[Curious Squirrel]

Where are the artillery experiments with and without this very slight adjustment?

There is no evidence. You are posting heresy and hypothesis, not evidence.

The famous astronomer Tycho Bache 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.

An yet every long range shooter is taught how to take both the Coriolis Effect, and the Eötvös effect into account for firing of ballistic weapons. The horizontal difference of a shot fired at a pole (where the Coriolis effect is strongest) is in the range of 4 inches for a shot at 1000 yards. Why continue with this teaching if there's no such thing to account for? Is this another group that is 'in' on the conspiracy? The distances done in most of these experiments fall well within the error range of the ability to measure the change as I recall the last time this was brought up. But sure, claiming the expected movement isn't an appreciable amount at the distances tested 'isn't a strong case' is where you prefer to lay your chips. Sounds good.

Maybe they are taught to account for some slight effect. We tends to describe the Coriolis Effect as a result of slight gravitational pull from the moving stars in some of our models.

But the effects and maths Tycho and Riccioli discuss are different and should be more pronounced if the earth were rotating, and the analysis directly asses the concept of a rotating earth and what it should produce.

Why? They discuss the same effect. The distance being by necessity much short, and the object being fired much larger. I see nothing about either experiment that require their conclusions, rather than the fact the distances and etc they are using will not produce a noticeable enough effect for instruments at that time. Let me see if I can dig up the source and info I used last time you posted this.

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. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1913PA.....21..208R

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.

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.

[sandokhan]

Because inertial forces like the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force do not exist.

Completely wrong.

The author of this statement has no knowledge of the original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations, which do include the Coriolis term/vorticity.

Dr. Frederick Tombe explains:

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mathematical%20Physics/Download/6212 (Wikipedia and Coriolis Force)

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Miscellaneous/Download/5288 (The Centrifugal Force and the Coriolis Force)

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/3842 (The Coriolis Force)

"The Coriolis force is not what it is said to be in modern textbooks. It is not a fictitious illusion which is merely a product of making an observation from a rotating frame of reference. The cyclones in the atmosphere are observable absolutely, and they arise from two very real compound inertial forces, and these inertial forces have a physical cause which is closely related to, but not identical to, the magnetic forces."

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/3161 (The Coriolis Force in Maxwell’s Equations)

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[stack]

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



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

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

[Tom Bishop]

"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.

[stack]

"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.

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.

And btw, where are the experiments here, where's the evidence:

"Astronomer Giovanni Riccioli describes here:

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.

[AATW]

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.

Dude, that's pretty much your MO. You do this all the time.
In a recent thread you dismissed the Cavendish experiment, a well-established, repeatable experiment, based on some article by a crazy bloke with no scientific credibility.

[totallackey]

Do you understand now?

Yes, now I understand that you do not understand your own theory yourself, and that you try to hide that by burying those who question it under mountains of irrelevant scientific and pseudo-scientific wrangling and studies of which only people with a PhD in Quantum Physics and General Relativity can tell if they make any sense or not.

Yeah...errr...wait...what!?!?

You, on the one hand, decry sandokhan for his pertinent, informational posts, claiming,"...only people with a PhD in Quantum Physics and General Relativity can tell if they make sense or not.", while on the other having no such degree yourself!?!?!

WTF, dude!?!?


But wait, there is more:

When you know that "The Coriolis effect is just a physical effect" of one body moving over the surface of an other body, you ought to understand that just plain classical mechanics is sufficient to explain and calculate this Coriolis effect, and that referring to all those non-related studies you are referring to only serves the goal of blurring the picture to hide the truth that your "drifting aether theory" did never surpass the low level of useless phantasies.

You offer up judgment again having nothing to justify your supposed point.

Plus you cannot even correctly spell simple words, even with the advantage of spell check.

Because in physics the difference between accepted scientific theories and useless phantasies is that the first ones have delivered a bunch of new formula's that can be used and tested and have proven to be reliable and useful in the real world of real physics. While the latter, the useless phantasies, never give birth to new formulas that can be tested and used to prove the phantasy more than just a phantasy.

sandokhan has provided relevant topical content to this OP and your failure to understand it is not his problem.

That's why that as long as your "spinning aether phantasy" does not deliver any new formula's that successfully can and will be used to calculate the Coriolis force, or the torque and precession of a spinning gyroscope without the help of a spinning ball, your phantasies will never be accepted as theory, but always be mocked as a useless phantasy haunting the dark caverns of junk science.

Oh, I see...

In your world, qualified, vetted research and published scientific analysis is, ...junk science.

I think you are neither humble, nor can you be labeled a scientist.

Please consider changing your moniker.

[totallackey]

Sandokhan this is, well, wow, your really smart.
"Here is one of the most sought-after formulas, which no other physicist, not even Nobel prize winners, was able to derive it. But I was."

You should be able to solve Humble B's puzzle with a simple formula and explanation that an 8th grader can understand

Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.

Warning excepted.
Sandakhan you've shown a high level of intelligence and education..
Please post a formula that solves Humble B's puzzle that I, with only a high school education from 45 years ago, can understand.

That maybe more difficult to perform than you are willing to accept.

You might want to enlist the help of a more educated friend to read the papers sandokhan has provided in order to get up to speed.

I am confident that approach can help you.

[Curious Squirrel]

Tom you asked for experimental evidence showing the Coriolis effect. Just looking to present it. I presented a source that lists a number of them, please don't assume this means I'm 'championing' an author. Feel free to look those experiments up and vet them however you please. I'm sure people would love to discuss them with you here.

For the record most sources I'm finding DO agree with that author's simple statement of essentially 'the cannonball experiments of the late 1500's and early 1600's lacked the ability to measure the small deviation that would occur'. I also have yet to find anything on what Tycho did in this aspect beyond thought experiments and relying on secondary information. Most sources suggest the scientists of that time were expecting a much larger differential in part due to a lack of understanding of inertia.

[Mysfit]

Hello Tom,
Thanks for watching the video.

- 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.

I like it when I can refute something complicated.
The west one has UA (I can't disprove UA) + Coriolis, making it very low.
The east one is lower due to UA but higher due to Coriolis, balancing out. Sorta.

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

Wouldn't both targets be at mirage distance? Do we account for this for only one target? That ain't scientific.

I read the US marine sniping manual you kindly provided and can confirm that it does not account for the Coriolis effect, but has some caveats.
- The manual covers 100-1,000 yards.
- "a hit anywhere on the body is normally disabling, so a small error is acceptable in combat"
Text version of the manual: https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-ITwQpfAWncRTv7rs/U.S.%20Marine%20Corps%20Sniper%20Manual_djvu.txt

The targets in the video are on the outside edge of the range (1,000 yards) and the guy even says it is only of consequence at higher ranges.
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.
The heights are different with the only change being the direction. Something is happening and the current solution is the earth moving.
I don't know of a flat model that moves so... wait. Why isn't there one? I'll start a new topic.

Hope that helps, I will read up some more then check if there's a wiki page to edit.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[sandokhan]

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 = [v_o²sin(2θ_o)]/g x {1 + [v_o²/gR_e][cos²θ_o]}

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

R = [v_o²sin(2θ_o)]/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.

Unless...

The correct FE equation is brought into play:

R = [v_o²sin(2θ_o)]/f(k)

k is the variable electrogravitational value, which depends on the altitude, the atmospheric ether tide, the density of ether at a certain altitude, and the spin rate

The curvature factor is ~EQUAL to the antigravitational effect produced by the spin rate of the projectile which forms a torsion field which partially cancels out the g force.

[AATW]

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.

The effect is small, even over the sorts of distances snipers operate at
Some info here:

https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/columns/straight-dope/article/13039128/do-snipers-compensate-for-the-earthrsquos-rotation-what-the-coriolis

It probably has less of an effect than other factors like the wind but there is no "argument" that it exists, it just does. It's not something which is a matter of opinion.

[juner]

That maybe more difficult to perform than you are willing to accept.

You might want to enlist the help of a more educated friend to read the papers sandokhan has provided in order to get up to speed.

I am confident that approach can help you.

Tone it down, please. You have two posts in a row that attack a user directly. Please stick to attacking the claims/arguments, and keep the rants in AR. Warned.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[stack]

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.

Show me one of Tycho Bahe's experiments. You keep claiming he did them, I can find no evidence that he did the "cannon" experiment or the like from the paper you posted or anywhere else.

[Tom Bishop]

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!"

[sandokhan]

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

Here is the mathematical derivation of the trajectory equation for a spherical earth:





As for the 6-DOF equations, you need to search a little deeper:

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:905698/FULLTEXT01.pdf (pg 9)

https://www.math.hmc.edu/~dyong/math164/2008/zitter/finalreport.pdf


The RE equation for the trajectory of projectile is real.

The FE equation, with a fixed g, is totally inaccurate.

That is why you need to take into account the ether drift, so that g becomes variable.

Using UA will get you nowhere: the RE will simply present the two equations side by side and win any debate.