precession, aircraft do not"
Well that was fun. Shame it was Markjo and that he doesn't ever let new people explore ideas, but hopefully the other site will be working again soon and he can go back there and complain about how round the earth is.
-
The one sentence answer is "bullets suffer from gyroscopic precession, aircraft do not"
Right, because the gyroscopes in aircraft are constantly being adjusted to compensate for gyroscopic precession.
-
The one sentence answer is "bullets suffer from gyroscopic precession, aircraft do not"
Right, because the gyroscopes in aircraft are constantly being adjusted to compensate for gyroscopic precession.
Yes. Have you still not figured out how to use google yet?
Continuous accurate adjustment to the gyro-stabilized platform to keep it parallel to the Earth’s surface is a key requirement to reduce accumulated error.
That's what an INS computer does. It makes the adjustment calculations.
-
Planes do steer against the Coriolis effect.
They do not.
Just saying they don't don't mean they don't, this isn't kindergarten. This is the same trite tactic you always use. Is Mt. Ranier next to the ocean? No. Is there a power line going across Lake Pontchartrain? Yes. Does the Coriolis effect exist? Yes.
The Coriolis effect on a plane is just one of many factors a plane has to correct for. The sum of all the forces deflects the plane and it gets steered to compensate.
-
That's what an INS computer does. It makes the adjustment calculations.
Seemingly correct, it does make calculations:
"Earth Rotation
in the same way that a stationary INS detects the Earth’s Rotation to determine its Latitude and Orientation, it also detects this rotation when moving. The final movement detected will be a combination of both the aircraft’s movement and the Earth’s rotation. These errors are small and can be compensated for.
Coriolis
as an aircraft travels from A to B around the globe it actually will follow a curved path (or a series of shorter curved paths). An INS will detect this as turning (a bit like a pendulum swinging out in a turn) and an error can be introduced."
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Inertial_Navigation_System_(INS)
-
Well I'll ignore McToon because I already explained the solution. Coriolis does NOT effect aircraft (unless you count weather, but not directly).
Stack seems to get it.
-
I think the logic here is that the INS/IRS instrument clearly takes into account the earth's rotation along with longitude and latitude to form its calculations. Meaning it's calculation depends, in part, on the fact that the earth rotates. Coriolis is a byproduct, an artifact of earth's rotation. As a subset of the presence of rotation, it is included in its calculations.
-
I think the logic here is that the INS/IRS instrument clearly takes into account the earth's rotation along with longitude and latitude to form its calculations. Meaning it's calculation depends, in part, on the fact that the earth rotates. Coriolis is a byproduct, an artifact of earth's rotation. As a subset of the presence of rotation, it is included in its calculations.
I agree:
Stack seems to get it.
-
The one sentence answer is "bullets suffer from gyroscopic rigidity and precession, aircraft do not"
Ok, but where's "Coriolis"?
Gyroscopic precession is quit a different effect then Coriolis.
Found this http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/Articles/ABDOC108_GyroscopicAndCoriolis.pdf (http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/Articles/ABDOC108_GyroscopicAndCoriolis.pdf).
Picture a spinning object like a bullet or a top. The spinning thing has a ‘spin axis’, about which it’s spinning. If you try to disturb the spin axis by applying a force, or a torque to that axis, the spinning object reacts in a strange way. Rather than simply moving in the direction that you pushed it, the spin axis reacts by moving 90 degrees from the applied force, in the direction of rotation.
This force is generated by the ballistic curve or parabola which dips down the nose of the projectile. The resulting force drives the bullet to the right, if the bullet is spinning right hand. There are also rifles with barrels that spin the bullet left hand, the result is than a deviation to the left.
But nonetheless Gyroscopic precession and Coriolis are tiny effects compared to wind, gravity, air density etc.;also for muzzle velocities of 900 m/s or more for snipper rifles, that's 3 Mach.
I don't think, that any pilot will notice Coriolis effects, because cross winds and tiny imperfections in the symmetry of the aircraft (e.g. thrust of the turbines) will need far far greater corrections.
I tend more to MCToon's conclusions.
Both an airplane and a bullet experience the Coriolis effect. ...
-
LMAO I've been shooting for 50 years. To think some imaginary spin is going to effect my 1000 yard shot it preposterous. Tards I tell you.
-
This has been a fun discussion about the effects of Coriolis on man-made objects. My two cent's regarding flying is you'll never see effects of Coriolis on the aircraft. They're there, because it affects all matter of motion not physically connected to the Earth, but it's going to be orders of magnitudes smaller than other inputs you'll need to make. Any kind of crosswind, for example, will require course corrections that would mask whatever kind of deviation Coriolis would cause.
But moving the discussion on a bit, I would still like a Flat Earth answer to what is presumably Coriolis' effect on the weather. Even if we invoke some Celestial tugging like I've seen in other threads, that only accounts for the largest scales of weather. If we zoom in a bit to the mesoscale, we still see the effects of Coriolis. The most obvious example, of course, are hurricanes. Hurricanes are, simplistically, areas of extremely low pressure. Having already established that atmosphere tends to achieve equilibrium, what we would see is a wind pattern where all vectors are pointing radially inward. This is not what we see in real life though. Coriolis adds another force that pull all wind vectors to the right. Without the Coriolis effect there would be no rotation, no eye wall, and no hurricane.
The one argument I've seen is that gears can spin in opposite directions? Which is fine in the sense that allows for opposite wind circulations on the global scale but hurricanes don't exist on the boundary of global wind patterns. In fact, they have a hard time existing closer than ten degrees north or south of the equator precisely because the effects of Coriolis are so small. They are created well away from the "gear interface" which would cause opposite rotation.
And regardless, we see these effects in sub-tropical cyclones as well, and those are nowhere near the opposing gears of the equator.
-
This has been a fun discussion about the effects of Coriolis on man-made objects. My two cent's regarding flying is you'll never see effects of Coriolis on the aircraft. They're there, because it affects all matter of motion not physically connected to the Earth, but it's going to be orders of magnitudes smaller than other inputs you'll need to make. Any kind of crosswind, for example, will require course corrections that would mask whatever kind of deviation Coriolis would cause.
But moving the discussion on a bit, I would still like a Flat Earth answer to what is presumably Coriolis' effect on the weather. Even if we invoke some Celestial tugging like I've seen in other threads, that only accounts for the largest scales of weather. If we zoom in a bit to the mesoscale, we still see the effects of Coriolis. The most obvious example, of course, are hurricanes. Hurricanes are, simplistically, areas of extremely low pressure. Having already established that atmosphere tends to achieve equilibrium, what we would see is a wind pattern where all vectors are pointing radially inward. This is not what we see in real life though. Coriolis adds another force that pull all wind vectors to the right. Without the Coriolis effect there would be no rotation, no eye wall, and no hurricane.
The one argument I've seen is that gears can spin in opposite directions? Which is fine in the sense that allows for opposite wind circulations on the global scale but hurricanes don't exist on the boundary of global wind patterns. In fact, they have a hard time existing closer than ten degrees north or south of the equator precisely because the effects of Coriolis are so small. They are created well away from the "gear interface" which would cause opposite rotation.
And regardless, we see these effects in sub-tropical cyclones as well, and those are nowhere near the opposing gears of the equator.
Excellent job steering this thread in a useful direction.
So, how do hurricanes only spin one way in the northern hemi(sphere/plane) and the opposite direction in the southern hemi(sphere/plane)?
The RE model predicts this because of the spinning of the earth. It also predicts reduced effect near the equator.
I haven't seen any FE models thar offer anything realistic to predict this behavior. Gears don't explain it, it's just a vague idea that falls apart under minimal scrutiny. I've really put my thoughts to this challenge, I cannot come up with anything. How about if the flat earth disc spins? No, that would only explain one hemiplane. The Dual Earth model could make a little progress if you suggest both planes are spinning, but I haven't seen that as part of the theory. The bi-polar flat earth map is even more difficult. Maybe Tom can offer something aligning with a bi-polar model?
-
In the Bi-Polar model the stars are rotating in one direction in the Northern Hemiplane and in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemiplane, like a set of interlocking gears. Celestial Gravitation encourages winds in those areas to generally move in clockwise or counter-clockwise wind system patterns.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Spur_gears_animation.gif)
-
Without even getting into the claim of celestial gravitation (presumably we should be able to measure a stronger force in the plane of the Milk Way since there's so many close stars than outside of the plane?) that still doesn't account for mesoscale events like hurricanes. In order to account for that, you would need tiny pockets of celestial gravity rotating and moving with the hurricane.
Edited for Grammar
-
Winds come from the 4 corners of the flat earth. When lives are at stake you would think that The US Marine Corp Sniper training would say, hey ! When you're trying to kill a bad guy at a mile and a half because your brothers are pinned down you should probably aim 2-3 inches this or that away depending on where the hell on earth you are to kill el subject ! Two-3 inches will translate into another county in long range shooting. Sorry fakers, doesn't exist, isn't taught, enjoy more bullsheet.
Here's a sniper manual.
https://archive.org/details/milmanual-fmfm-1-3b-sniping-u.s.-marine-corps
-
Winds come from the 4 corners of the flat earth. When lives are at stake you would think that The US Marine Corp Sniper training would say, hey ! When you're trying to kill a bad guy at a mile and a half because your brothers are pinned down you should probably aim 2-3 inches this or that away depending on where the hell on earth you are to kill el subject ! Two-3 inches will translate into another county in long range shooting. Sorry fakers, doesn't exist, isn't taught, enjoy more bullsheet.
Here's a sniper manual.
https://archive.org/details/milmanual-fmfm-1-3b-sniping-u.s.-marine-corps
J-Man, thank you for bringing up this critical point. The U.S. Military has taken it into account and published tables to adjust trajectories for long distances. One example can be found on page 102 of this Cannon Artillery manual:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/826735.pdf
-
Winds come from the 4 corners of the flat earth. When lives are at stake you would think that The US Marine Corp Sniper training would say, hey ! When you're trying to kill a bad guy at a mile and a half because your brothers are pinned down you should probably aim 2-3 inches this or that away depending on where the hell on earth you are to kill el subject ! Two-3 inches will translate into another county in long range shooting. Sorry fakers, doesn't exist, isn't taught, enjoy more bullsheet.
Here's a sniper manual.
https://archive.org/details/milmanual-fmfm-1-3b-sniping-u.s.-marine-corps
That manual is from 1991. Also, 2-3 inches is the bullet's drift, not the muzzle correction.
-
Winds come from the 4 corners of the flat earth. When lives are at stake you would think that The US Marine Corp Sniper training would say, hey ! When you're trying to kill a bad guy at a mile and a half because your brothers are pinned down you should probably aim 2-3 inches this or that away depending on where the hell on earth you are to kill el subject ! Two-3 inches will translate into another county in long range shooting. Sorry fakers, doesn't exist, isn't taught, enjoy more bullsheet.
Here's a sniper manual.
https://archive.org/details/milmanual-fmfm-1-3b-sniping-u.s.-marine-corps
That manual is from 1991. Also, 2-3 inches is the bullet's drift, not the muzzle correction.
Yes, before 1991 the axis didn't exist, the giant didn't start the ball spinning and NASA didn't come up with Neil babys oblate spheroid. Just kinda make it up as you go is best I guess. Now let me go get a cannon.
2-3 inches I was using as a random distance for scope work. A quality rifle off the shelf with quality ammo will shoot 1 MOA= Minute of Angle meaning you miss the bullseye by 1" for every 100 yards of shooting distance. So 1000 yard shot under good conditions would be a 10" miss. Impossible really because wind direction will probably change multiple times during its flight to target, thus a trained spotter. Spin drift will play a key role also as will height, weight, co-efficiency of the projectile, muzzle velocity, grains and type of powder, barrel length and rifling, cold bore vs warm one. So many things come into play but I assure you, Neils spinning pear ain't one of them. Good luck and good bowling.
-
Just saying you can't say they don't teach it now if you're quoting a manual from 1991. Most accurate you could be would be to say they didn't teach it in 1991. I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped using it by 1993. Now, unsurprisingly, we seem to be stuck on guns again. Would anyone like to try and take a stab at 80% of the applications Coriolis effect is used for and try to come up with a good Flat Earth weather model that doesn't need Coriolis?
-
Just saying you can't say they don't teach it now if you're quoting a manual from 1991. Most accurate you could be would be to say they didn't teach it in 1991. I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped using it by 1993. Now, unsurprisingly, we seem to be stuck on guns again. Would anyone like to try and take a stab at 80% of the applications Coriolis effect is used for and try to come up with a good Flat Earth weather model that doesn't need Coriolis?
Let me put the latest long distance record shot in perspective for y0u. It was almost 4000 yards (2 miles) with a 50 cal. It got doped probably at least 40 inches left with no wind just using spin drift. The round was airborne for almost 10 seconds. The sniper aimed his weapon high the height of a 60 story building for drop. You catch that? 600 feet above the target. And you want me to believe his spotter said hold dead on cuzz the earth is going to rotate 10 inches and wind will make up the other 30.
Sorry they most likely lobbed em in for some time to dope it close and got LUCKY !
-
Just saying you can't say they don't teach it now if you're quoting a manual from 1991. Most accurate you could be would be to say they didn't teach it in 1991. I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped using it by 1993. Now, unsurprisingly, we seem to be stuck on guns again. Would anyone like to try and take a stab at 80% of the applications Coriolis effect is used for and try to come up with a good Flat Earth weather model that doesn't need Coriolis?
Let me put the latest long distance record shot in perspective for y0u. It was almost 4000 yards (2 miles) with a 50 cal. It got doped probably at least 40 inches left with no wind just using spin drift. The round was airborne for almost 10 seconds. The sniper aimed his weapon high the height of a 60 story building for drop. You catch that? 600 feet above the target. And you want me to believe his spotter said hold dead on cuzz the earth is going to rotate 10 inches and wind will make up the other 30.
Sorry they most likely lobbed em in for some time to dope it close and got LUCKY !
This is all very interesting. I don't profess to be an expert in long distance shooting, and in fact I didn't even bring this up in my original post. I'll let someone else handle the shooting questions since the farthest I shot was 100 yards. This is probably one of the fringe applications of utilizing the Coriolis Force but everyone always brings it up because it's usually the closest to home for them. My question for you is do you have an answer for my weather questions.
-
Just saying you can't say they don't teach it now if you're quoting a manual from 1991. Most accurate you could be would be to say they didn't teach it in 1991. I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped using it by 1993. Now, unsurprisingly, we seem to be stuck on guns again. Would anyone like to try and take a stab at 80% of the applications Coriolis effect is used for and try to come up with a good Flat Earth weather model that doesn't need Coriolis?
Let me put the latest long distance record shot in perspective for y0u. It was almost 4000 yards (2 miles) with a 50 cal. It got doped probably at least 40 inches left with no wind just using spin drift. The round was airborne for almost 10 seconds. The sniper aimed his weapon high the height of a 60 story building for drop. You catch that? 600 feet above the target. And you want me to believe his spotter said hold dead on cuzz the earth is going to rotate 10 inches and wind will make up the other 30.
Sorry they most likely lobbed em in for some time to dope it close and got LUCKY !
This is all very interesting. I don't profess to be an expert in long distance shooting, and in fact I didn't even bring this up in my original post. I'll let someone else handle the shooting questions since the farthest I shot was 100 yards. This is probably one of the fringe applications of utilizing the Coriolis Force but everyone always brings it up because it's usually the closest to home for them. My question for you is do you have an answer for my weather questions.
I can't answer that because I don't believe it, it's not true. Biblical accounts that God controls the weather and uses it for many purposes. Obviously a flat earth has no Coriolis garbage. The winds come from Angels at the four corners of the Earth. Almost all religions describe the flood and it's sure hard to explain sea shells at 10,000 or 15,000 foot mountains if there wasn't one. Eternal life is a loooong time, respect the wind, the earthquakes and brimstone's, they can be killers, and rightfully so.......
-
Just saying you can't say they don't teach it now if you're quoting a manual from 1991. Most accurate you could be would be to say they didn't teach it in 1991. I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped using it by 1993. Now, unsurprisingly, we seem to be stuck on guns again. Would anyone like to try and take a stab at 80% of the applications Coriolis effect is used for and try to come up with a good Flat Earth weather model that doesn't need Coriolis?
Let me put the latest long distance record shot in perspective for y0u. It was almost 4000 yards (2 miles) with a 50 cal. It got doped probably at least 40 inches left with no wind just using spin drift. The round was airborne for almost 10 seconds. The sniper aimed his weapon high the height of a 60 story building for drop. You catch that? 600 feet above the target. And you want me to believe his spotter said hold dead on cuzz the earth is going to rotate 10 inches and wind will make up the other 30.
Sorry they most likely lobbed em in for some time to dope it close and got LUCKY !
You are right. It does sound ridiculous when you describe it that way. The sniper would not only have to position his weapon for the rotation of the Round Earth model, he would have to time the drop with the rotation of the earth, too, in order to hit the target.
-
"The World’s Longest Sniper Kill: The Enemy Shot Dead at 3,871 Yards (Over 2 Miles Away)"
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-worlds-longest-sniper-kill-the-enemy-shot-dead-3871-24141
"To understand the complexity of the shot, it’s best to start with a sniper maxim: sniping is weaponized math. Although a .50 caliber sniper rifle bullet can fly as far as five miles, a host of factors including gravity, wind speed and direction, altitude, barometric pressure, humidity and even the Coriolis Effect act upon the bullet as it travels. Even worse, these effects increase the farther the bullet travels. A successful sniper team operating at extreme distances must do its best to predict exactly how these factors will affect the bullet and calculate how to get the bullet back onto target."
-
"The World’s Longest Sniper Kill: The Enemy Shot Dead at 3,871 Yards (Over 2 Miles Away)"
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-worlds-longest-sniper-kill-the-enemy-shot-dead-3871-24141
"To understand the complexity of the shot, it’s best to start with a sniper maxim: sniping is weaponized math. Although a .50 caliber sniper rifle bullet can fly as far as five miles, a host of factors including gravity, wind speed and direction, altitude, barometric pressure, humidity and even the Coriolis Effect act upon the bullet as it travels. Even worse, these effects increase the farther the bullet travels. A successful sniper team operating at extreme distances must do its best to predict exactly how these factors will affect the bullet and calculate how to get the bullet back onto target."
That quote actually says "these are the factors that will affect the bullet," rather than "these are the factors that the sniper accounted for." One is a commentary by the author and the other is a depiction of process. Surely you can see that there is a difference.
-
I'm here to tell you, when that 168 grain boat tail round lost the speed of sound it went from a Formula one race car to a Diesel Truck wanting to tumble and lost most of it's co-efficiency. It was not designed to travel that slow, it was lobed from 600 ft high. No Coriolis needed.
Remember these weapons are great but still only about .25 MOA or will miss by 25 inches at this distance. A man is say 24" wide at the Torso. Now factor in all the other goodies and on your best day you miss by 4-6 ft. minimum. Luck....
-
The Coriolis force involves a rotating reference frame, the deflection is called the Coriolis effect.
As such, the proponents of a spherical stationary earth have been using Mach's Principle to state that distant rotary masses can cause local inertial forces, like the Coriolis and centrifugal forces, which perfectly mimic the inertial effects of a spinning Earth . This implies that there are two possible explanations for the inertial forces whenever objects are in relative rotational motion.
The experiment performed by J. Barbour and B. Bertotti proved that a large hollow sphere (representing the distant star fields) rotating around a small solid sphere inside (modeling the Earth) produced exactly the same pattern of Coriolis and centrifugal forces that are claimed as proof of Earth's spinning in space. If the hollow shell of matter accelerates or rotates, any object inside the shell will tend to be carried along with the acceleration or rotation to some extent. There have arisen some questions re: the Lagrangian used by Barbour and Bertotti and also about the coordinate transformations discussed in their article, but the main experiment showed, quite clearly that Mach's Principle is correct.
http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Overview-Barbour-Bertotti
However, for a Flat Earth, a much more complex explanation is needed.
We need to compare the Coriolis effect to something else which is also affected by a rotating reference frame: the propagation of light in rotating systems.
One of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, on the same level with Einstein and Lorentz, Dr. Ludwik Silberstein, has derived the exact formula for the Coriolis effect on counter-propagating waves:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289
Here it is:
4AΩ/c^2
The same derivation/formula for the Coriolis effect on counter-propagating light beams:
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
The Coriolis effect is a PHYSICAL EFFECT upon the light beams: the phase shift will be caused by the physical modification of the light paths (inflection and deflection due to the Coriolis force effect on the light beams).
The Sagnac effect is an ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECT upon the velocities of the light beams.
Then, we can compare the Coriolis effect to the SAGNAC EFFECT on the light beams, using the Michelson-Gale experiment.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070082#msg2070082 (Sagnac effect vs. Coriolis effect mystery solved)
Here is the correct Sagnac effect formula for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation:
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
To obtain the Coriolis effect phase shift, we substract the phase differences for each separate segment.
This formula is proportional to the area and the angular velocity.
To get the Sagnac effect phase shift, we have to add the phase differences for each separate segment
This formula is proportional to the linear velocity (and the radius of rotation), and will feature the addition of the two separate speeds and segment lengths. We can average the lengths and the velocities, to get a final formula which features one length and one velocity.
This is the great omission in the calculation done by A. Michelson.
Instead of adding the phase differences to get the true Sagnac effect, he substracted the phase differences and obtained the formula for the Coriolis effect.
Michelson and Gale recorded/registered ONLY the Coriolis effect, but not the rotational Sagnac effect.
This means that the physical deflection of the light beams was due to the ROTATING ETHER DRIFT FIELD over the surface of the flat earth.
It is not the Coriolis effect that the RE have to worry about in the case of a speeding bullet, they have to explain the DEPALMA EFFECT on the projectile:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2029817#msg2029817 (DePalma spinning effect on long distance projectiles, part I)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069 (part II)
-
That quote actually says "these are the factors that will affect the bullet," rather than "these are the factors that the sniper accounted for." One is a commentary by the author and the other is a depiction of process. Surely you can see that there is a difference.
I knew you were going to go there. And yeah, I get your point. But the real point is, this is the process used by snipers which includes accounting for the Coriolis Effect. Meaning, the effect is something that trained snipers do take into account.
Now, whether this sniper used these factors as a part of their shot calculation, or whether he did any calculations at all, I don't know. But you don't know either.
-
In the Bi-Polar model the stars are rotating in one direction in the Northern Hemiplane and in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemiplane, like a set of interlocking gears. Celestial Gravitation encourages winds in those areas to generally move in clockwise or counter-clockwise wind system patterns.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Spur_gears_animation.gif)
Ok. So is that the model you now favour? If so then fine, but how does the sun move in that model? The model you have always argued for involves the sun rotating in a circle, that explains 24 hour sun at the North Pole but not the south. But in that model Antarctica doesn’t exist as a continent. If you are now agreeing it does exist then how does the sun move which explains 24 hour sun at both poles and matches every other observations of sun position?
You can’t just pick and choose bits of different models which contradict one another.
-
Ok. So is that the model you now favour? If so then fine, but how does the sun move in that model? The model you have always argued for involves the sun rotating in a circle, that explains 24 hour sun at the North Pole but not the south. But in that model Antarctica doesn’t exist as a continent. If you are now agreeing it does exist then how does the sun move which explains 24 hour sun at both poles and matches every other observations of sun position?
You can’t just pick and choose bits of different models which contradict one another.
What do you mean? The Bi-Polar model was created by our society in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole and it has been my model of choice that I have been posting about for over six years. Magnets have two poles. The earth has a magnetic field. It makes sense to me.
Before Rowbotham the Flat Earth model had three poles, Rowbotham simplified it down to one due to lack of evidence, and after the South Pole was discovered Lady Blount upped it to two poles.
-
What do you mean? The Bi-Polar model was created by our society in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole and it has been my model of choice that I have been posting about for over six years. Magnets have two poles. The earth has a magnetic field. It makes sense to me.
You need to resolve the problem of 180 deg E/W, though. The same point on GE, different points on FE.
-
What do you mean? The Bi-Polar model was created by our society in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole and it has been my model of choice that I have been posting about for over six years. Magnets have two poles. The earth has a magnetic field. It makes sense to me.
What I mean is your Wiki reads (or read, I know you guys are updating it more now and I'll admit I may not be up to date with your latest changes) like a love letter to Rowbotham as to many of your posts. The explanation for seasons, for example:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F
That explanation doesn't work on a bi-polar model but no alternative is given in the Wiki. How do seasons or patterns of sunlight work on a bi-polar model?
-
Speed isn't the key. Aircraft can travel faster than bullets.
Again with the BS. The SR71 holds the airspeed record for aircraft oat 2193 mph. Some modern bullets like the .204 Ruger have been clocked at over 2860 mph.
-
In the Bi-Polar model the stars are rotating in one direction in the Northern Hemiplane and in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemiplane, like a set of interlocking gears. Celestial Gravitation encourages winds in those areas to generally move in clockwise or counter-clockwise wind system patterns.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Spur_gears_animation.gif)
Interesting Tom. By what physics does the Celestial Gravitation cause this?
-
The Coriolis force involves a rotating reference frame, the deflection is called the Coriolis effect.
As such, the proponents of a spherical stationary earth have been using Mach's Principle to state that distant rotary masses can cause local inertial forces, like the Coriolis and centrifugal forces, which perfectly mimic the inertial effects of a spinning Earth . This implies that there are two possible explanations for the inertial forces whenever objects are in relative rotational motion.
The experiment performed by J. Barbour and B. Bertotti proved that a large hollow sphere (representing the distant star fields) rotating around a small solid sphere inside (modeling the Earth) produced exactly the same pattern of Coriolis and centrifugal forces that are claimed as proof of Earth's spinning in space. If the hollow shell of matter accelerates or rotates, any object inside the shell will tend to be carried along with the acceleration or rotation to some extent. There have arisen some questions re: the Lagrangian used by Barbour and Bertotti and also about the coordinate transformations discussed in their article, but the main experiment showed, quite clearly that Mach's Principle is correct.
http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Overview-Barbour-Bertotti
However, for a Flat Earth, a much more complex explanation is needed.
We need to compare the Coriolis effect to something else which is also affected by a rotating reference frame: the propagation of light in rotating systems.
One of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, on the same level with Einstein and Lorentz, Dr. Ludwik Silberstein, has derived the exact formula for the Coriolis effect on counter-propagating waves:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289
Here it is:
4AΩ/c^2
The same derivation/formula for the Coriolis effect on counter-propagating light beams:
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
The Coriolis effect is a PHYSICAL EFFECT upon the light beams: the phase shift will be caused by the physical modification of the light paths (inflection and deflection due to the Coriolis force effect on the light beams).
The Sagnac effect is an ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECT upon the velocities of the light beams.
Then, we can compare the Coriolis effect to the SAGNAC EFFECT on the light beams, using the Michelson-Gale experiment.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2070082#msg2070082 (Sagnac effect vs. Coriolis effect mystery solved)
Here is the correct Sagnac effect formula for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation:
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
To obtain the Coriolis effect phase shift, we substract the phase differences for each separate segment.
This formula is proportional to the area and the angular velocity.
To get the Sagnac effect phase shift, we have to add the phase differences for each separate segment
This formula is proportional to the linear velocity (and the radius of rotation), and will feature the addition of the two separate speeds and segment lengths. We can average the lengths and the velocities, to get a final formula which features one length and one velocity.
This is the great omission in the calculation done by A. Michelson.
Instead of adding the phase differences to get the true Sagnac effect, he substracted the phase differences and obtained the formula for the Coriolis effect.
Michelson and Gale recorded/registered ONLY the Coriolis effect, but not the rotational Sagnac effect.
This means that the physical deflection of the light beams was due to the ROTATING ETHER DRIFT FIELD over the surface of the flat earth.
It is not the Coriolis effect that the RE have to worry about in the case of a speeding bullet, they have to explain the DEPALMA EFFECT on the projectile:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2029817#msg2029817 (DePalma spinning effect on long distance projectiles, part I)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069 (part II)
I am afraid you are quite mistaken. A failure of observing a static ether field is not evidence for a rotating one. All investigations that sought to measure an ether field have failed. The only reasonable conclusion is that the ether field does not exist.
Moreover, your derivations neglect special relativity, which is a needed ingredient. So I think you may have hastily used equations which you do not fully understand.
-
A number of you here go to great extremes and complicated explanations to give description when it would be easier to understand if it were simplified.
Planes vs bullets. Planes, whether powered or not, can adjust flight path during flight while artillery and bullets can not.
Two vehicles traveling at the same speed parallel to each other several feet apart, throw a ball out one window it will go right in the window of the other vehicle's window. Alter the speed of just one vehicle 5 mph the ball will miss the target.
This is what happens to bullets influenced by the Coriolis effect.
The curvature of the Earth from the equator to the poles decreases which make less distance to travel in the 24 hr period. Therefor travel is slower the closer to the poles you get.
Example
Equator 1,037 mph and roughly half way to the north pole travels is 733 mph.
A projectile lunched from the equator northward, since the rotation is west to east, will hit to the right of the slower moving target.
If launched from the slower position to the south towards the equator, the faster moving target again causes you to miss to the right.
This is reversed in the southern hemisphere.
This has been physically proven and can be mathematically calculated. Thus sniper equipment and military artillery can be adjusted to compensate for this phenomena.
BTW artillery compensation is measured in feet while small arms are measured in inches.
Also there is no compensation for drop or raise when shooting north or south other then the normal compensation for gravity, while there is compensation for raise and drop shooting east to west and west to east, while the is no compensation needed for defection left to right.
Shooting east you have to compensate for the target moving away from you and dropping while it's the opposite shooting to the west.
This is not theory. It has been physically proven.