[Tom Bishop]

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.

[stack]

"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."

[Tom Bishop]

"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.

[J-Man]

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....

[sandokhan]

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:



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)

[stack]

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.

[AATW]

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.

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[edby]

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.

[AATW]

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?

[BillO]

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.

[BillO]

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.

Interesting Tom.  By what physics does the Celestial Gravitation cause this?

[QED]

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:



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.

[Curiosity File]

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.