Coriolis Effect

I've searched the forums and the website and found nothing.  Is there something in the library that addresses this?  If so could someone be kind enough to point me towards it?

Thanks.

All I could find was this:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Coriolis_Effect

The alleged Coriolis effect is simply the manifestation of Mach's Principle on the flat earth. 

Ah thanks Ski.  Might want to think about putting that into the wiki link that Berstram was kind enough to post.  Thanks Berstram.

What I don't get, with those that believe in a rotating Earth is,they use effects such as inertia and travelling in the plane effect, then use the Coriolis effect to prove a rotating Earth. I just don't get that as it basically contradicts their theory.

What I don't get, with those that believe in a rotating Earth is,they use effects such as inertia and travelling in the plane effect, then use the Coriolis effect to prove a rotating Earth. I just don't get that as it basically contradicts their theory.

The fact that the sky spins while keeping the apparent distances between all stars constant, and that all stars are visible to some other part of the earth is proof to me that the earth is either round and spinning, or that the earth is round, and that the sky is spinning.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 10:20:12 AM

What I don't get, with those that believe in a rotating Earth is,they use effects such as inertia and travelling in the plane effect, then use the Coriolis effect to prove a rotating Earth. I just don't get that as it basically contradicts their theory.

The fact that the sky spins while keeping the apparent distances between all stars constant, and that all stars are visible to some other part of the earth is proof to me that the earth is either round and spinning, or that the earth is round, and that the sky is spinning.

The earth is flat but the sky spins.

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 07, 2013, 11:36:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 10:20:12 AM

What I don't get, with those that believe in a rotating Earth is,they use effects such as inertia and travelling in the plane effect, then use the Coriolis effect to prove a rotating Earth. I just don't get that as it basically contradicts their theory.

The fact that the sky spins while keeping the apparent distances between all stars constant, and that all stars are visible to some other part of the earth is proof to me that the earth is either round and spinning, or that the earth is round, and that the sky is spinning.

The earth is flat but the sky spins.

If the earth was flat, then everyone would see the same stars.  As I pointed out earlier, the apparent distances between stars never change.  If perspective were the cause for different stars visible in different regions, then these apparent distances would distort.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on February 07, 2013, 12:52:49 PM

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 07, 2013, 11:36:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 10:20:12 AM

What I don't get, with those that believe in a rotating Earth is,they use effects such as inertia and travelling in the plane effect, then use the Coriolis effect to prove a rotating Earth. I just don't get that as it basically contradicts their theory.

The fact that the sky spins while keeping the apparent distances between all stars constant, and that all stars are visible to some other part of the earth is proof to me that the earth is either round and spinning, or that the earth is round, and that the sky is spinning.

The earth is flat but the sky spins.

If the earth was flat, then everyone would see the same stars.  As I pointed out earlier, the apparent distances between stars never change.  If perspective were the cause for different stars visible in different regions, then these apparent distances would distort.

I made a mistake, I meant to say the earth is flat and it spins, while the sky does not. Sorry.

Same issue.  As the night progresses, there is no perspective distortion to the stars apparent positions relative to one another.  This to me can only be explained by the inside of a rotating sphere, as points on a rotating sphere also do not change position relative to one another.  If the stars are on a rotating sphere with a flat earth in the centre, all latitudes on earth would see the same stars on the same vectors, instead of different stars being seen at different latitudes.

Same issue.  As the night progresses, there is no perspective distortion to the stars apparent positions relative to one another.  This to me can only be explained by the inside of a rotating sphere, as points on a rotating sphere also do not change position relative to one another.  If the stars are on a rotating sphere with a flat earth in the centre, all latitudes on earth would see the same stars on the same vectors, instead of different stars being seen at different latitudes.

FET is currently working on an explanation for this.

Well, until they can explain and support those explanations, I'll stick to RET.

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 07, 2013, 01:16:00 PM

Same issue.  As the night progresses, there is no perspective distortion to the stars apparent positions relative to one another.  This to me can only be explained by the inside of a rotating sphere, as points on a rotating sphere also do not change position relative to one another.  If the stars are on a rotating sphere with a flat earth in the centre, all latitudes on earth would see the same stars on the same vectors, instead of different stars being seen at different latitudes.

FET is currently working on an explanation for this.

Actually, stars are just lights projected into the ionosphere that reflect back at us to make us think they are actually there. It's part of NASA's brainwashing to get us to invest more money into their "explorations". If you debunk this then you don't understand what is actually going on in this world!

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 10:20:12 AM

What I don't get, with those that believe in a rotating Earth is,they use effects such as inertia and travelling in the plane effect, then use the Coriolis effect to prove a rotating Earth. I just don't get that as it basically contradicts their theory.

The fact that the sky spins while keeping the apparent distances between all stars constant, and that all stars are visible to some other part of the earth is proof to me that the earth is either round and spinning, or that the earth is round, and that the sky is spinning.

I once had a long discussion with someone who was adamant that the Earth is doing what mainstream scientists say it's doing, I.E, rotating at over 1000 mph.

So I said, " well why is it that I can jump up and land in the same spot and a helicopter can hover over the same spot and yet the Earth does not move under me or the helicopter."
He told me that the atmosphere spins with the Earth.

I said, " how can an atmosphere rotate with a solid object and keep the same pace, yet also have another atmosphere within it, as in the air we breathe and the clouds moving in all directions?"

He brought me to the 500 mph moving plane idea and told me that , if I'm in a plane, doing 500 mph, I won't know I'm doing 500 mph and I would feel like I'm motionless, except for my own small movements in that plane.
He said, 'if you jump up, you will land in the same spot, you won't get slung to the back of the plane due to inertia.'
Obviously I accepted that because in essence, he was correct, yet , although his explanation was good, he didn't really address the issue I'd raised, even though it appears he did.

The flaw in what he says is, he uses a tube of aluminium flying through an atmosphere that is "pushing" through an atmosphere with me protected from that pushing.
Now, if the plane was dragging the atmosphere with it at the same speed as it was going, I could have said, " ok , you got me there", but it doesn't.

What I am being told to believe is that some kind of atmosphere somehow grips the Earth's floor, all the way up to the edge of space and somehow rotates at the same speed, taking us with it, yet also allowing wind and clouds to fluctuate inside of that.

Of course, this sounds extremely feasible to people that believe the official line but it sounds utterly ridiculous to me.
Anyway, moving on.

I said, well ok but that doesn't prove it's spinning does it, as it cannot be verified and he mentioned about him being in the army and knowing how the artillery gunners calculated trajectories.
He told me about the coriolis effect where they take into consideration, the rotation of the Earth  when calculating trajectories and have to set the angles to account for the spin, otherwise they would go way off target due to the shell being fired and the Earth moving as it was in flight.

  < this puzzled.

I said, " hold on a moment here... you cannot have this both ways" and he said, ' what do you mean?'

I said, " you cannot go and explain inertia one minute with atmosphere rotations moving in unison with the Earth, then change it to calculating a shell's trajectory due to the very same Earth rotating under it, as surely the shell should follow the inertia as well as everything on this Earth.

I think the best answer I got from this was Foucault's Pendulum. 
To believe in a rotating Earth, you really do have to have faith in magical things, I shit you not.

You make me sigh sometimes Scepi.

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 07, 2013, 11:36:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 10:20:12 AM

What I don't get, with those that believe in a rotating Earth is,they use effects such as inertia and travelling in the plane effect, then use the Coriolis effect to prove a rotating Earth. I just don't get that as it basically contradicts their theory.

The fact that the sky spins while keeping the apparent distances between all stars constant, and that all stars are visible to some other part of the earth is proof to me that the earth is either round and spinning, or that the earth is round, and that the sky is spinning.

I once had a long discussion with someone who was adamant that the Earth is doing what mainstream scientists say it's doing, I.E, rotating at over 1000 mph.

So I said, " well why is it that I can jump up and land in the same spot and a helicopter can hover over the same spot and yet the Earth does not move under me or the helicopter."
He told me that the atmosphere spins with the Earth.

I said, " how can an atmosphere rotate with a solid object and keep the same pace, yet also have another atmosphere within it, as in the air we breathe and the clouds moving in all directions?"

He brought me to the 500 mph moving plane idea and told me that , if I'm in a plane, doing 500 mph, I won't know I'm doing 500 mph and I would feel like I'm motionless, except for my own small movements in that plane.
He said, 'if you jump up, you will land in the same spot, you won't get slung to the back of the plane due to inertia.'
Obviously I accepted that because in essence, he was correct, yet , although his explanation was good, he didn't really address the issue I'd raised, even though it appears he did.

The flaw in what he says is, he uses a tube of aluminium flying through an atmosphere that is "pushing" through an atmosphere with me protected from that pushing.
Now, if the plane was dragging the atmosphere with it at the same speed as it was going, I could have said, " ok , you got me there", but it doesn't.

What I am being told to believe is that some kind of atmosphere somehow grips the Earth's floor, all the way up to the edge of space and somehow rotates at the same speed, taking us with it, yet also allowing wind and clouds to fluctuate inside of that.

Of course, this sounds extremely feasible to people that believe the official line but it sounds utterly ridiculous to me.
Anyway, moving on.

I said, well ok but that doesn't prove it's spinning does it, as it cannot be verified and he mentioned about him being in the army and knowing how the artillery gunners calculated trajectories.
He told me about the coriolis effect where they take into consideration, the rotation of the Earth  when calculating trajectories and have to set the angles to account for the spin, otherwise they would go way off target due to the shell being fired and the Earth moving as it was in flight.

  < this puzzled.

I said, " hold on a moment here... you cannot have this both ways" and he said, ' what do you mean?'

I said, " you cannot go and explain inertia one minute with atmosphere rotations moving in unison with the Earth, then change it to calculating a shell's trajectory due to the very same Earth rotating under it, as surely the shell should follow the inertia as well as everything on this Earth.

I think the best answer I got from this was Foucault's Pendulum. 
To believe in a rotating Earth, you really do have to have faith in magical things, I shit you not.

There is no 'atmosphere within an atmosphere'... There are wind current in the atmosphere though.

As for the bullet thing, both reasons are correct. The atmosphere is moving with the earth like you already know. However, as the bullet increases its horizontal velocity stays the same, while for the most part the air stays around the same altitude. However, the higher you go the faster your horizontal velocity must be to match the rotation of earth. This is easy to understand if you take a circle and rotate it along the center. The points further away from the center must move faster than the points closer.
This means that the air does infact stay at the same point in relation with the ground, but the higher the bullet goes the slower it is going than what it needs to in order to do the same. Thus, the calculations are necessary(although I think one of you two exadurated how far off the landing would be, but maybe not). 

Edit: I was talking about the difference in elevation but also, like nolhekh said later, the rotation affects the movement of objects in other ways.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 02:48:59 PM

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 07, 2013, 11:36:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 10:20:12 AM

What I don't get, with those that believe in a rotating Earth is,they use effects such as inertia and travelling in the plane effect, then use the Coriolis effect to prove a rotating Earth. I just don't get that as it basically contradicts their theory.

The fact that the sky spins while keeping the apparent distances between all stars constant, and that all stars are visible to some other part of the earth is proof to me that the earth is either round and spinning, or that the earth is round, and that the sky is spinning.

I once had a long discussion with someone who was adamant that the Earth is doing what mainstream scientists say it's doing, I.E, rotating at over 1000 mph.

So I said, " well why is it that I can jump up and land in the same spot and a helicopter can hover over the same spot and yet the Earth does not move under me or the helicopter."
He told me that the atmosphere spins with the Earth.

I said, " how can an atmosphere rotate with a solid object and keep the same pace, yet also have another atmosphere within it, as in the air we breathe and the clouds moving in all directions?"

He brought me to the 500 mph moving plane idea and told me that , if I'm in a plane, doing 500 mph, I won't know I'm doing 500 mph and I would feel like I'm motionless, except for my own small movements in that plane.
He said, 'if you jump up, you will land in the same spot, you won't get slung to the back of the plane due to inertia.'
Obviously I accepted that because in essence, he was correct, yet , although his explanation was good, he didn't really address the issue I'd raised, even though it appears he did.

The flaw in what he says is, he uses a tube of aluminium flying through an atmosphere that is "pushing" through an atmosphere with me protected from that pushing.
Now, if the plane was dragging the atmosphere with it at the same speed as it was going, I could have said, " ok , you got me there", but it doesn't.

What I am being told to believe is that some kind of atmosphere somehow grips the Earth's floor, all the way up to the edge of space and somehow rotates at the same speed, taking us with it, yet also allowing wind and clouds to fluctuate inside of that.

Of course, this sounds extremely feasible to people that believe the official line but it sounds utterly ridiculous to me.
Anyway, moving on.

I said, well ok but that doesn't prove it's spinning does it, as it cannot be verified and he mentioned about him being in the army and knowing how the artillery gunners calculated trajectories.
He told me about the coriolis effect where they take into consideration, the rotation of the Earth  when calculating trajectories and have to set the angles to account for the spin, otherwise they would go way off target due to the shell being fired and the Earth moving as it was in flight.

  < this puzzled.

I said, " hold on a moment here... you cannot have this both ways" and he said, ' what do you mean?'

I said, " you cannot go and explain inertia one minute with atmosphere rotations moving in unison with the Earth, then change it to calculating a shell's trajectory due to the very same Earth rotating under it, as surely the shell should follow the inertia as well as everything on this Earth.

I think the best answer I got from this was Foucault's Pendulum. 
To believe in a rotating Earth, you really do have to have faith in magical things, I shit you not.

There is no 'atmosphere within an atmosphere'... There are wind current in the atmosphere though.

As for the bullet thing, both reasons are correct. The atmosphere is moving with the earth like you already know. However, as the bullet increases its horizontal velocity stays the same, while for the most part the air stays around the same altitude. However, the higher you go the faster your horizontal velocity must be to match the rotation of earth. This is easy to understand if you take a circle and rotate it along the center. The points further away from the center must move faster than the points closer.
This means that the air does infact stay at the same point in relation with the ground, but the higher the bullet goes the slower it is going than what it needs to in order to do the same. Thus, the calculations are necessary(although I think one of you two exadurated how far off the landing would be, but maybe not).

Here's a neat video demonstrating the effect.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">What's the Coriolis Effect? - Winds - BBC Four

I'll answer your questions, Sceptimatic.

why is it that I can jump up and land in the same spot and a helicopter can hover over the same spot and yet the Earth does not move under me or the helicopter

For the same reason you can jump or fly a model helicopter on a moving train.  As the earth spins, you spin along with it.  As you do so, you have momentum (or inertia).  When you jump, that momentum is still there, carrying you along with the surface of the earth.  Like in the explanation of the airplane.

how can an atmosphere rotate with a solid object and keep the same pace, yet also have another atmosphere within it, as in the air we breathe and the clouds moving in all directions?"

The atmosphere keeps pace - more or less - due to inertia as well.  Let's use the plane analogy again.  In a moving plane, you have an atmosphere that keeps pace with the plane, but you can still have a fan blowing, circulating air inside it, while at the same time keeping pace with the plane.  On earth, instead of a fan, we have uneven heating of the earth driving our weather.

What I am being told to believe is that some kind of atmosphere somehow grips the Earth's floor, all the way up to the edge of space and somehow rotates at the same speed, taking us with it, yet also allowing wind and clouds to fluctuate inside of that.

  That gripping is air resistance.  Friction between the air and the ground, and between air molecules, allows the atmosphere to follow the earth completely.  If you have a fan blowing in your room, air moves around, but if it stops, the air movements slowly die away, because friction between the molecules dissipates that motion.  Likewise, motion of the air relative to earth will dissipate, and eventually all the air molecules will match the inertia of the earth.  Now weather happens when new forces introduced by the sun causes the air to fluctuate, creating wind and clouds.  But this all hapens relative to the inertia caused by the earth.

I said, well ok but that doesn't prove it's spinning does it, as it cannot be verified and he mentioned about him being in the army and knowing how the artillery gunners calculated trajectories.
He told me about the coriolis effect where they take into consideration, the rotation of the Earth  when calculating trajectories and have to set the angles to account for the spin, otherwise they would go way off target due to the shell being fired and the Earth moving as it was in flight.

  < this puzzled.

I said, " hold on a moment here... you cannot have this both ways" and he said, ' what do you mean?'

I said, " you cannot go and explain inertia one minute with atmosphere rotations moving in unison with the Earth, then change it to calculating a shell's trajectory due to the very same Earth rotating under it, as surely the shell should follow the inertia as well as everything on this Earth.

I think the best answer I got from this was Foucault's Pendulum. 
To believe in a rotating Earth, you really do have to have faith in magical things, I shit you not.

If the earth is a sphere, spinning, then different parts spin at different speeds.  The equator moves fastest, and the speed decreases as you get closer to the poles.  This means that the momentum at different places is not the same.  A projectile fired from a spot, will not be moving the same speed as the earth where it hits, if it's anywhere north or south of the place it's fired from.  This is the whole point of the coriolis effect.

Anyway, this doesn't change the fact that the sky is observed to be rotating at a constant angular velocity.

If this is the case with this picture and the speed of rotation goes from 1000 mph (approx) at the equator and slows as it moves up to the pole, it should still be inertia. So the artillery shell at any point "should" not need to be calibrated for anything other than air resistance and distance and a moving Earth using inertia should have no effect whatsoever.

I understand what's been said, as in sitting on a roundabout going at a certain speed and try to roll a ball, it will move to the side, yet this should not be the case if this rotating round Earth is to be believed, which I don't.

Why would it not be the case with a rotating earth?

Lets say where you fire your artillery from, the ground is moving at 1000 mph.  You take aim, and the ground where your target is is moving at 900 mph.  The shell when fired will be travelling at whatever speed it is that shells fire at, plus 1000 mph.  When it reaches the part of the ground moving 900 mph, it has 100 mph more speed than the ground.  This causes the shell to land slightly to the east of your target.  If the target fires back, it's shell will have 100 mph less speed than your artillery, and lands to the west of you, even though his barrel is pointing right at you.  Talk to anyone who's fired artillery, and they will tell you this is true.

If this is the case with this picture and the speed of rotation goes from 1000 mph (approx) at the equator and slows as it moves up to the pole, it should still be inertia. So the artillery shell at any point "should" not need to be calibrated for anything other than air resistance and distance and a moving Earth using inertia should have no effect whatsoever.

I understand what's been said, as in sitting on a roundabout going at a certain speed and try to roll a ball, it will move to the side, yet this should not be the case if this rotating round Earth is to be believed, which I don't.

The coriolis effect has to do with rotating objects, are you telling us that the 'rotating round earth' is not rotating?

Also, the friction with the ground affects the air closest, and that effects the air above, which effects the air above, which...

Finally, you should read the fan analogy given to understand air currents...

Why would it not be the case with a rotating earth?

Lets say where you fire your artillery from, the ground is moving at 1000 mph.  You take aim, and the ground where your target is is moving at 900 mph.  The shell when fired will be travelling at whatever speed it is that shells fire at, plus 1000 mph.  When it reaches the part of the ground moving 900 mph, it has 100 mph more speed than the ground.  This causes the shell to land slightly to the east of your target.  If the target fires back, it's shell will have 100 mph less speed than your artillery, and lands to the west of you, even though his barrel is pointing right at you.  Talk to anyone who's fired artillery, and they will tell you this is true.

The shell will be travelling at whatever speed it's fired at, end of story...."unless" you could view it from outside of the Earth, then it would be different, assuming the Earth is rotating, because then you would add the rotating speed in to your visual take on it.

If inertia is inertia, then it's inertia , you can't have it both ways and just decide one minute it's like a plane or train effect, then change it to artillery shells working opposite.

If I'm in a plane and I fire a small artillery shell from the back to the cockpit door at say 25 mph...from my point of view, it will hit that door at 25 mph irrespective of the plane travelling at 500 mph or 1000 mph.
I don;t need to make any adjustment to my aim, unless they decide to put a big blow fan on.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 05:56:30 PM

If this is the case with this picture and the speed of rotation goes from 1000 mph (approx) at the equator and slows as it moves up to the pole, it should still be inertia. So the artillery shell at any point "should" not need to be calibrated for anything other than air resistance and distance and a moving Earth using inertia should have no effect whatsoever.

I understand what's been said, as in sitting on a roundabout going at a certain speed and try to roll a ball, it will move to the side, yet this should not be the case if this rotating round Earth is to be believed, which I don't.

The coriolis effect has to do with rotating objects, are you telling us that the 'rotating round earth' is not rotating?

Also, the friction with the ground affects the air closest, and that effects the air above, which effects the air above, which...

Finally, you should read the fan analogy given to understand air currents...

I'm 1 million per cent certain in my mind that it's as still as a statue.

Oh and this has nothing whatsoever to do with air currents, as regards the actual miraculous friction grip atmosphere that the spinning round Earth brigade believe.

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 07, 2013, 11:36:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 10:20:12 AM

What I don't get, with those that believe in a rotating Earth is,they use effects such as inertia and travelling in the plane effect, then use the Coriolis effect to prove a rotating Earth. I just don't get that as it basically contradicts their theory.

The fact that the sky spins while keeping the apparent distances between all stars constant, and that all stars are visible to some other part of the earth is proof to me that the earth is either round and spinning, or that the earth is round, and that the sky is spinning.

I once had a long discussion with someone who was adamant that the Earth is doing what mainstream scientists say it's doing, I.E, rotating at over 1000 mph.

So I said, " well why is it that I can jump up and land in the same spot and a helicopter can hover over the same spot and yet the Earth does not move under me or the helicopter."
He told me that the atmosphere spins with the Earth.

I said, " how can an atmosphere rotate with a solid object and keep the same pace, yet also have another atmosphere within it, as in the air we breathe and the clouds moving in all directions?"

He brought me to the 500 mph moving plane idea and told me that , if I'm in a plane, doing 500 mph, I won't know I'm doing 500 mph and I would feel like I'm motionless, except for my own small movements in that plane.
He said, 'if you jump up, you will land in the same spot, you won't get slung to the back of the plane due to inertia.'
Obviously I accepted that because in essence, he was correct, yet , although his explanation was good, he didn't really address the issue I'd raised, even though it appears he did.

The flaw in what he says is, he uses a tube of aluminium flying through an atmosphere that is "pushing" through an atmosphere with me protected from that pushing.
Now, if the plane was dragging the atmosphere with it at the same speed as it was going, I could have said, " ok , you got me there", but it doesn't.

What I am being told to believe is that some kind of atmosphere somehow grips the Earth's floor, all the way up to the edge of space and somehow rotates at the same speed, taking us with it, yet also allowing wind and clouds to fluctuate inside of that.

Of course, this sounds extremely feasible to people that believe the official line but it sounds utterly ridiculous to me.
Anyway, moving on.

I said, well ok but that doesn't prove it's spinning does it, as it cannot be verified and he mentioned about him being in the army and knowing how the artillery gunners calculated trajectories.
He told me about the coriolis effect where they take into consideration, the rotation of the Earth  when calculating trajectories and have to set the angles to account for the spin, otherwise they would go way off target due to the shell being fired and the Earth moving as it was in flight.

  < this puzzled.

I said, " hold on a moment here... you cannot have this both ways" and he said, ' what do you mean?'

I said, " you cannot go and explain inertia one minute with atmosphere rotations moving in unison with the Earth, then change it to calculating a shell's trajectory due to the very same Earth rotating under it, as surely the shell should follow the inertia as well as everything on this Earth.

I think the best answer I got from this was Foucault's Pendulum. 
To believe in a rotating Earth, you really do have to have faith in magical things, I shit you not.

Ah, it's been quite some time since we've asked round-earthers to explain this one.  From the answers it seems that they don't even understand the problem.

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 07, 2013, 06:08:06 PM

Why would it not be the case with a rotating earth?

Lets say where you fire your artillery from, the ground is moving at 1000 mph.  You take aim, and the ground where your target is is moving at 900 mph.  The shell when fired will be travelling at whatever speed it is that shells fire at, plus 1000 mph.  When it reaches the part of the ground moving 900 mph, it has 100 mph more speed than the ground.  This causes the shell to land slightly to the east of your target.  If the target fires back, it's shell will have 100 mph less speed than your artillery, and lands to the west of you, even though his barrel is pointing right at you.  Talk to anyone who's fired artillery, and they will tell you this is true.

The shell will be travelling at whatever speed it's fired at, end of story...."unless" you could view it from outside of the Earth, then it would be different, assuming the Earth is rotating, because then you would add the rotating speed in to your visual take on it.

If inertia is inertia, then it's inertia , you can't have it both ways and just decide one minute it's like a plane or train effect, then change it to artillery shells working opposite.

If I'm in a plane and I fire a small artillery shell from the back to the cockpit door at say 25 mph...from my point of view, it will hit that door at 25 mph irrespective of the plane travelling at 500 mph or 1000 mph.
I don;t need to make any adjustment to my aim, unless they decide to put a big blow fan on.

A plane is an analogy for one point on earth travelling at one speed.  The artillery thing takes two locations, travelling at differen speeds into account.  Please confirm that you understand that different places on a rotating ball rotate at different speeds.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 02:48:59 PM

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 07, 2013, 11:36:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 10:20:12 AM

What I don't get, with those that believe in a rotating Earth is,they use effects such as inertia and travelling in the plane effect, then use the Coriolis effect to prove a rotating Earth. I just don't get that as it basically contradicts their theory.

The fact that the sky spins while keeping the apparent distances between all stars constant, and that all stars are visible to some other part of the earth is proof to me that the earth is either round and spinning, or that the earth is round, and that the sky is spinning.

I once had a long discussion with someone who was adamant that the Earth is doing what mainstream scientists say it's doing, I.E, rotating at over 1000 mph.

So I said, " well why is it that I can jump up and land in the same spot and a helicopter can hover over the same spot and yet the Earth does not move under me or the helicopter."
He told me that the atmosphere spins with the Earth.

I said, " how can an atmosphere rotate with a solid object and keep the same pace, yet also have another atmosphere within it, as in the air we breathe and the clouds moving in all directions?"

He brought me to the 500 mph moving plane idea and told me that , if I'm in a plane, doing 500 mph, I won't know I'm doing 500 mph and I would feel like I'm motionless, except for my own small movements in that plane.
He said, 'if you jump up, you will land in the same spot, you won't get slung to the back of the plane due to inertia.'
Obviously I accepted that because in essence, he was correct, yet , although his explanation was good, he didn't really address the issue I'd raised, even though it appears he did.

The flaw in what he says is, he uses a tube of aluminium flying through an atmosphere that is "pushing" through an atmosphere with me protected from that pushing.
Now, if the plane was dragging the atmosphere with it at the same speed as it was going, I could have said, " ok , you got me there", but it doesn't.

What I am being told to believe is that some kind of atmosphere somehow grips the Earth's floor, all the way up to the edge of space and somehow rotates at the same speed, taking us with it, yet also allowing wind and clouds to fluctuate inside of that.

Of course, this sounds extremely feasible to people that believe the official line but it sounds utterly ridiculous to me.
Anyway, moving on.

I said, well ok but that doesn't prove it's spinning does it, as it cannot be verified and he mentioned about him being in the army and knowing how the artillery gunners calculated trajectories.
He told me about the coriolis effect where they take into consideration, the rotation of the Earth  when calculating trajectories and have to set the angles to account for the spin, otherwise they would go way off target due to the shell being fired and the Earth moving as it was in flight.

  < this puzzled.

I said, " hold on a moment here... you cannot have this both ways" and he said, ' what do you mean?'

I said, " you cannot go and explain inertia one minute with atmosphere rotations moving in unison with the Earth, then change it to calculating a shell's trajectory due to the very same Earth rotating under it, as surely the shell should follow the inertia as well as everything on this Earth.

I think the best answer I got from this was Foucault's Pendulum. 
To believe in a rotating Earth, you really do have to have faith in magical things, I shit you not.

Ah, it's been quite some time since we've asked round-earthers to explain this one.  From the answers it seems that they don't even understand the problem.

This is a massive problem they have and yet it cannot be dismissed as they try to do, because to do that means they immediately contradict what they say.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 06:17:49 PM

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 07, 2013, 06:08:06 PM

Why would it not be the case with a rotating earth?

Lets say where you fire your artillery from, the ground is moving at 1000 mph.  You take aim, and the ground where your target is is moving at 900 mph.  The shell when fired will be travelling at whatever speed it is that shells fire at, plus 1000 mph.  When it reaches the part of the ground moving 900 mph, it has 100 mph more speed than the ground.  This causes the shell to land slightly to the east of your target.  If the target fires back, it's shell will have 100 mph less speed than your artillery, and lands to the west of you, even though his barrel is pointing right at you.  Talk to anyone who's fired artillery, and they will tell you this is true.

The shell will be travelling at whatever speed it's fired at, end of story...."unless" you could view it from outside of the Earth, then it would be different, assuming the Earth is rotating, because then you would add the rotating speed in to your visual take on it.

If inertia is inertia, then it's inertia , you can't have it both ways and just decide one minute it's like a plane or train effect, then change it to artillery shells working opposite.

If I'm in a plane and I fire a small artillery shell from the back to the cockpit door at say 25 mph...from my point of view, it will hit that door at 25 mph irrespective of the plane travelling at 500 mph or 1000 mph.
I don;t need to make any adjustment to my aim, unless they decide to put a big blow fan on.

A plane is an analogy for one point on earth travelling at one speed.  The artillery thing takes two locations, travelling at differen speeds into account.  Please confirm that you understand that different places on a rotating ball rotate at different speeds.

INERTIA.
That's the only point you really need to know.

Inertia is the resistance to change in speed.  But there are different speeds on a rotating earth.  How can you ignore this?

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 07, 2013, 06:21:06 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 06:17:49 PM

Quote from: Nolhekh on February 07, 2013, 06:08:06 PM

Why would it not be the case with a rotating earth?

Lets say where you fire your artillery from, the ground is moving at 1000 mph.  You take aim, and the ground where your target is is moving at 900 mph.  The shell when fired will be travelling at whatever speed it is that shells fire at, plus 1000 mph.  When it reaches the part of the ground moving 900 mph, it has 100 mph more speed than the ground.  This causes the shell to land slightly to the east of your target.  If the target fires back, it's shell will have 100 mph less speed than your artillery, and lands to the west of you, even though his barrel is pointing right at you.  Talk to anyone who's fired artillery, and they will tell you this is true.

The shell will be travelling at whatever speed it's fired at, end of story...."unless" you could view it from outside of the Earth, then it would be different, assuming the Earth is rotating, because then you would add the rotating speed in to your visual take on it.

If inertia is inertia, then it's inertia , you can't have it both ways and just decide one minute it's like a plane or train effect, then change it to artillery shells working opposite.

If I'm in a plane and I fire a small artillery shell from the back to the cockpit door at say 25 mph...from my point of view, it will hit that door at 25 mph irrespective of the plane travelling at 500 mph or 1000 mph.
I don;t need to make any adjustment to my aim, unless they decide to put a big blow fan on.

A plane is an analogy for one point on earth travelling at one speed.  The artillery thing takes two locations, travelling at differen speeds into account.  Please confirm that you understand that different places on a rotating ball rotate at different speeds.

INERTIA.
That's the only point you really need to know.

From earlier: Your personal opinion has nothing to do with the RE theory.

And no, you need to know what he just said that different places rotate at different speeds.

Inertia is the resistance to change in speed.  But there are different speeds on a rotating earth.  How can you ignore this?

It doesn't matter about the change in speed.

Nowhere on this Earth can you jump up or hover and see the Earth move under your feet, whether you are at the equator or at the pole so to speak and it doesn't matter which direction you do it, so going by that, it would have no effect on an artillery shell either.