The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: JamesJamie on September 17, 2010, 11:45:13 AM
-
Regarding the FAQ for Coriolis Effect, it only addresses a small portion of it.
Q: "How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?"
A: You are mistaken. The Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day, and fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet spins much faster than that (at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day), so the additional or lost rotation from the Coriolis effect would not be noticed.
So with that statement, I am concluding you DO believe in the Coriolis effect, only it's very weak. But, lets be serious here. Given that toilets are on a very small scale, designs and other various things can easily overcome the effect. Look on a much grander scale. Take cyclones for example. They spin counter clockwise in the Northern, and clockwise in the Southern. This does not have to do with the fact that you get turned 180 degrees when you move across the Equator. If you were to theoretically jump out of an airplane over a cyclone in the Northern, and then again over one in the Southern and stay there for a day; you would see clearly they rotate oppositely. What is clearly making a cyclone in the Southern hemisphere rotate clockwise? (More on this in the videos).
As I said earlier, that is only a small portion of the Coriolis effect. What about trajectories over long distances? Take for example a sniper, who shoots at his target +1 mile away in the Northern hemisphere. His crosshairs are between the eyes - with no calibrations to his scope, he will hit his target below and to the right. We understand the below part here, be it gravity or UA as some of you believe here. What about the right part? Now lets adjust that scope. You aim high for gravity, then you aim a little bit left to account for the wind. You fire again...and the bullet STILL misses to the right. Why is the bullet missing!?! It's because of the Coriolis effect. Objects in the Northern hemisphere are deflected right as viewed from the original movement (vice verse in the Southern).
When have a trajectory traveling long distances, you have to take into account of the rotation of the Earth! If you are in the military, specifically artillery or a sniper, you HAVE to learn about this (granted computers do the math now, you still have to manually plug in your coordinates). As the bullet or artillery shell is traveling through the air, it is not affect by the rotation of the Earth, but your target still is. In that distance, and when the bullet or shell exits the barrel to when it reaches its target; the target will have moved, be it ever so slightly (snipers) or over great distances (artillery).
I'll give you two accounts where the Coriolis effect played a crucial effect in history. First, the Battle of the Falkland Islands during WW1. When the British entered combat with the German navy, the British shells kept missing. Shell after shell into the water. ~1000 shells later, someone smart decided, oh it's because we didn't reverse our Coriolis coordinates! Nearly ALL of those 1000 shells missed the German boats by 10 miles+ to the left as they still had their old Coriolis coordinates in the Northern hemisphere where you aim left of your target, but in the Southern, you have to aim to the right.
Another part is the infamous Paris Gun. I'll give you an excerpt.
The Paris gun was used to shell Paris at a range of 120 km (75 miles). The distance was so far that the Coriolis effect — the rotation of the Earth — was substantial enough to affect trajectory calculations. The gun was fired at an azimuth of 232 degrees (west-southwest) from Crépy-en Laon, which was at a latitude of 49.5 degrees North. The gunners had to account for the fact that the projectiles landed to the right of where they would have hit if there were no Coriolis effect.
In summary of all this, to an observer on the ground, it would appear that the object, be it a cyclone or a bullet/artillery shell is curving left or right, when in actuality your trajectory is straight. To an observer ABOVE the plane of the Earth, that object is to be going in a straight line. THE ONLY THING THAT CAN CAUSE THE CORIOLIS EFFECT IS THE ROTATION OF A ROUND EARTH. So, regarding the FAQ, you believe in the effect (unless it's worded wrong). So therefor you HAVE to believe the Earth is rotating (and that it's round, it goes hand in hand).
*Also, from the FAQ again: you are saying the effect becomes less important as you are getting closer to the equator. So essentially it gets more important as you get farther away from the Equator. This is essentially saying the Earth is indeed round, as with the rotation of the round Earth, objects farther away from the Equator travel deflect left and right more than than an object on the Equator. FET essentially just proved itself wrong by saying they don't disprove of the Coriolis effect.*
Couple videos on it if you are having trouble. Highly regard watching these videos. All of them are no longer than 2 minutes.
-
Maybe I haven't made myself clear. You need an object spinning to create the Coriolis effect, and a sphere to create the difference of the effect (greater the farther north/south you go from the equator).
I'm pretty sure this proves the rotation, and if not that the Earth is round. Pretty big flaw you guys have there...
-
Just a thought, but if the earth was round and flat like a plate and spinning in space with its own gravity, would that not give the same effects as a Coriolis? Any liquid on the surface would be driven round by the same force.
And lets just say that plate was two sided like a coin, would that not make fluids on the opposite side, turn the opposite direction? As for strength this would be increased the further from the centre of coin you go, like going up and down the latitudes. Toroidal shapes would give similar results.
I'm not sure Coriolis proves shape. Merely spinning and a distance from the core or centre of spin.
Good post though. Lots of interesting stuff in there.
-
Just a thought, but if the earth was round and flat like a plate and spinning in space with its own gravity, would that not give the same effects as a Coriolis? Any liquid on the surface would be driven round by the same force.
And lets just say that plate was two sided like a coin, would that not make fluids on the opposite side, turn the opposite direction? As for strength this would be increased the further from the centre of coin you go, like going up and down the latitudes. Toroidal shapes would give similar results.
I'm not sure Coriolis proves shape. Merely spinning and a distance from the core or centre of spin.
Good post though. Lots of interesting stuff in there.
But here lies where the FET falls apart. FET does not believe in a rotating Earth. Also, if on a flat plane as you said, you would not have the reverse in the other hemisphere.
-
Hey, I only ever said the earth was flat. I never said whether it spun or not. Just because I share a common belief that the earth is flat doesn't mean I share every other crackpot idea on this site. Of course it may be that they are right and I am wrong. Your example only suggests spin.
However magnetism would create a similar effect on a bullet if it was ferrous (which most are being made of steel). It would make it bend.
Prevailing wind would obviously move a bullet. Trade winds send the bullet the same direction - ie west from the equator or to the right as you explained in your first post. They lose strength as you leave the equator. Geography for kids proves this. ;)
http://www.kidsgeo.com/geography-for-kids/0094-trade-winds.php
Also, guns are rifled. This makes the bullet itself spin. As Beckham will tell you, when you put spin on something, that also effects its trajectory.
However Trade winds or magnetism or the 'Beckham' factor on a flat earth or any shape, spinning or not, would give the same results as you submit.
So not only am I still in doubt as to whether the earth is round, in fact I'm quite sure its flat, I'm now doubting whether it spins or not. Your not helping. :P
-
Hey, I only ever said the earth was flat. I never said whether it spun or not. Just because I share a common belief that the earth is flat doesn't mean I share every other crackpot idea on this site. Of course it may be that they are right and I am wrong. Your example only suggests spin.
However magnetism would create a similar effect on a bullet if it was ferrous (which most are being made of steel). It would make it bend.
Prevailing wind would obviously move a bullet. Trade winds send the bullet the same direction - ie west from the equator or to the right as you explained in your first post. They lose strength as you leave the equator. Geography for kids proves this. ;)
http://www.kidsgeo.com/geography-for-kids/0094-trade-winds.php
Also, guns are rifled. This makes the bullet itself spin. As Beckham will tell you, when you put spin on something, that also effects its trajectory.
However Trade winds or magnetism or the 'Beckham' factor on a flat earth or any shape, spinning or not, would give the same results as you submit.
So not only am I still in doubt as to whether the earth is round, in fact I'm quite sure its flat, I'm now doubting whether it spins or not. Your not helping. :P
I'll break this down, it can't be magnetism because the effect is still shown on Tungsten shells and other non magnetic materials. And you are wrong, most bullets are made of mostly copper, zinc and lead alloys (which have very, very weak magnetic influence). I love how you assume and use it as fact that bullets are made of steel.
The trade winds are going that way because...you guessed it! Coriolis effect! So saying the winds are a factor is just proving my point further. However, lets say you account for the wind speed, and aim accordingly. You will still miss the target.
Now for the rifling point. There are three crucial points I want to make.
1.) If rifling causes the bullet to move, WHY...WHY do we consider rifling a major advancement in accuracy!?!? Makes no mother****ing sense. We should have stuck with smoothbore's.
2.) Modern artillery does not use rifling. And their projectiles fire tens of miles, if not more. Still, those munitions are being drawn offcourse by the Coriolis effect.
3.) Rifling, as I said earlier increases accuracy because of the conservation of angular momentum. The spinning PREVENTS the bullet from curving. Crude diagram explaining it http://i27.tinypic.com/2s9ximt.jpg The reason "bend it like Beckham" works is because the soccer ball or baseball has grooves on it, deflecting the air causing various ways for the ball to "bend".
On a flat Earth, the Coriolis effect should be constant wherever you go. This is not the case. Stronger as you go North and South, and a reverse direction points to the Earths rotation, and that of being a sphere!
-
Mmmmm. some food for thought there. I still have a few issues with it though. ;)
First I want to clear up the rifling business. You say we consider rifling a major advancement in accuracy, but then in the very next sentence, you say modern artillery does not use rifling. Then you flip back to saying it increases angular momentum? So is rifling good for keeping things straight, and if so, why don't they use it in modern artillery? Surely that would be a step back? Whilst we are on the subject of artillery ....
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981STIN...8214395P
Seems steel is as popular as ever. Google 'Bethlehem Steel Corporation' and the word 'artillery'. Been using steel a long time.
Steel for shells, steel for the casings, steel for the shrapnel inside and hardened steel for the pointy bit at the front, to pierce armour.
Whoah there! You can't just say the trade winds are caused by Coriolis.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_wind.htm
No mention of Coriolis to generate wind there. Wind is quite capable of existing without Coriolis.
-
Mmmmm. some food for thought there. I still have a few issues with it though. ;)
First I want to clear up the rifling business. You say we consider rifling a major advancement in accuracy, but then in the very next sentence, you say modern artillery does not use rifling. Then you flip back to saying it increases angular momentum? So is rifling good for keeping things straight, and if so, why don't they use it in modern artillery? Surely that would be a step back? Whilst we are on the subject of artillery ....
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981STIN...8214395P
Seems steel is as popular as ever. Google 'Bethlehem Steel Corporation' and the word 'artillery'. Been using steel a long time.
Steel for shells, steel for the casings, steel for the shrapnel inside and hardened steel for the pointy bit at the front, to pierce armour.
Whoah there! You can't just say the trade winds are caused by Coriolis.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_wind.htm
No mention of Coriolis to generate wind there. Wind is quite capable of existing without Coriolis.
you might want to work on the physics of what causes wind. ;) To make this more clear, wind wouldn't be the same on FE as it is on RE. And this is especially true if you go by the UA model. So you need to actually debunk what generates trade winds, or many other kinds of winds that are in accordance to the RE model.
-
Mmmmm. some food for thought there. I still have a few issues with it though. ;)
First I want to clear up the rifling business. You say we consider rifling a major advancement in accuracy, but then in the very next sentence, you say modern artillery does not use rifling. Then you flip back to saying it increases angular momentum? So is rifling good for keeping things straight, and if so, why don't they use it in modern artillery? Surely that would be a step back? Whilst we are on the subject of artillery ....
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981STIN...8214395P
Seems steel is as popular as ever. Google 'Bethlehem Steel Corporation' and the word 'artillery'. Been using steel a long time.
Steel for shells, steel for the casings, steel for the shrapnel inside and hardened steel for the pointy bit at the front, to pierce armour.
Whoah there! You can't just say the trade winds are caused by Coriolis.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_wind.htm
No mention of Coriolis to generate wind there. Wind is quite capable of existing without Coriolis.
Lol, way to bend my words. First, rifling doesn't exist in artillery because we have this technology called laser guided bomb or JDAM. You can't fire a shell with those fitted on it. It launches the shell miles into the atmosphere, then it deploys its "flaps" to guide the missile/shell to its location. They also use smoothebores as rifling reduces kinetic energy. Read up more before calling me out on something.
In the modern everyday guns, most bullets are copper, aluminum, and lead alloys. Modern armor piercing rounds (or SABOT) are almost exclusively Tungsten or Depleted Uranium. Sure there are a few steel ones, but to say "been popular as ever" and "Been using for a long time" are misleading. Of course we have been using steel for a long time, that's a no brainer, and yes, it IS popular in projectiles. But...it has lost its touch here in the USA. However, even if I am wrong...no lets say I AM wrong on that they are not tungsten or DU, and infact steel. Still doesn't account for the fact that other projectiles that aren't magnetic are subject to the Coriolis effect.
I didn't say trade winds are caused by the Coriolis effect, I said their apparent movement and direction are because of the Coriolis effect. Hence why cyclones spin the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere.
P.S, lol that link talks about the Coriolis effect in the first paragraph dude.
-
didn't we just have a thread about this?
-
However magnetism would create a similar effect on a bullet if it was ferrous (which most are being made of steel). It would make it bend.
At such velocities that magnetism would have to be rather potent. And do you know the magnetic properties of Earth, or it's magnetic field? Perhaps you can consider a polar opposite effect under this premise could allow for a unlimited range projectile. The other problem with this argument is wouldn't the magnetic attraction only generate a downward attraction. And to get the same effect every time doesn't make sense either. Hence, corrections being made for RE is relevant the the rotation of the Earth and direction of rotation relative to the position and facing direction of the artillery gun. So how would FE be consistent with RE, especially considering ones longitude and latitude? You do realize the effect differs as you get closer to the equator vs further away from it?
-
At such velocities that magnetism would have to be rather potent.
At such velocities the Coriolis would have to be rather potent.
Perhaps you can consider a polar opposite effect under this premise could allow for a unlimited range projectile.
What? I said it could bend it the few millimetres you described. Not drag it round the earth ad infinitum.
The other problem with this argument is wouldn't the magnetic attraction only generate a downward attraction.
Nope, compass needles aren't dragged down. They move left and right.
You do realize the effect differs as you get closer to the equator vs further away from it?
What part of I don't believe in this crazy Coriolis notion don't you understand?
By the way, is Coriolis your new word for the day? This is the 3rd thread I have seen you start on the subject. We get it. You like the idea. You've read something about it recently and want to tell everyone you have heard of it. Super. Maybe next week you'll read about the jet stream and we will all be treated to several copy and paste renditions of that too.
-
The other problem with this argument is wouldn't the magnetic attraction only generate a downward attraction.
Nope, compass needles aren't dragged down. They move left and right.
Wrong again... Please lurk moar.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass#Compass_balancing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass#Compass_balancing)
-
Thork, did you just skip over what I just posted? My whole entire argument refutes what you just posted, and you can actually test and prove everything I just said. If I launch a heavy plastic ball like an artillery shell, it will still move off course like that of a metal shell. Magnetism has NOTHING to do with this, nothing at all.
And, I am posting this as because it: proves the rotation of the Earth which most FE'ers say the Earth doesn't, void of all the conspiracy theories out there FE'ers create as a fog to hide in, and can be empirically tested and verified numerous times with the same result.
It also proves the shape of the Earth to a lesser extent. If the Earth was a flat plane and rotating, the Coriolis effect would be a constant effect in the same direction wherever you go, but it turns out it not only reverses in the southern hemisphere, but becomes dramatically weaker closer to the Equator, which proves Earth isn't flat.
It seems it's true, as most of the FE'ers aren't touching this post even with a 10 ft pole. So until I get some actual evidence from them that contradicts what I've just stated, I will continue to post this. Can't pick and choose what you believe in to fit you theories guys.
-
The Coriolis effect can be explained by the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens.
-
The Coriolis effect can be explained by the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens.
I suggest you google gravimeter data and accelerometer data lol. 8)
Any takers on the coordinate system that's used for navigation? Hint: it's not compatible with the FE model :P
-
...What?
First please explain what you are saying, anyone can throw out a word.
Second, please present your evidence to support why you believe the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens explains this phenomenon.
-
The Coriolis effect can be explained by the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens.
I suggest you google gravimeter data and accelerometer data lol. 8)
Gravimeters and accelerometers don't measure velocity-dependent forces associated with the Coriolis effect and gravitomagnetism.
...What?
First please explain what you are saying, anyone can throw out a word.
Second, please present your evidence to support why you believe the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens explains this phenomenon.
According to General Relativity, frame-dragging occurs around a rotating mass (the heavens). Frame-dragging reproduces all of the effects associated with a rotating reference frame including the Coriolis effect.
-
The Coriolis effect can be explained by the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens.
I suggest you google gravimeter data and accelerometer data lol. 8)
Gravimeters and accelerometers don't measure velocity-dependent forces associated with the Coriolis effect and gravitomagnetism.
...What?
First please explain what you are saying, anyone can throw out a word.
Second, please present your evidence to support why you believe the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens explains this phenomenon.
According to General Relativity, frame-dragging occurs around a rotating mass (the heavens). Frame-dragging reproduces all of the effects associated with a rotating reference frame including the Coriolis effect.
That's not evidence, that's making shit up lol
And secondly you fail at understanding why I asked you to google gravimeter data and accelerometer data ;)
-
Sometimes I need to flush my toilet twice. Does this mean that the Earth is not rotating?
-
Sometimes I need to flush my toilet twice. Does this mean that the Earth is not rotating?
Stop clogging the toilet ;)
-
I don't even use toilet paper.
-
I don't even use toilet paper.
Too... much... information.
-
I don't even use toilet paper.
Damn them are big Logs you are dropping lol.. Sounds like you need a plumber :P
-
I don't even use toilet paper.
Damn them are big Logs you are dropping lol.. Sounds like you need a plumber :P
The plumber that used to maintain my household's plumbing system is dead. A log dropped cause he was deaf and couldn't hear the 'Timbeeeer'.
-
I don't even use toilet paper.
Damn them are big Logs you are dropping lol.. Sounds like you need a plumber :P
The plumber that used to maintain my household's plumbing system is dead. A log dropped cause he was deaf and couldn't hear the 'Timbeeeer'.
MURDERER! PLUMBER KILLER!
-
*Slowly backs away from thread*
-
*Slowly backs away from thread*
Don't worry, I drop JDAMs down the Toilet daily :P.. LOL
Seriously, You are correct in regards to the OP. :)
-
JDAM's? Psshhtt my toilet is Bikini Atoll every time I pop a squat.
And yes, I am correct. The FE'ers can't argue it very well as it seems they ignore this thread.
-
The FE'ers can't argue it very well as it seems they ignore this thread
No, we are only interested in the easy ones to prove, like shrimp on the moon, bendy light and the moon's harmful effects on people.
-
The FE'ers can't argue it very well as it seems they ignore this thread
No, we are only interested in the easy ones to prove, like shrimp on the moon, bendy light and the moon's harmful effects on people.
Bendy light easy to prove? Then prove it.
-
The FE'ers can't argue it very well as it seems they ignore this thread
No, we are only interested in the easy ones to prove, like shrimp on the moon, bendy light and the moon's harmful effects on people.
Bendy light easy to prove? Then prove it.
There is already a thread open, in which Bendy Light Specialist Parsifal, expertly guides the lost to salvation.
-
The FE'ers can't argue it very well as it seems they ignore this thread
No, we are only interested in the easy ones to prove, like shrimp on the moon, bendy light and the moon's harmful effects on people.
Bendy light easy to prove? Then prove it.
There is already a thread open, in which Bendy Light Specialist Parsifal, expertly guides the lost to salvation.
Lol. You know that Parsifal is a Devil's Advocate/troll, right?
-
The FE'ers can't argue it very well as it seems they ignore this thread
No, we are only interested in the easy ones to prove, like shrimp on the moon, bendy light and the moon's harmful effects on people.
Bendy light easy to prove? Then prove it.
There is already a thread open, in which Bendy Light Specialist Parsifal, expertly guides the lost to salvation.
Lol. You know that Parsifal is a Devil's Advocate/troll, right?
How dare you!
I suspect this thread got no answers from the FErs, because the round earthers seemed more concerned with which way Zork's JDAMs flush. The learned academics of FES aren't going to waste time on that, when Ichi is on the verge of completing important moonlight experiments.
-
The FE'ers can't argue it very well as it seems they ignore this thread
No, we are only interested in the easy ones to prove, like shrimp on the moon, bendy light and the moon's harmful effects on people.
Bendy light easy to prove? Then prove it.
There is already a thread open, in which Bendy Light Specialist Parsifal, expertly guides the lost to salvation.
Lol. You know that Parsifal is a Devil's Advocate/troll, right?
How dare you!
I suspect this thread got no answers from the FErs, because the round earthers seemed more concerned with which way Zork's JDAMs flush. The learned academics of FES aren't going to waste time on that, when Ichi is on the verge of completing important moonlight experiments.
Your talk doesn't make any sense. Sober up and come back tomorrow.
-
*Slowly backs away from thread*
Don't worry, I drop JDAMs down the Toilet daily :P.. LOL
Seriously, You are correct in regards to the OP. :)
Sorry Zork, it was thejackel. hw acn yo telll i'v beeeeen drnkg? ???
-
Mmmmm. some food for thought there. I still have a few issues with it though. ;)
First I want to clear up the rifling business. You say we consider rifling a major advancement in accuracy, but then in the very next sentence, you say modern artillery does not use rifling. Then you flip back to saying it increases angular momentum? So is rifling good for keeping things straight, and if so, why don't they use it in modern artillery? Surely that would be a step back? Whilst we are on the subject of artillery ....
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981STIN...8214395P
Seems steel is as popular as ever. Google 'Bethlehem Steel Corporation' and the word 'artillery'. Been using steel a long time.
Steel for shells, steel for the casings, steel for the shrapnel inside and hardened steel for the pointy bit at the front, to pierce armour.
Whoah there! You can't just say the trade winds are caused by Coriolis.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_wind.htm
No mention of Coriolis to generate wind there. Wind is quite capable of existing without Coriolis.
Bethlehem Steel has been out of business for years. It is now a casino.
-
Mmmmm. some food for thought there. I still have a few issues with it though. ;)
First I want to clear up the rifling business. You say we consider rifling a major advancement in accuracy, but then in the very next sentence, you say modern artillery does not use rifling. Then you flip back to saying it increases angular momentum? So is rifling good for keeping things straight, and if so, why don't they use it in modern artillery? Surely that would be a step back? Whilst we are on the subject of artillery ....
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981STIN...8214395P
Seems steel is as popular as ever. Google 'Bethlehem Steel Corporation' and the word 'artillery'. Been using steel a long time.
Steel for shells, steel for the casings, steel for the shrapnel inside and hardened steel for the pointy bit at the front, to pierce armour.
Whoah there! You can't just say the trade winds are caused by Coriolis.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_wind.htm
No mention of Coriolis to generate wind there. Wind is quite capable of existing without Coriolis.
Bethlehem Steel has been out of business for years. It is now a casino.
Yes? So what? It was a reference to the historical suggesting it is not a new thing.
-
Mmmmm. some food for thought there. I still have a few issues with it though. ;)
First I want to clear up the rifling business. You say we consider rifling a major advancement in accuracy, but then in the very next sentence, you say modern artillery does not use rifling. Then you flip back to saying it increases angular momentum? So is rifling good for keeping things straight, and if so, why don't they use it in modern artillery? Surely that would be a step back? Whilst we are on the subject of artillery ....
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981STIN...8214395P
Seems steel is as popular as ever. Google 'Bethlehem Steel Corporation' and the word 'artillery'. Been using steel a long time.
Steel for shells, steel for the casings, steel for the shrapnel inside and hardened steel for the pointy bit at the front, to pierce armour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829_(munition)#M829A3
Deplete Uranium, Aluminum, and Carbon Fiber. Probably steel in there as well.
I would point out it is fin stabilized and not rifled.
Why do you not do some research in the matter of rifling and why it came and why now other systems of stabilization are used.
Weapon wise, all sorts of materials are used in the production of shells, warheads, etc.
And again
Whoah there! You can't just say the trade winds are caused by Coriolis.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_wind.htm
No mention of Coriolis to generate wind there. Wind is quite capable of existing without Coriolis.
First statement on that page
Wind is caused by air pressure flowing from high pressure to low pressure. Its direction is influenced by the Earth's rotation.
And again
THE WIND AFFECTS THE EARTH'S ROTATION During the northern hemisphere winter, the stronger westerly winds that build up in the Northern Hemisphere, combined with frictional drag at the Earth's surface, actually produce a very small, but measurable, increase in the speed of rotation of the Earth.
And from our famous resource - Wikipedia - ALL HAIL WIKIPEDIA
[urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect#Flow_around_a_low-pressure_area][/url]
High pressure systems rotate in a direction such that the Coriolis force will be directed radially inwards, and nearly balanced by the outwardly radial pressure gradient. This direction is clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the southern hemisphere. Low pressure systems rotate in the opposite direction, so that the Coriolis force is directed radially outward and nearly balances an inwardly radial pressure gradient. In each case a slight imbalance between the Coriolis force and the pressure gradient accounts for the radially inward acceleration of the system's circular motion.
Conclusion
Well for rifling and use of steel in shells I have no clue why you came out with that.
As for the weather part - I also have no cluse why you came out with that.
Berny
-
Berny, why don't you read all the posts and not pick out specific stuff. I went over all of what you asked in previous posts. Rifling, fins, artillery, and why artillery doesn't use rifling anymore.
And believe it or not, Weather is a big part of the Coriolis effect. All I can say is, go back and "lurk moar" as the FE'ers say...but don't lurk in the FAQ, rather my thread because in the ladder I actually go in depth with my reasoning.
-
you can see corioli's effect also in natural vortices in a lake...
-
Just a thought, but if the earth was round and flat like a plate and spinning in space with its own gravity, would that not give the same effects as a Coriolis? Any liquid on the surface would be driven round by the same force.
And lets just say that plate was two sided like a coin, would that not make fluids on the opposite side, turn the opposite direction? As for strength this would be increased the further from the centre of coin you go, like going up and down the latitudes. Toroidal shapes would give similar results.
I'm not sure Coriolis proves shape. Merely spinning and a distance from the core or centre of spin.
Good post though. Lots of interesting stuff in there.
Would a spinning flat earth not cause measurable centrifugal force south of the equator? I think this is why other flat earth theorists won't accept it.
-
Just a thought, but if the earth was round and flat like a plate and spinning in space with its own gravity, would that not give the same effects as a Coriolis? Any liquid on the surface would be driven round by the same force.
And lets just say that plate was two sided like a coin, would that not make fluids on the opposite side, turn the opposite direction? As for strength this would be increased the further from the centre of coin you go, like going up and down the latitudes. Toroidal shapes would give similar results.
I'm not sure Coriolis proves shape. Merely spinning and a distance from the core or centre of spin.
Good post though. Lots of interesting stuff in there.
Yes, the coriolis effect is possible on a flat plate or disk, but if you think of the round earth model, the southern hemisphere is, if I were to arbitrarily assign north as the top, "underneath" the equator, which for round earth marks the boundary between top and bottom. This is why weather systems there would appear to move opposite those in the northern hemisphere (because any observers there would be upside down relative to my arbitrary top/bottom designations). In the flat earth models, the southern "hemisphere" (for lack of a better word) is just as much on top of the earth as the northern hemisphere, so there should be no variation in weather system rotation anywhere on flat earth.
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p264/Nojaru/thecorioliseffect.jpg)
-
Just a thought, but if the earth was round and flat like a plate and spinning in space with its own gravity, would that not give the same effects as a Coriolis? Any liquid on the surface would be driven round by the same force.
And lets just say that plate was two sided like a coin, would that not make fluids on the opposite side, turn the opposite direction? As for strength this would be increased the further from the centre of coin you go, like going up and down the latitudes. Toroidal shapes would give similar results.
I'm not sure Coriolis proves shape. Merely spinning and a distance from the core or centre of spin.
Good post though. Lots of interesting stuff in there.
Yes, the coriolis effect is possible on a flat plate or disk, but if you think of the round earth model, the southern hemisphere is, if I were to arbitrarily assign north as the top, "underneath" the equator, which for round earth marks the boundary between top and bottom. This is why weather systems there would appear to move opposite those in the northern hemisphere (because any observers there would be upside down relative to my arbitrary top/bottom designations). In the flat earth models, the southern "hemisphere" (for lack of a better word) is just as much on top of the earth as the northern hemisphere, so there should be no variation in weather system rotation anywhere on flat earth.
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p264/Nojaru/thecorioliseffect.jpg)
Its bendy light duh....just kidding. This is a really good point, I'm new to this effect and want to see the rebutal. Playing devils advocate it may have to do with the sun and the stars or the moon. I forget the rules that apply to each one though.
-
Also, don't forget that the Coriolis effect isn't just limited to weather. It also goes into play with long distance ballistics.
-
Just a thought, but if the earth was round and flat like a plate and spinning in space with its own gravity, would that not give the same effects as a Coriolis? Any liquid on the surface would be driven round by the same force.
And lets just say that plate was two sided like a coin, would that not make fluids on the opposite side, turn the opposite direction? As for strength this would be increased the further from the centre of coin you go, like going up and down the latitudes. Toroidal shapes would give similar results.
I'm not sure Coriolis proves shape. Merely spinning and a distance from the core or centre of spin.
Good post though. Lots of interesting stuff in there.
Yes, the coriolis effect is possible on a flat plate or disk, but if you think of the round earth model, the southern hemisphere is, if I were to arbitrarily assign north as the top, "underneath" the equator, which for round earth marks the boundary between top and bottom. This is why weather systems there would appear to move opposite those in the northern hemisphere (because any observers there would be upside down relative to my arbitrary top/bottom designations). In the flat earth models, the southern "hemisphere" (for lack of a better word) is just as much on top of the earth as the northern hemisphere, so there should be no variation in weather system rotation anywhere on flat earth.
Please note that AFAIK no model of FET proposes that the FE rotates.
-
also, when thork said that the flat earth could be a flip side, that makes it impossible for siesmic delays around the earth, and a sun-spotlight that the fe theory says is true, and UA theory, and moons
so a flip-side earth cannot be possible according to fe theory
-
toliets flush the way they do because of the way they're built nothing to do with hemisphere's. this is nothing but a fucking myth. the holes in the lip of the toilet point towards the direction of which they're built causing them to go in a certain direction.
-
that is true, but i believe the argument is the sinks, not toilets
-
Definite RE victory. Nice job, folks.
-
The Coriolis effect can be explained by the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens.
-
The Coriolis effect can be explained by the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens.
Then go ahead and explain it. In detail.
-
I think this thread should be kept going.
-
The Coriolis effect can be explained by the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens.
Then go ahead and explain it. In detail.
Please use the search feature.
-
please use the post ability
cannot find, too lazy to lurk moar
your incooperation to post and elaborate implies you do not understand it, or there is none
vhu9644
is there even a search function?
-
Just a thought, but if the earth was round and flat like a plate and spinning in space with its own gravity, would that not give the same effects as a Coriolis? Any liquid on the surface would be driven round by the same force.
And lets just say that plate was two sided like a coin, would that not make fluids on the opposite side, turn the opposite direction? As for strength this would be increased the further from the centre of coin you go, like going up and down the latitudes. Toroidal shapes would give similar results.
I'm not sure Coriolis proves shape. Merely spinning and a distance from the core or centre of spin.
Good post though. Lots of interesting stuff in there.
No.
The difference is that the effect would not work in any way like it would in RET.
No matter how you draw a flat earth map, there will be no way to make it work. Try it, find a counterexample and prove me wrong
-
I think this thread should be kept going.
Sure, lets keep this going.
-
The Coriolis effect can be explained by the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens.
Then go ahead and explain it. In detail.
Please use the search feature.
-
The Coriolis effect can be explained by the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens.
Then go ahead and explain it. In detail.
Please use the search feature.
See there's your problem. It has never been explained in detail.
-
Also, if what Thork said was true about the flip-earth, then all the people/things on the flip side would be shot into the air and off the earth due to the supposed constant acceleration of the earth.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect
^ You are going to feel so silly when you realise you only posted a link and forgot to include your message. ::)
-
If we lived in a world where the FET reigned supreme and the RET were just a few crackpots, when the Coriolis effect is observed, it would leave a massive hole in FET that would need to be patched up. Religious entities would classify it as a work of god. Scientists would need to rethink their theories of the Earth. Then the RES come along and provide their theory, it seems to fit this observation. By this point, RES would actually be considered plausible and mass experiments would be conducted around the world to explore this theory. It might even become the dominating theory.
So in both worlds, RET wins.
-
Artillery doesn't use rifling because rifling only works with a certain length to width ratio. Artillery makes use of a tail fin assembly to stabilize a round. When you combine a tail fin with rifling you lose accuracy. Also note that the JDAM is not artillery. It is launched from jets. There is however something similar in artillery, it's called the Excalibur.
-
The Coriolis effect can be explained by the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens.
I have a few issues with this explanation.
• First of all, gravitomagnetic effects are tiny - they are only really observable on massive scales, like the space around a spinning black hole.
• Secondly, even if it did create a measurable effect, the heavens being above us would put us perpendicular to its rotation. To experience any noticeable gravitomagnetic effect we would need to be on the same rotational plane of the spinning heavens.
• Thirdly, if there was enough mass and a fast enough rotation to produce measurable gravitomagetic effects, the earth would be directly in the path of a supermassive relativistic jet, which it clearly isn't.
• Fourth, it requires an acknowledgement of general relativity, which is incompatible with Universal Acceleration.
• Fifth, the proposed mechanism does not explain the Coriolis Effect in that it would only account for a general twisting of the atmosphere around the central point - not the reversal of atmospheric vortex rotation south of the equator.
• Sixth, the Coriolis effect is not detectable when independent of the earth's rotation. Gravitomagnetic effects should still be in effect under these conditions.
• Seventh, being a relativistic effect (in that it results from the distortion of spacetime) it should have an even effect on all matter and not favour large fluid systems the way the Coriolis effect does.
• Eighth, furthermore, as the gravitomagnetic effect would be uniform across the whole earth, its effects would only be visible from a frame of reference well beyond the earth, in fact, well beyond the gravitomagnetic effects themselves, which would cover an area much larger than the earth.
Like I've said before, you can't proclaim to believe in a giant flat disc of incredible mass but no gravity accelerating infinitely upwards and then invoke Relativity when it suits you.
-
Are you serious?
-
Is who serious about what?
-
His first post, good start.
-
[So not only am I still in doubt as to whether the earth is round, in fact I'm quite sure its flat, I'm now doubting whether it spins or not. Your not helping.] :P
You seem to post here a lot and come up with interesting theories, however i would like to see you , or a colleague that you respect use the Scientific Method to come up with a Hypothesis stating exactly what you believe to be true. Then i would like to see experimentation done that shows non bias empirical data that supports this data.
Using the scientific method you must start in the status quo; meaning that you must assume that the world is round, however the data that you present leads you to believe otherwise.
the problem with this website is that it did not begin with the Scientific Method, the assumption was made from religious doctrine and then people attempted to fill in the blanks. This is not how science operates.
So basically i would like a hypothesis that can be peer reviewed.
-
No. The Coriolis Effect is the result of the earth being a spinning globe - that is, the equator is the lattitude with the longest circumference and therefore moves faster (in m/sec terms) than any other. This creates a twisting effect in opposite directions north and south of the equator.
On a flat earth, the longest circumference would be the south pole (or whatever point beyond that you decide the earth ends). It would have a similar twisting effect, but everything would twist in the same direction regardless of which side of the equator it was on.
-
If the earth was round and flat like a plate and spinning in space with its own gravity, would that not give the same effects as a Coriolis? Any liquid on the surface would be driven round by the same force...
And on top of what Tristan said, if a flat Earth were spinning, we would feel a centripetal effect - that is, we would be tumbling away from the centre of the spinning disc.
-
His first post, good start.
Thank you :D
I just wondered, how anyone can take this serious...even those guys who are here for convincing others that flat earth theory is not right...
-
I don't, really. I just think it's fun looking at their semantics and stupid excuses.
Anyways, FE'ers seem to be unable to come up with any good reasons for the coriolis effect.
RE victory anyone?
-
RE victory anyone?
Does this come as a surprise to you? The only reason we ever see an FE victory is when both theories can explain the same observation (and for some reason this is by default a win for FE) or the FE'ers find our explanations absurd. Gravity or NASA pictures for example. All a part of the conspiracy which concludes an FE victory.
-
RE victory anyone?
Does this come as a surprise to you? The only reason we ever see an FE victory is when both theories can explain the same observation (and for some reason this is by default a win for FE) or the FE'ers find our explanations absurd. Gravity or NASA pictures for example. All a part of the conspiracy which concludes an FE victory.
Its called home turf advantage. If we wanted easy wins we would be on the Round Earth Society.
Berny
QP w/ Cheese X 2
-
RE victory anyone?
Does this come as a surprise to you? The only reason we ever see an FE victory is when both theories can explain the same observation (and for some reason this is by default a win for FE) or the FE'ers find our explanations absurd. Gravity or NASA pictures for example. All a part of the conspiracy which concludes an FE victory.
Its called home turf advantage. If we wanted easy wins we would be on the Round Earth Society.
Berny
QP w/ Cheese X 2
It's as though they're fighting a downhill battle, with 4 of them versus billions of us.
-
RE victory anyone?
Does this come as a surprise to you? The only reason we ever see an FE victory is when both theories can explain the same observation (and for some reason this is by default a win for FE) or the FE'ers find our explanations absurd. Gravity or NASA pictures for example. All a part of the conspiracy which concludes an FE victory.
Its called home turf advantage. If we wanted easy wins we would be on the Round Earth Society.
Berny
QP w/ Cheese X 2
It's as though they're fighting a downhill battle, with 4 of them versus billions of us.
Well, they kind of are...
By the way, saying RE victory usually stirs them up a bit. I suppose they are so lost for evidence that not even that is enough to make them enter seriously into this thread :P
-
RE victory anyone?
Does this come as a surprise to you? The only reason we ever see an FE victory is when both theories can explain the same observation (and for some reason this is by default a win for FE) or the FE'ers find our explanations absurd. Gravity or NASA pictures for example. All a part of the conspiracy which concludes an FE victory.
Its called home turf advantage. If we wanted easy wins we would be on the Round Earth Society.
Berny
QP w/ Cheese X 2
It's as though they're fighting a downhill battle, with 4 of them versus billions of us.
Well, they kind of are...
By the way, saying RE victory usually stirs them up a bit. I suppose they are so lost for evidence that not even that is enough to make them enter seriously into this thread :P
They don't need this thread, it's a sacrifice they're willing to take. Especially when they have FE victory planted all over their bendy light threads.
Hmm... a hypothesis made up to support their theory is an FE victory? Oh well, this is as good as it gets!
-
I don't, really. I just think it's fun looking at their semantics and stupid excuses.
Anyways, FE'ers seem to be unable to come up with any good reasons for the coriolis effect.
RE victory anyone?
Personally, I would say that international air travel, the weather, the tide, seasons, solar eclipses, celestial navigation, global communication satelites, the ISS, Man on the Moon, expeditions to the south pole, the total absense of any evidence for a global conspiracy of anything in the history of the world ever, gravity and the simple observation that if the earth really is flat then it is designed in such a perculiar way that it makes life easier to think of it as a sphere anyway all constitute wins for RE.
But apparently I'm not the referee, so I guess they were all disqualified or something.
-
I don't, really. I just think it's fun looking at their semantics and stupid excuses.
Anyways, FE'ers seem to be unable to come up with any good reasons for the coriolis effect.
RE victory anyone?
Personally, I would say that international air travel, the weather, the tide, seasons, solar eclipses, celestial navigation, global communication satelites, the ISS, Man on the Moon, expeditions to the south pole, the total absense of any evidence for a global conspiracy of anything in the history of the world ever, gravity and the simple observation that if the earth really is flat then it is designed in such a perculiar way that it makes life easier to think of it as a sphere anyway all constitute wins for RE.
But apparently I'm not the referee, so I guess they were all disqualified or something.
I'll give you man of the match in this RE vs FE battle.
-
It does raise an interesting philosophical question: If the earth were, in fact, a flat plane/disc, but behaved exactly as a spheroid for all conceivable intents and purposes, which would be more important? The abstract truth or the practical falsehood? Regardless of your position, I don't see FET solving any problems; simply trying to answer questions that have already been answered a different way.
-
It does raise an interesting philosophical question: If the earth were, in fact, a flat plane/disc, but behaved exactly as a spheroid for all conceivable intents and purposes, which would be more important? The abstract truth or the practical falsehood? Regardless of your position, I don't see FET solving any problems; simply trying to answer questions that have already been answered a different way.
We still use Newton's laws of motion, but acknowledge that it doesn't apply in extreme circumstances.
Similarly, in such a universe we would use calculations that apply to a round Earth, but also acknowledge that the Earth is in fact flat.
However, as further research has been undergone in the theory of relativity, the same would apply in such a situation. We could find a more general formula for the way the Earth works, while still using the old - but still correct for all intents and purposes - formula.
-
Let us consider a flat earth map with the north pole in the middle (quite common) and assume that the Coriolis effect is as measured. In order for the flat map to move as is measured requires discontinuities in the rotation of earth or changes in the physics of rotational motion. The former is not observed and the latter is not justified.
-
if FEers believe the earth does not rotate, how do you explain the rotation of the stars round the earth...?
easy to prove this, look out your window at night and dot down some constellations. wait a few hours and do it again with the same constellations.
they wont match.
is there any explanation?
-
if FEers believe the earth does not rotate, how do you explain the rotation of the stars round the earth...?
easy to prove this, look out your window at night and dot down some constellations. wait a few hours and do it again with the same constellations.
they wont match.
is there any explanation?
The explanation is that the stars are in motion above the surface of the earth.
-
if FEers believe the earth does not rotate, how do you explain the rotation of the stars round the earth...?
easy to prove this, look out your window at night and dot down some constellations. wait a few hours and do it again with the same constellations.
they wont match.
is there any explanation?
The explanation is that the stars are in motion above the surface of the earth.
They follow a spherical path, each star following an arc precisely as the geometry of the round earth dictates it should.
-
if FEers believe the earth does not rotate, how do you explain the rotation of the stars round the earth...?
easy to prove this, look out your window at night and dot down some constellations. wait a few hours and do it again with the same constellations.
they wont match.
is there any explanation?
The explanation is that the stars are in motion above the surface of the earth.
Can you explain why they rotate completely opposite of what would be predicted in the FE theory south of the equator? They work fine with RE theory but FE theory the patterns of the stars completely completely falls apart in the south. No explanation of this is given in ENaG either.
Berny
Gyro Time.
-
Let us consider a flat earth map with the north pole in the middle (quite common) and assume that the Coriolis effect is as measured. In order for the flat map to move as is measured requires discontinuities in the rotation of earth or changes in the physics of rotational motion. The former is not observed and the latter is not justified.
if FEers believe the earth does not rotate, how do you explain the rotation of the stars round the earth...?
easy to prove this, look out your window at night and dot down some constellations. wait a few hours and do it again with the same constellations.
they wont match.
is there any explanation?
The explanation is that the stars are in motion above the surface of the earth.
It's marvelous that Tom Bishop responds to the query that can be found in the FAQ, but completely ignores the other one. And then he's going to ignore the followup responses to why his answer is flawed, such as
Can you explain why they rotate completely opposite of what would be predicted in the FE theory south of the equator? They work fine with RE theory but FE theory the patterns of the stars completely completely falls apart in the south. No explanation of this is given in ENaG either.
Berny
Gyro Time.
-
It's marvelous that Tom Bishop responds to the query that can be found in the FAQ, but completely ignores the other one. And then he's going to ignore the followup responses to why his answer is flawed, such as
Can you explain why they rotate completely opposite of what would be predicted in the FE theory south of the equator? They work fine with RE theory but FE theory the patterns of the stars completely completely falls apart in the south. No explanation of this is given in ENaG either.
Berny
Gyro Time.
Tom's response to this would be to reference the wonderful FEW article that he wrote concerning celestial gears.
-
It's marvelous that Tom Bishop responds to the query that can be found in the FAQ, but completely ignores the other one. And then he's going to ignore the followup responses to why his answer is flawed, such as
Can you explain why they rotate completely opposite of what would be predicted in the FE theory south of the equator? They work fine with RE theory but FE theory the patterns of the stars completely completely falls apart in the south. No explanation of this is given in ENaG either.
Berny
Gyro Time.
Tom's response to this would be to reference the wonderful FEW article that he wrote concerning celestial gears.
It sounds like a great read, I'll be eagerly awaiting the reference ;D