5501

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki query - The Humber Bridge

« on: October 05, 2018, 04:24:39 PM »

I've made a slight adjustment to one of the opening statements. I have changed "The Coriolis Effect, however, is a fictitious effect" to "The Coriolis Effect, however, appears to be a fictitious effect"...

It was an opinion before the change (as are all statements), but this change makes it clearer that it is an opinion. I don't see how an opinion can be a "lie".

5502

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki query - The Humber Bridge

« on: October 05, 2018, 01:33:28 AM »

I've updated the Coriolis Effect page here with some of the latest discussion:

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect

What more should we add?

5503

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earths Curvature and spin effect on long range ballistics.

« on: October 05, 2018, 01:24:33 AM »

Your facts are incorrect.
#1 on average bullets fly twice the speed of commercial jets.
#2 Lateral Inertial forces on the bullet are greater at the equator than the lateral movement of the target to the north, is why it hits to the right of target.
But shooting from north of the equator to the equator the lateral inertial force of the bullet is slower than the target is moving to the east. Again causing it to hit to the right.
Aircraft are affected less due to mass and many other factors including propulsion, ability to adjust direction of path while in flight and wings that cause them to be highly influence by air pressure.

https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/askexpert/physics/motion-planes-influenced-rotation-earth

Planes and bullets are both affected by Coriolis effects. The bullet will be more affected than the plane, because it's velocity is higher, but that's only the tiniest part of the story.

Bullets are unguided projectiles. They go where the physics says they go. Any effects due to Coriolis are unabated. Also, bullets which are fired at distances where Coriolis really start to matter are also trying to hit a very small target. Small effects are very noticeable.

Planes are controlled. There is a guidance system (such as a pilot) which is trying to keep it on course. This is important because there are forces that will deflect the plane off course which are orders of magnitude more powerful than the Coreolis effect. If there was not active correction, those other forces would virtually guarantee that we never arrived at our destination.

Because there's a guidance system in play, we rapidly trim the aircraft to counteract the Coreolis effect as a side effect of trying to trim the aircraft for all of the much bigger forces at play. There may be a slight deflection of the rudder associated with the Coreolis effect, but you would be hard pressed to identify it amidst all the other forces.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/171048/coriolis-force-on-bullet-vs-airplane

This is the most ridiculous understanding of physics I have encountered. Why should it matter whether the bullet or airplane is moving faster or slower, as to be affected by the Coriolis Effect? Is there some kind of speed detector where this effect turns on?

5504

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earths Curvature and spin effect on long range ballistics.

« on: October 04, 2018, 05:55:20 PM »

Sandokan, I linked to papers on .mil domains, and you linked me to papers on .edu and .org domains. The video I had linked to likewise has documents from .mil domains.

"Here is the mathematical derivation of the trajectory equation for a spherical earth" is not actual evidence. As a Flat Earther you should know that actual evidence is needed for these wild Round Earth claims.

At this point I have severe doubts that anyone in this thread even knows what evidence is. A school report called "Modeling Flight over a Spherical Earth" from a student at Harvey Mudd College is not actual evidence.

5505

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earths Curvature and spin effect on long range ballistics.

« on: October 04, 2018, 05:30:39 PM »

Followup: Sadokan seems to claim that the "curvature equation" is a more major contribution than the alleged Coriolis Effect.

The Coriolis/Eotvos effects terms are a minor contribution to the calculations of the correct trajectory of a projectile (from a few centimeters to a few meters).

The biggest term, by far, the major contribution comes from the curvature equation.

But where is evidence that they are even using a 'curvature equation' in artillery?

From the U.S. Army Research Laboratory we read the following from an artillery paper:

http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2010/ARL-TR-5118.pdf

Projectile Flight Dynamics

A 6-DOF rigid projectile model is employed to predict the dynamics of a projectile in flight. These equations assume a flat Earth. The 6-DOF comprises the three translational components describing the position of the projectile’s center of mass and the three Euler angles describing the orientation of the projectile with respect to the Earth. Figures 1 and 2 provide a visualization of the degrees of freedom.

Another artillery paper:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a278426.pdf

From a paper on cannons and missile launch systems:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a278426.pdf

There are many other papers which detail how a Flat Earth is assumed in many of the military research papers, which I do not have the time to look for at the moment.

See this video: "Army, Air Force, CIA, Navy & NASA Documents Admit FLAT EARTH!"

5506

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earths Curvature and spin effect on long range ballistics.

« on: October 04, 2018, 04:38:55 PM »

The Coriolis/Eotvos effects terms are a minor contribution to the calculations of the correct trajectory of a projectile (from a few centimeters to a few meters).

The biggest term, by far, the major contribution comes from the curvature equation.

]This is the RE formula for a ballistic trajectory:

R = [vo2sin(2θo)]/g x {1 + [vo2/gRe][cos2θo]}

This is the FE formula for a ballistic trajectory (limit as Re goes to infinity):

R = [vo2sin(2θo)]/g

The derivation can be found here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069 (part II, formula)

The difference amounts not to a few centimeters/few meters, but is in the range of kilometers.

This is the reason why no other FE has dared to touch this subject, not any of the youtube FE, or anybody else.

They simply cannot explain this phenomenon.

Look at what we have been talking about.

Artillary, which is purported to require adjustments for the "Coriolis Effect" and other effects, is NOT ACCURATE.

From the 1967 Artillery paper we had read:

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.

This 1973 article on Firing Tables says:

When today's field artillery firing tables are used with today's approved delivery techniques [as described in VM 6-401], accurate fire can be brought to bear on targets.

Such a statement can only be made because today's approved delivery techniques recognize that many errors (both precision and bias errors) exist and those techniques arc designed to minimize these errors. The techniques are not designed to produce first round hits, nor does the statement above infer that such hits can be achieved.

This 2016 quote on the topic of modern artillery methods, from a claimed expert named Guy Schuchman, says that the same problems exist with today's modern improvements:

It's extremely rare for the first round to hit the target. It's just too much data which not all of it can be measured in 100% accuracy and human errors are quite common: small offsets in calculating the coordinates of the target or the gun, small errors in calibration, humidity of the explosive propellant, etc.. The first round is just a test round. When it falls near the target it's the artillery observer's job to see how far and in what offset did it hit away from the target and provide the FDC with the data.

A 2017 paper by Australia's Armament Research Service admits the same:

Even though great effort is made to calculate the effect of environmental and ballistic variables, an unguided artillery projectile will not reliably strike the exact point at which it is aimed. Although artillerymen strive for first round accuracy, this will still be measured in tens of meters, and in deliberate targeting or combat engagements this introduces a degree of uncertainty when assessing the safety of friendly forces and non-combatants. Properly employed, artillery gun and mortar projectiles and rockets land in a predictable area (accuracy) in a non-predictable fashion (precision), and in common with small arms fire (especially machine guns), the employment of artillery systems yields a ‘beaten zone’ or field of fire into which rounds will fall. This zone is generally cigar-shaped with the long axis falling along the line from the gun to the target, as deviation tends to occur in range rather than azimuth. The length and breadth of the zone is range dependent, as with greater range, external factors have more time to exert influence on the projectile flight.

Only after missing a number of times, and adjusting the alignment of the cannon, does artillery accurately hit its target.

Anyone who claims that artillery demonstrates the Coriolis Effect, or any other effect, will need to provide actual evidence. Many claimants of the Coriolis Effect are guilty of neglecting to provide actual evidence for their assertions.

5507

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earths Curvature and spin effect on long range ballistics.

« on: October 04, 2018, 02:58:26 PM »

Given that there is a few inches difference on the targets, I would consider the effect a waste of time to account for at shorter distances.

Unless the sniper is 100% on all other hard-to-predict variables, a few inches can be the difference between a kill shot and a miss.

Arguing that snipers do not use Coriolis does because it is a 'waste of time' does not help the Round Earth argument that snipers account for Coriolis when sniping. That significantly weakens the argument that this effect actually exists.

5508

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earths Curvature and spin effect on long range ballistics.

« on: October 04, 2018, 02:21:01 PM »

These aren't just people that simply think and write about it. They actually build devices to calculate for the Coriolis effect for long range ballistics, projectiles ranging 1000m or more.
So your logic is that military builds into their ranging devices calculations factoring for the rotation of the earth just because they "think it exists"? If that were an incorrect assumption on their part, I suspect they would never hit a target.

According to the Artillery paper you posted on the previous page they do not hit their targets!

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

From the Introduction:

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.

So yes, this shows that what you are proposing absolutely needs demonstration.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.3642.pdf"

It's all supposition and hearsay. I'm providing 20th century military documentation that shows when it comes to long range artillery ballistics they definitely factor in the rotation of the earth. You're posting non-experimental 17th century stuff like, "Suppose that a very large cannon ball, weighing 60 or 80 pounds, traverses 250 paces in 2 human pulsebeats, or 2 seconds..." Nonsense. Get some real evidence.

You have it wrong. From the article: "If Tycho is to be believed, experiments have shown this to be correct."

Tycho performed experiments. What you have provided are not experiments.

5509

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earths Curvature and spin effect on long range ballistics.

« on: October 04, 2018, 07:04:32 AM »

"FM 4-15 Coast Artillery Field Manual, Seacoast Artillery, Fire Control and Position Finding 1943"

https://i.imgur.com/hxcnuGw.jpg

https://archive.org/details/Fm4-15/page/n371

Search on ‘rotation’ and you’ll find dozens more references to the rotation of earth.

We know that there are a lot of people who think it exists and write about it. However, it would be a much stronger argument to show that there have been artillery experiments on reality to directly demonstrate the matter, rather than words about theory or supposition of what slight adjustments should be made.

5510

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earths Curvature and spin effect on long range ballistics.

« on: October 04, 2018, 06:50:54 AM »

I'll just post this again. I would direct you in particular to page 211 and the section marked '2. Impeded Fall' as the best location for an experiment that repeatedly showed a deflection concurrent with the Coriolis force, to within a probability error of within 0.03. As well, before Tom can crow about it again, the notation in there discussing 'no experimental proof' is clearly referring to the claimed S/N drift they also tested for, but whose probability error was close to 0.10, outside a suitable confidence interval to claim they had measured it.

The author you champion does nothing except throw away experiments that do not give him the result he wants.

From the article:

Guglielmini at Bolgona in 1790 was the first to experiment with bodies falling from a height. He used lead balls accurately turned and polished. He suspended each one by a thread attached to that point of the ball which was on top when it was floated in mercury. He cut the thread with a knife and allowed the ball to fall 90 feet. Unfortunately it was only after six months that he suspends a plumb line at the place in order to find the deviation of the balls from the vertical. He neither tells us from what point of the compass the threads were cut, nor the bearing of the sides of the tower.

Benzenberg repeated these experiments at Hamburg in 1802, using generally a fall of 235 feet. He observed during the day time, while his predecessor worked after midnight. But he took the precaution to suspend his plumbline immediately before and after each set of falls, and to cut the thread half of the time from the north and the other half from the south. The median was found by means of a compass needle. The balls were an alloy of lead and zinc. As the extreme deviations of his balls from the vertical are nine times the mean distance of all and, as according to his own statement, the sun, coming out of the clouds at noon, upon one occasion, warmed the south side of his wooden tower so much as to throw his plumb line 1.5 lines towards the north, Benzenberg's results, like those of Guglielmini, cannot be considered to offer even a qualitative proof of the earth's rotation. [Read: "He said documented something odd that happened on one occasion, which changed a marker that he could see moving, so that means that all of the trials are invalid!!"]

P. 210

Benzenberg also dropped 40 balls in a mine at Schebusch from a height of 262 Paris feet, but gives the results of only 28 of these. Gilbert says that neither of these two attempts of Benzenberg's have any scientific value. [Read: "I need to give no reason, it's obviously an invalid experiment!"]

...

Hooke's trials before the Royal Society in London in 1680 have only an historic value. He affirmed that the fall of a heavy body would be more to the south than to the east. As the height used was only 27 feet and the theoretical easterly deviation less than half a millimeter, Gilbert declares him to be under an illusion. [Read: Ignoring that Hooke was a Royal Astronomer and knew what the results should be, his experiments dismissed because it just sounds like too small of a drop]

Similar judgments must be meted out to other minor experimenters, whose names and results are scarcely worth mentioning. [ie. "I judge a whole range of experiments which I will not even describe here to be insufficient!"]

Dismissing experiments for some made up reason is the very definition of bias. In fact, cherry-picking what you want to see, without mentioning the results of the scores of experiments you dismiss, makes you a liar.

EDIT: Ah, here we are. Apologies, this doesn't reference Tycho specifically, but it does mention cannon experiments in general and how they are wholly inadequate and too inaccurate to measure the effect.

This was likely said by this obviously biased author because there are no cannon experiments which support a rotating earth, only ones which do not support it.

Any cannon that can shoot straight should experience deviation due to the rotation of the earth; and the cannon can be shot in multiple directions to identify any inherent left or right deviation error of the cannon. Multiple directions and multiple trials should easily show the difference between a biased cannon and the rotation of the earth. The deviation due to earth rotation should change depending on direction.

We have been told many times that the Coriolis Effect does apply to cannons. So where are these experiments which support your model?

I would also once again point out Tycho would have had an inherent bias in regards to wanting to believe/prove the Earth doesn't rotate due to beliefs at the time.

LOL Bias? Are you kidding? The author you picked to champion on this subject does nothing but throw away experiments which do not suit him. Just read your article! Where does Tycho show bias in his scientific pursuits?

Team Copernicus are the only biased crooks here.

5511

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earths Curvature and spin effect on long range ballistics.

« on: October 04, 2018, 04:44:03 AM »

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.

5512

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earths Curvature and spin effect on long range ballistics.

« on: October 04, 2018, 03:59:24 AM »

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.

5513

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earths Curvature and spin effect on long range ballistics.

« on: October 04, 2018, 01:44:18 AM »

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?

5514

Flat Earth Theory / Re: planets

« on: October 04, 2018, 01:02:36 AM »

FET is a theory in development. You are the researcher here.

5515

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earths Curvature and spin effect on long range ballistics.

« on: October 03, 2018, 10:57:07 PM »

- 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.

5516

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earths Curvature and spin effect on long range ballistics.

« on: October 03, 2018, 09:00:24 PM »

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?

5517

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Earths Curvature and spin effect on long range ballistics.

« on: October 03, 2018, 08:43:56 PM »

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.

5518

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Additions to the Library

« on: October 03, 2018, 12:43:27 AM »

Kings Dethroned
by Gerrard Hickson
PDF Link

"A history of the evolution of astronomy from the time of the Roman Empire up to the present day; showing it to be an amazing series of blunders founded upon an error made in the second century B.C."

5519

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Additions to the Library

« on: October 02, 2018, 08:46:14 PM »

There is a small collection of Flat Earth books here: https://vaultedearth.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/books-and-papers/

These ones are from more of the biblical Flat Earthers. They provide criticism of the heliocentric theory alongside the biblical arguments.

Is the Bible from Heaven? Is the Earth a Globe? (1890)
By Alex Gleason
PDF: https://vaultedearth.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/is-the-bible-from-heaven-is-earth-a-globe.pdf

Terra Firma: Earth Not a Planet Proved from Scripture, Reason and Fact (1901)
By David Wardlaw Scott
PDF: https://vaultedearth.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/terra-firma-the-earth-is-not-a-planet-proved-from-scripture-reason-fact.pdf

Fifty Reasons: Copernicus or the Bible (1915)
By By F.E. Pasche, Morris,Minn.
PDF: https://vaultedearth.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/fifty_reasons_copernicus_or_the_bible.pdf

5520

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki - Astronomy Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: October 02, 2018, 05:27:03 PM »

This was an orphaned page from my works in progress section. I've redirected it to the correct page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

I am currently compiling evidence that Astronomical prediction is based entirely on patterns of the sky. It has been based on patterns since ancient times, up until present.