The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Swiftly Tilting Planet on September 21, 2015, 01:22:51 PM

Title: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Swiftly Tilting Planet on September 21, 2015, 01:22:51 PM

So are Flat Earthers saying that military snipers and gun manufactures are in on the "conspiracy" too?

(http://)
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Serulian on September 21, 2015, 02:22:38 PM
They might need to factor in wind speed and distance. Bullets shoot in a straight line so there is no curvature to factor unless you are confusing fiction with reality as seen in the movie Wanted.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: mikeman7918 on September 21, 2015, 03:20:52 PM
They might need to factor in wind speed and distance. Bullets shoot in a straight line so there is no curvature to factor unless you are confusing fiction with reality as seen in the movie Wanted.

It's not curvature that they are accounting for, it's the Coriolis effect which proves that Earth rotates.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Serulian on September 21, 2015, 04:50:27 PM
I already said they might need to factor in the wind. How does wind direction prove round Earth theory? In any case, if a sniper has to make adjustments for clockwise and counter clockwise wind that would disrupt his shot, he might not be the best person for the task. He should move closer or send a drone or something.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Constellator on September 21, 2015, 05:12:04 PM
The wind and the Coriolis effect are separate factors; the sniper has to account for both in conjunction. And whether or not these skills are actually useful in combat is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the Coriolis effect can change the apparent trajectory of a bullet.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Swiftly Tilting Planet on September 21, 2015, 05:16:09 PM
I already said they might need to factor in the wind. How does wind direction prove round Earth theory? In any case, if a sniper has to make adjustments for clockwise and counter clockwise wind that would disrupt his shot, he might not be the best person for the task. He should move closer or send a drone or something.

Except snipers and long-range sharpshooters ALL have to do this. So are you saying that they are all bad?

And if we fired from a drone or robot long distance, *they* would have to be programmed to take this effect into account as well, or they would miss.

And it's not that they are just taking the wind into account (they do that too) because the wind can blow from any direction, but the coriolis effect is different for different latitudes, and it's always in a specific direction for the Northern hemisphere, and in the opposite specific direction for the Southern hemisphere.

This is what I mean by denial of facts and reality. Long-range sharpshooters ALL do this. They admit to doing this, they talk about it, they teach others about it. So either the Earth spins, or they are ALL in on this huge conspiracy.

(http://)

(http://)

Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Serulian on September 21, 2015, 06:19:06 PM
If I where to picture a leprechaun standing in front of my target when I pulled the trigger and doing so improved my accuracy, would that prove the existence of leprechauns to you? What if I trained others to do the same and they all had similar results?
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: mikeman7918 on September 21, 2015, 09:11:55 PM
If I where to picture a leprechaun standing in front of my target when I pulled the trigger and doing so improved my accuracy, would that prove the existence of leprechauns to you? What if I trained others to do the same and they all had similar results?

If I picture a dog in front of my target then my accuracy doesn't improve.  Does this disprove the existence of dogs?

If a scenario like the one you speak if were real then it could be hypothesized that psychology has to do with it and it might be something placebo related.

In the case of sniping if you don't account for the Coriolis effect then the bullet misses it's target by a consistant amount which perfectly matches predictions of what it should be assuming a round Earth.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Swiftly Tilting Planet on September 21, 2015, 09:37:34 PM
If I where to picture a leprechaun standing in front of my target when I pulled the trigger and doing so improved my accuracy, would that prove the existence of leprechauns to you? What if I trained others to do the same and they all had similar results?

See, stuff like this. It's not so much that you all lack critical thinking skills...it's just that...you're all doing it wrong.

This isn't about some magic blue feather that makes sharp-shooters and snipers better marksmen, this is a verifiable fact that we know works AND we understand HOW and WHY it works.

It's yet another piece of evidence, that, taken with many, many other verifiable facts, combined with observations (we've seen a round Earth from space, we can see the other planets are round through any telescope, we can see the shadow of the Moon curve, etc, etc...) all add up to one conclusion - the Earth is a ball. It spins. We live on it.

(BTW, I was in JROTC in high school in Germany in the mid-80's (dad was stationed at Augsburg). I won a Marksman medal in Summer Camp, so I'm a bit familiar with this stuff, though not an expert...but my instructor taught us about this effect...unless, HE was in one the conspiracy as well...)

But, just for arguments sake - if there was verifiable proof that putting a Leprechaun in front of a target ALWAYS improved marksmanship. And the same people - all around the world - short worse without it, it wouldn't be proof that Leprechauns existed, but it would be proof that there was a statistically verifiable and repeatable effect at work there. Even if it was just that marking your target with a visible green sign improved aim.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Son of Orospu on September 22, 2015, 07:57:34 PM
Do you know why snipers have spotters?  Because no matter how many calculations they do, they still need someone to look through a spotter scope to tell them how far off their shot was.  Think about it. 
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: mikeman7918 on September 22, 2015, 10:16:26 PM
Do you know why snipers have spotters?  Because no matter how many calculations they do, they still need someone to look through a spotter scope to tell them how far off their shot was.  Think about it.

And the spotters all seem to agree that accounting for the Coriolis effect increases acuracy.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Mainframes on September 22, 2015, 11:57:36 PM
Do you know why snipers have spotters?  Because no matter how many calculations they do, they still need someone to look through a spotter scope to tell them how far off their shot was.  Think about it.

Spotters help adjust for effects that are difficult to calculate like wind over a long distance shot or to improve issues with sight alignment. It still doesn't negate the fact that Coriolanus effect must be accounted for.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Son of Orospu on September 23, 2015, 02:42:58 AM
The point is that snipers are not the magically accurate super computing shooters that the OP makes them out to be.  Otherwise, they would not need to make adjustments for followup shots. 
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Master_Evar on September 23, 2015, 02:53:21 AM
The point is that snipers are not the magically accurate super computing shooters that the OP makes them out to be.  Otherwise, they would not need to make adjustments for followup shots.

And how does that in any way contribute to the point that snipers take the Coriolis effect into account when sniping?

And no, nowhere does the OP imply that snipers are super accurate in any way.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: guv on September 24, 2015, 05:05:51 AM
Forward observer for the drop shorts must have more balls than brains, both sides are sending crap your way. The Paris gun had no forward observer and it still hit Paris.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 05, 2015, 02:19:07 PM
The point is that snipers are not the magically accurate super computing shooters that the OP makes them out to be.  Otherwise, they would not need to make adjustments for followup shots.

And how does that in any way contribute to the point that snipers take the Coriolis effect into account when sniping?

And no, nowhere does the OP imply that snipers are super accurate in any way.

If they make many calculations and adjustments to their optics and still miss, then how does this prove the Coriolis effect?   Can you prove they would miss more often if they did not calculate for the Coriolis effect? 
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 05, 2015, 04:46:31 PM

So are Flat Earthers saying that military snipers and gun manufactures are in on the "conspiracy" too?

(http://)

If you watch the video you referenced above, starting at 0:44 second, The guy say that when the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun it is actually leaving the surface of the Earth. He goes on to say when the bullet leaves the barrel, the Earth is still rotating and the bullet is not rotating with the Earth. The Earth will actually rotate out from underneath the bullet as it is in flight.

How can this be true? The bullet has to rotate with the Earth because the atmosphere rotates with the Earth and it will carry the bullet along with it. At least that's what I've been told. If you can believe that a bullet doesn't have to rotate with the Earth, then why does an airplane have to rotate with the Earth and a bullet doesn't. Seriously, what is the difference? Following this logic, a plane should be able to take off and head north and the pilot should be able to watch the Earth rotate under him. Could you please explain this to me?
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Master_Evar on October 06, 2015, 12:11:01 AM
The point is that snipers are not the magically accurate super computing shooters that the OP makes them out to be.  Otherwise, they would not need to make adjustments for followup shots.

And how does that in any way contribute to the point that snipers take the Coriolis effect into account when sniping?

And no, nowhere does the OP imply that snipers are super accurate in any way.

If they make many calculations and adjustments to their optics and still miss, then how does this prove the Coriolis effect?   Can you prove they would miss more often if they did not calculate for the Coriolis effect?

They take the coriolis effect into account? If it was not a real thing they'd literally miss deliberately without knowing it every time they took a shot, unless they were not accurate so the bullet veered off the wanted trajectory and actually hit the target  because of that. (This is for snipers at great distances where the coriolis effect may change the trajectory a few inches to the side)

It makes no sense to take the coriolis effect into account if it made the sniper miss more shots.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 06, 2015, 07:34:11 AM
If you watch the video you referenced above, starting at 0:44 second, The guy say that when the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun it is actually leaving the surface of the Earth. He goes on to say when the bullet leaves the barrel, the Earth is still rotating and the bullet is not rotating with the Earth. The Earth will actually rotate out from underneath the bullet as it is in flight.

How can this be true? The bullet has to rotate with the Earth because the atmosphere rotates with the Earth and it will carry the bullet along with it. At least that's what I've been told. If you can believe that a bullet doesn't have to rotate with the Earth, then why does an airplane have to rotate with the Earth and a bullet doesn't. Seriously, what is the difference? Following this logic, a plane should be able to take off and head north and the pilot should be able to watch the Earth rotate under him. Could you please explain this to me?

The guy in the video didn't really explain it very well and you are right in assuming that the bullet moves with the atmosphere and stays in motion just as it did before it left the barrel, the Coriolis effect is apparent strange motion of an object from a rotating frame of reference.  If you and a friend sit on a spinning platform and you try to throw a ball to him then common experience states that you should throw the ball towards him but because the platform is spinning from your frame of reference the ball will appear to swerve in it's trajectory and your friend wouldn't catch the ball.  If you want him to catch it then you have to aim to the side of your friend and the ball will swerve and he will catch it.  The same thimg happens on Earth, but it's not as extreme because Earth has a rotation period of 24 hours which means that the effect rarely pronounces it's self, but it's noticeable for things like bullets and hurricanes that move rather fast relative to Earth's surface.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 06, 2015, 11:30:33 AM
If you watch the video you referenced above, starting at 0:44 second, The guy say that when the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun it is actually leaving the surface of the Earth. He goes on to say when the bullet leaves the barrel, the Earth is still rotating and the bullet is not rotating with the Earth. The Earth will actually rotate out from underneath the bullet as it is in flight.

How can this be true? The bullet has to rotate with the Earth because the atmosphere rotates with the Earth and it will carry the bullet along with it. At least that's what I've been told. If you can believe that a bullet doesn't have to rotate with the Earth, then why does an airplane have to rotate with the Earth and a bullet doesn't. Seriously, what is the difference? Following this logic, a plane should be able to take off and head north and the pilot should be able to watch the Earth rotate under him. Could you please explain this to me?

The guy in the video didn't really explain it very well and you are right in assuming that the bullet moves with the atmosphere and stays in motion just as it did before it left the barrel, the Coriolis effect is apparent strange motion of an object from a rotating frame of reference.  If you and a friend sit on a spinning platform and you try to throw a ball to him then common experience states that you should throw the ball towards him but because the platform is spinning from your frame of reference the ball will appear to swerve in it's trajectory and your friend wouldn't catch the ball.  If you want him to catch it then you have to aim to the side of your friend and the ball will swerve and he will catch it.  The same thimg happens on Earth, but it's not as extreme because Earth has a rotation period of 24 hours which means that the effect rarely pronounces it's self, but it's noticeable for things like bullets and hurricanes that move rather fast relative to Earth's surface.

"The guy on the video didn't really explain it very well"...have you looked on the internet, it is full of the same kind of BS exactly the way he describes it. The Coriolis effect is not real or we could see the Earth moving under an airplane. The Earth is not rotating at all, it is stationary. The coriolis effect is an imaginary fairy tale science has invented to try and fool us again. Don't buy into this nonsense.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 06, 2015, 12:04:02 PM
"The guy on the video didn't really explain it very well"...have you looked on the internet, it is full of the same kind of BS exactly the way he describes it. The Coriolis effect is not real or we could see the Earth moving under an airplane. The Earth is not rotating at all, it is stationary. The coriolis effect is an imaginary fairy tale science has invented to try and fool us again. Don't buy into this nonsense.

Imaginary things do not alter the trajectories of bullets and change the way weather systems work.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 06, 2015, 12:24:06 PM
Coriolis Effect - easy to explain:
On a sphere or disk, all the above are still true - the physics is the same.

The E-W velocity component is due to the spin.

On a stationary sphere or disk, you will hit the target. On a spinning sphere or disk, you will miss unless you lead.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 06, 2015, 01:14:39 PM
Coriolis Effect - easy to explain:
  • If the flight time of a bullet is say 10 sec (whatever)
  • If you are shooting directly at a target due north of you (N velocity component of bullet)
  • If you or that target is not moving sideways
  • Result - you hit the target exactly in 10 sec
  • If the flight time of a bullet is say 10 sec (whatever)
  • If you are shooting directly at a target due north of you (N velocity component of bullet)
  • If you or that target is moving sideways (there is an E-W velocity component to the bullet)
  • Result - you miss the target
  • You must LEAD the target to hit it - i.e. you must shoot where it WILL BE in 10 sec, not where it is now
On a sphere or disk, all the above are still true - the physics is the same.

The E-W velocity component is due to the spin.

On a stationary sphere or disk, you will hit the target. On a spinning sphere or disk, you will miss unless you lead.

What is your point? Do you want me to pick one? I pick the flat Earth does not spin so there is no Coriolis effect.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Master_Evar on October 07, 2015, 01:27:35 AM
  • If the flight time of a bullet is say 10 sec (whatever)
  • If you are shooting directly at a target due north of you (N velocity component of bullet)
  • If you or that target is moving sideways (there is an E-W velocity component to the bullet)
  • Result - you miss the target
  • You must LEAD the target to hit it - i.e. you must shoot where it WILL BE in 10 sec, not where it is now

Only true if both are moving at different speeds relative to each other.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Soulblood on October 07, 2015, 02:25:51 AM
Coriolis Effect - easy to explain:
On a stationary sphere or disk, you will hit the target. On a spinning sphere or disk, you will miss unless you lead.

Something moves through the air on a sideways rotating round earth and of course its movement IS absolute (as we would see the earth pass under it) and this flying object would in NO way inherit the rotating movement (and any movement would be relative to that) ... that is impossible ...

Something moves through the air on a upwards accelerating flat earth (the explanation for "gravity" according to the flat earth wiki) and of course its movement is NOT absolute (as we would than see it sink towards the ground) and this flying object in EVERY way inherits the upward movement (and any movement is relative to that) ... that is obvious ...

Flat Earth logic ... *sighs*
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 07, 2015, 04:54:59 AM
a) My point is - I am trying to explain the Coriolis Effect in a manner that even a 5th grader can understand.

b) You CAN'T pick just one because both apply to the Earth and use the laws of physics.
c) I understand relative motion. I was just trying to keep it simple. The different relative motion was implied.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Master_Evar on October 07, 2015, 05:07:35 AM
a) My point is - I am trying to explain the Coriolis Effect in a manner that even a 5th grader can understand.

b) You CAN'T pick just one because both apply to the Earth and use the laws of physics.
  • When trying to hit something moving sideways, you do have to LEAD it to hit it on the Flat Earth don't you?
  • You do have rotating things on the Flat Earth don't you?
  • Lead + Rotation = Coriolis Effect
c) I understand relative motion. I was just trying to keep it simple. The different relative motion was implied.

My bad, rushed to reply and didn't read properly.

The best way even a fifth-grader or younger would understand is to tell them to throw a ball to someone  else when you are both on a merry-go-round.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 07, 2015, 08:29:53 PM
If you can believe that a bullet doesn't have to rotate with the Earth, then why does an airplane have to rotate with the Earth and a bullet doesn't. Seriously, what is the difference?
If you understood the differences between a bullet and an airplane, then it would all be much less confusing for you.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 08, 2015, 09:36:45 AM
If you can believe that a bullet doesn't have to rotate with the Earth, then why does an airplane have to rotate with the Earth and a bullet doesn't. Seriously, what is the difference?
If you understood the differences between a bullet and an airplane, then it would all be much less confusing for you.

Tell me funny guy, what is it about substituting a plane for the bullet that confuses you? In this discussion, they both can fly over the Earth at certain altitudes. They both can fly straight north, they both can fly at certain speeds and the both can hit a target straight away. If the fairyfly can see the Earth rotate under him while he rides on the bullet, why can't a pilot see the Earth rotate while he flies the plane? I'll await your answer.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 08, 2015, 10:51:24 AM
Yendor, an insect riding on a bullet wouldn't be able to see the rotation if the Earth.  If you were in a car going 50 miles per hour and you shoot a gun facing backwards then the bullet will be traveling 50 miles per hour slower then normal relative to the ground, and if you shoot it forwards then it will be going 50 miles per hour faster then normal relative to the ground.  Relative to the car though the bullet's speed is normal in both instances  Simelarly, shooting a gun east and west are the same as far as the bullet's speed goes.  It will hit a target to the east with the same speed as a target to the west.

You clearly don't understand the Coriolis effect, the effect is caused because the bullet travels on (more or less) a strait line, while you and the Earth are rotating slowly.  This causes the bullet to spear to curve up or down a tiny bit.  It isn't really curving, it just appears to be because you and the Earth are rotating.  If you want I could give you some videos that explain this concept really well.  I know that bullets don't really travel in a strait line, they drop due to gravity and are effected by the air.  The Coriolis effect does still noticeably effect the bullet so it needs to be accounted for even though it's not the only factor to account for.

Bullets and airplanes differ in two key ways in this case.

Firstly, airplanes don't generally account for the Coriolis effect because they do not need their trajectory to be precise as that of a bullet, planes have a large margin of error in their flight path while bullets need to be within an inch or so if their intended path.

Secondly, airplanes are controlled by a pilot, while a bullet cannot control it's self in flight.  When shooting a bullet you have to come up with it's trajectory and account for all forces acting on it before you fire because after you fire there is nothing you can do to change the bullet's trajectory.  Airplanes on the other hand can correct for whatever causes them to deviate from their flight path.  If an airplane starts slowly pitching down then the pilot simply pulls up and sets trim to compensate, it doesn't matter if this pitch is caused by the Coriolis effect, the shifting of weight on the plane, turbulence, or a mythical creature messing with the aerodynamics.  The plane can adapt to it's situation while a bullet can not.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 08, 2015, 01:29:37 PM
Yendor, an insect riding on a bullet wouldn't be able to see the rotation if the Earth.  If you were in a car going 50 miles per hour and you shoot a gun facing backwards then the bullet will be traveling 50 miles per hour slower then normal relative to the ground, and if you shoot it forwards then it will be going 50 miles per hour faster then normal relative to the ground.  Relative to the car though the bullet's speed is normal in both instances  Simelarly, shooting a gun east and west are the same as far as the bullet's speed goes.  It will hit a target to the east with the same speed as a target to the west.

You clearly don't understand the Coriolis effect, the effect is caused because the bullet travels on (more or less) a strait line, while you and the Earth are rotating slowly.  This causes the bullet to spear to curve up or down a tiny bit.  It isn't really curving, it just appears to be because you and the Earth are rotating.  If you want I could give you some videos that explain this concept really well.  I know that bullets don't really travel in a strait line, they drop due to gravity and are effected by the air.  The Coriolis effect does still noticeably effect the bullet so it needs to be accounted for even though it's not the only factor to account for.

Bullets and airplanes differ in two key ways in this case.

Firstly, airplanes don't generally account for the Coriolis effect because they do not need their trajectory to be precise as that of a bullet, planes have a large margin of error in their flight path while bullets need to be within an inch or so if their intended path.

Secondly, airplanes are controlled by a pilot, while a bullet cannot control it's self in flight.  When shooting a bullet you have to come up with it's trajectory and account for all forces acting on it before you fire because after you fire there is nothing you can do to change the bullet's trajectory.  Airplanes on the other hand can correct for whatever causes them to deviate from their flight path.  If an airplane starts slowly pitching down then the pilot simply pulls up and sets trim to compensate, it doesn't matter if this pitch is caused by the Coriolis effect, the shifting of weight on the plane, turbulence, or a mythical creature messing with the aerodynamics.  The plane can adapt to it's situation while a bullet can not.

Mikey, I try and not judge people, but in your case you are either a shrill or you don't have a lick of common sense. It appears your mind got up and left your body. All you posted is utter nonsense. You can't create a little window and say Coriolis effect fits inside of it, however, it don't fit outside this little window. It is simply one way or the other. If you say Coriolis effect is real and firing a bullet demonstrates it, you can't then come along and say an airplane doesn't. Do you think anyone in their right mind would believe the BS you spew out? Get real and find your brain along with common sense and make sure what you post makes sense before you post to me again.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 08, 2015, 07:37:05 PM

Tell me funny guy, what is it about substituting a plane for the bullet that confuses you?
It doesn't confuse me.

Quote
In this discussion, they both can fly over the Earth at certain altitudes. They both can fly straight north, they both can fly at certain speeds and the both can hit a target straight away. If the fairyfly can see the Earth rotate under him while he rides on the bullet, why can't a pilot see the Earth rotate while he flies the plane? I'll await your answer.
Do you feel that one object that accelerates from 0mph to around 2,045mph within a tiny fraction of a second, doesn't have wings or flaps for lift or steering, and has a flight time of about a second...

to possess the same flight characteristics as an object that accelerates slowly to around 200mph, has wings and flaps for lift and steering, and has a flight time measured in minutes to hours?

I'll await your answer.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 09, 2015, 08:09:03 AM

Tell me funny guy, what is it about substituting a plane for the bullet that confuses you?
It doesn't confuse me.

Quote
In this discussion, they both can fly over the Earth at certain altitudes. They both can fly straight north, they both can fly at certain speeds and the both can hit a target straight away. If the fairyfly can see the Earth rotate under him while he rides on the bullet, why can't a pilot see the Earth rotate while he flies the plane? I'll await your answer.
Do you feel that one object that accelerates from 0mph to around 2,045mph within a tiny fraction of a second, doesn't have wings or flaps for lift or steering, and has a flight time of about a second...

to possess the same flight characteristics as an object that accelerates slowly to around 200mph, has wings and flaps for lift and steering, and has a flight time measured in minutes to hours?

I'll await your answer.

If you think the flight characteristic between a bullet and an airplane has anything to do with the Earth rotating under them in flight, then you need to put out the, OUT TO LUNCH, sign
because your brain done left your body.

If you are of the belief that the Coriolis effect causes bullets to miss targets because the Earth rotates under the bullet in flight, then why can't you see the same thing happening when an airplane is in flight? If you can't picture this in your mind, then your only purpose here is to derail this thread.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 09, 2015, 08:39:36 AM
Mikey, I try and not judge people, but in your case you are either a shrill or you don't have a lick of common sense. It appears your mind got up and left your body. All you posted is utter nonsense. You can't create a little window and say Coriolis effect fits inside of it, however, it don't fit outside this little window. It is simply one way or the other. If you say Coriolis effect is real and firing a bullet demonstrates it, you can't then come along and say an airplane doesn't. Do you think anyone in their right mind would believe the BS you spew out? Get real and find your brain along with common sense and make sure what you post makes sense before you post to me again.

I never said that the Coriolis effect doesn't apply to airplanes, it's just that airplane pilots don't have to account for it because they can make corrections in flight and they don't have to have millimeter accuracy.  It's effects are negligible in most circumstances and sniping is one of those few circumstances where a projectile needs to be so precise that you must account for the Coriolis effect to hit your target.  There are actually cases where airplane pilots do have to account for the Coriolis effect, and what we observe is entirely consistent with a round Earth. 
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 09, 2015, 08:51:54 AM
Quote
If you are of the belief that the Coriolis effect causes bullets to miss targets because the Earth rotates under the bullet in flight, then why can't you see the same thing happening when an airplane is in flight?
You are absolutely correct and incorrect...

Since the Coriolis Effect is physics, you are absolutely correct that it effects ALL objects (i.e. bullets, planes, ocean currents, hurricanes, etc.) to a lesser or greater degree on Earth. It either is or is not. EVERYWHERE, where there is a sideways component to movement, you have to LEAD the target to hit it. So you are absolutely correct.

But...

mikeman7918's quote:
Quote
Secondly, airplanes are controlled by a pilot,
IF the object is being controlled (not free flying like an uncontrolled bullet) by a pilot or computer to correct for flight path anomalies (e.g. Coriolis Effect, wind, etc.), then the plane's motion will not demonstrate the Coriolis Effect. A pilot flying circles around an airport, going up and down, does not demonstrate a Coriolis Effect. So you are absolutely incorrect.

To demonstrate a plane and the Coriolis Effect, the plane, unmanned with no computer control, would have to take off and land with nothing but its initial "push" - like a bullet. Of course, flying for minutes or hours - unlike seconds for a bullet, other factors like wind would override the Coriolis Effect observed.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 09, 2015, 11:21:57 AM
Mikey, I try and not judge people, but in your case you are either a shrill or you don't have a lick of common sense. It appears your mind got up and left your body. All you posted is utter nonsense. You can't create a little window and say Coriolis effect fits inside of it, however, it don't fit outside this little window. It is simply one way or the other. If you say Coriolis effect is real and firing a bullet demonstrates it, you can't then come along and say an airplane doesn't. Do you think anyone in their right mind would believe the BS you spew out? Get real and find your brain along with common sense and make sure what you post makes sense before you post to me again.

I never said that the Coriolis effect doesn't apply to airplanes, it's just that airplane pilots don't have to account for it because they can make corrections in flight and they don't have to have millimeter accuracy.  It's effects are negligible in most circumstances and sniping is one of those few circumstances where a projectile needs to be so precise that you must account for the Coriolis effect to hit your target.  There are actually cases where airplane pilots do have to account for the Coriolis effect, and what we observe is entirely consistent with a round Earth.

Mikey, you are absolutely correct. Ignore Jadyyn's explanation. He is trying to have it both ways. That is what I thought you were trying to do earlier. Now I understand you know if it affects bullets it will certainly affect planes as well. Good for you.

Here is the bottom line. If the Coriolis effect is real then a plane can simply hover above the Earth and wait for the Earth to rotate to where we want to be and simply land. If you don't believe that can happen, then you have no other choice then to believe the Earth simply does not rotate and the Coriolis effect is just the wind blowing things around.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 09, 2015, 11:57:04 AM
Mikey, you are absolutely correct. Ignore Jadyyn's explanation. He is trying to have it both ways. That is what I thought you were trying to do earlier. Now I understand you know if it affects bullets it will certainly affect planes as well. Good for you.

Here is the bottom line. If the Coriolis effect is real then a plane can simply hover above the Earth and wait for the Earth to rotate to where we want to be and simply land. If you don't believe that can happen, then you have no other choice then to believe the Earth simply does not rotate and the Coriolis effect is just the wind blowing things around.

You clearly don't understand what the Coriolis effect is.  It is all about relative motion on a rotating reference frame, it in no way suggests that a west bound plane should go faster then an east bound plane.

Imagine you are on a moving airplane and you need to use the bathroom.  The bathrooms are in the back of the plane and you want to get there in a hurry.  According to your logic you can just jump strait up and you will quickly fly backwards and land near the bathroom, but if you try this then that doesn't happen.  In reality what you have to do is start walking towards the back of the plane, which takes just as much energy as walking toward the front of the plane even though you are moving slower relative to the ground.

Same goes for the Earth, it's motion doesn't really change anything and the Coriolis effect has nothing to do with that.  When I get home I will post some videos which explain what the Coriolis effect actually is, but until then just know that you have it completely wrong.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 09, 2015, 12:09:20 PM
Quote
Here is the bottom line. If the Coriolis effect is real then a plane can simply hover above the Earth and wait for the Earth to rotate to where we want to be and simply land. If you don't believe that can happen, then you have no other choice then to believe the Earth simply does not rotate and the Coriolis effect is just the wind blowing things around.
Simple.

If you are standing in a room and throw your "plane" straight up, it will come straight down right?

This is true WHATEVER speed the room is moving as long as it is constant - no acceleration (i.e. inside a room without windows, you can't tell whether you are standing still or moving at 100 mph). That is why throwing the "plane" in a car or plane moving at a constant speed, the "plane" comes right down where it started.

That is why you can't just hover a "plane" and expect the Earth to move under it.

This has nothing to do with the Coriolis Effect (i.e. LEADING)
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 09, 2015, 01:31:56 PM
I would appreciate it if both Mikey and Jdyyn would go to this website and read it especially the part that talks about a hypothetical airplane. After you read it, I would like someone explain why i'm wrong as to what i've bee saying. Guys, I understand how Coriolis is said to work, if it did work the way they tell us then what I'm telling you is correct. It is just that you don't want to believe it. This is just one of many sites that explains it correctly. Please take the time and read it. This doesn't come from me, it comes from a former Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and is a Professor Emeritus of Geography at Appalachian State University, Boone, NC.)

http://demo.maps101.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=2:geography-in-the-news&id=407:hurricanes-and-the-coriolis-effect (http://demo.maps101.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=2:geography-in-the-news&id=407:hurricanes-and-the-coriolis-effect)

This is the crux of the matter:
As a simple example, a hypothetical airplane leaves the North Pole on a 12-hour trip flying directly south toward Quito, Equador, located on the equator (80 degrees west longitude). During this 12-hour trip, the earth would rotate half way around and the plane would arrive in Sumartra, Indonesia (100 degrees east longitude). Clearly, from the ground, the plane's direction was due south, but the earth's rotation beneath the plane's flight path created the illusion of the plane flying southwestward—a deflection to the right (from the plane's origin at the Pole). No matter which direction air moves in the Northern Hemisphere, the earth's rotation causes it also to be deflected to the right for the same reason.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 09, 2015, 03:22:51 PM
What you are describing is EXACTLY what I wrote here:
Quote
Coriolis Effect - easy to explain:

A) Stationary:
  • If the flight time of a bullet is say 10 sec (whatever)
  • If you are shooting directly at a target due north of you (N velocity component of bullet)
  • If you or that target is not moving sideways
  • Result - you hit the target exactly in 10 sec
B) Sideways motion
  • If the flight time of a bullet is say 10 sec (whatever)
  • If you are shooting directly at a target due north of you (N velocity component of bullet)
  • If you or that target is moving sideways (there is an E-W velocity component to the bullet)
  • Result - you miss the target
  • You must LEAD the target to hit it - i.e. you must shoot where it WILL BE in 10 sec, not where it is now
On a sphere or disk, all the above are still true - the physics is the same.

The E-W velocity component is due to the spin.

On a stationary sphere or disk, you will hit the target. On a spinning sphere or disk, you will miss unless you lead.

On a STATIONARY Earth - he will hit the target. (A4) above.
On a SPINNING Earth - he will miss the target. (B4) above.
PLEASE look at my explanation above in the quote. It should make sense. This is the Coriolis Effect.

I explain Coriolis Effect as "target LEAD" because people naturally understand this in every day experiences (if you have a friend across the street jogging along the sidewalk and you want to meet them, do you run to where they are now or where they will be in say 20 sec? - i.e. LEAD them) The opposite, as described in your example, is counter-intuitive to most people, therefore hard to explain - hence the confusion.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: inquisitive on October 09, 2015, 03:36:39 PM
If I jump in the air for 1s how much will the ground have moved under me if I am on the equator?
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 09, 2015, 04:19:14 PM
What you are describing is EXACTLY what I wrote here:
Quote
Coriolis Effect - easy to explain:

A) Stationary:
  • If the flight time of a bullet is say 10 sec (whatever)
  • If you are shooting directly at a target due north of you (N velocity component of bullet)
  • If you or that target is not moving sideways
  • Result - you hit the target exactly in 10 sec
B) Sideways motion
  • If the flight time of a bullet is say 10 sec (whatever)
  • If you are shooting directly at a target due north of you (N velocity component of bullet)
  • If you or that target is moving sideways (there is an E-W velocity component to the bullet)
  • Result - you miss the target
  • You must LEAD the target to hit it - i.e. you must shoot where it WILL BE in 10 sec, not where it is now
On a sphere or disk, all the above are still true - the physics is the same.

The E-W velocity component is due to the spin.

On a stationary sphere or disk, you will hit the target. On a spinning sphere or disk, you will miss unless you lead.

On a STATIONARY Earth - he will hit the target. (A4) above.
  • The plane will go south straight down 80 deg west longitude straight to Quito, Ecuador and "hit it" directly.
  • NO sideways (E-W) velocity component.
On a SPINNING Earth - he will miss the target. (B4) above.
  • He will end up in Sumatra, Indonesia (100 deg east longitude).
  • Because there IS a sideways (E-W) velocity component.

  • To end up in Quito, he would need to calculate the flight time (12 hours) then calculate where Quito WILL BE in 12 hours, then head there (LEAD the target) to land in Quito perfectly. The plane would head south ALL the time, while the sideways movement of the Earth would bring Quito under it at landing.
PLEASE look at my explanation above in the quote. It should make sense. This is the Coriolis Effect.

I explain Coriolis Effect as "target LEAD" because people naturally understand this in every day experiences (if you have a friend across the street jogging along the sidewalk and you want to meet them, do you run to where they are now or where they will be in say 20 sec? - i.e. LEAD them) The opposite, as described in your example, is counter-intuitive to most people, therefore hard to explain - hence the confusion.

From what you wrote you seem to understand this, then this means an airplane can leave the north pole with the intentions  of traveling to Sumatra, Indonesia, fly very slow heading straight towards Quito, Ecuador for twelve hours and land in Sumatra, Indonesia. Is that correct?
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jeff Zheng on October 09, 2015, 04:25:13 PM
Not enough too be measured the human eye.The earth is far to large for that.However if you where to be shot out of a cannon(or jump out of a space ship thing Felix)then you would most likely end up  a bit or a lot more west of your original position.
( BTW Felix Baumgartner is awesome.)
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jeff Zheng on October 09, 2015, 04:28:52 PM
Yes fly toward where Quito was 12 hours age(aka Sumatra)
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jeff Zheng on October 09, 2015, 04:44:29 PM
Yes fly toward where Quito was 12 hours age(aka Sumatra)
Yea sorry my last response was kinda rushed. I meant to say that if you fly to where Quito was 12 hours ago,( which would be Sumatra by the time you reach it)then yes you would reach Sumatra.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 09, 2015, 05:23:16 PM
Quote
From what you wrote you seem to understand this, then this means an airplane can leave the north pole with the intentions  of traveling to Sumatra, Indonesia, fly very slow heading straight towards Quito, Ecuador for twelve hours and land in Sumatra, Indonesia. Is that correct?
I would correct your statement slightly - "then this means an airplane can leave the north pole with the intentions of traveling to Sumatra, Indonesia, fly very slow initially heading straight towards Quito, Ecuador, travel due south for twelve hours and land in Sumatra, Indonesia."

Simply put, the plane would have to fly to where Sumatra WILL BE in 12 hrs and meet it there.

Initially, it should aim at Quito and keep flying due south. Quito will move "out of the way" due to the E-W spin (velocity component). Sumatra will move "into the way" due to the E-W spin (velocity component).

It should not be flying toward Quito throughout the whole trip.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 09, 2015, 05:36:14 PM
If I jump in the air for 1s how much will the ground have moved under me if I am on the equator?
It wouldn't. No Coriolis Effect.

If you are standing in a room and jump up, you will come straight down right?

This is true WHATEVER speed the room is moving as long as it is constant - no acceleration (i.e. inside a room without windows, you can't tell whether you are standing still or moving at 100 mph). If you jump in a car or plane moving at a constant speed, you come right down where you started.

That is why you can't jump and expect the Earth to move under you.

This has nothing to do with the Coriolis Effect (i.e. LEADING)
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 09, 2015, 05:56:43 PM
If you think the flight characteristic between a bullet and an airplane has anything to do with the Earth rotating under them in flight, then you need to put out the, OUT TO LUNCH, sign
because your brain done left your body.

If you are of the belief that the Coriolis effect causes bullets to miss targets because the Earth rotates under the bullet in flight, then why can't you see the same thing happening when an airplane is in flight? If you can't picture this in your mind, then your only purpose here is to derail this thread.
How about you tell us which coriolis effect you are talking about.  The first video of the 1000 meter shots show how the surface either falls away or rises up to meet the bullet.  A different type of effect is firing a bullet from one of the poles and watching as it hits slightly left or right of the target.  Firing east or west along a latitude midway between the equator and pole would also see the bullet drift left or right, along with an elevation difference with the impact. 

If an airplane took off from a pole and headed directly toward the other pole, (and was not affected by air currents), then yes, it would end up east or west of whatever spot along the equator it was originally aimed at.  Taking off from the equator east or west, it would not experience the same effect as the bullet because the plane controls it's elevation and direction.  Trying to keep an exact straight-line trajectory to see if the surface drops away such as with the bullet, would itself require precise control over the airplane's flight. 

If a helicopter lifted off from a point along the arctic circle and simply hovered, (again impervious to wind current) then it will still keep moving along with it's take-off spot on the ground for a bit, after all it was moving the same speed as the ground when it lifted off, but then it should eventually start drifting south as it's launch site follows the surface rotation out from beneath it.

So depending on whether or not, or how much, an airplane is affected versus a bullet, depends on where and what direction it is fired or takes off.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: inquisitive on October 10, 2015, 06:59:07 AM
If you think the flight characteristic between a bullet and an airplane has anything to do with the Earth rotating under them in flight, then you need to put out the, OUT TO LUNCH, sign
because your brain done left your body.

If you are of the belief that the Coriolis effect causes bullets to miss targets because the Earth rotates under the bullet in flight, then why can't you see the same thing happening when an airplane is in flight? If you can't picture this in your mind, then your only purpose here is to derail this thread.
How about you tell us which coriolis effect you are talking about.  The first video of the 1000 meter shots show how the surface either falls away or rises up to meet the bullet.  A different type of effect is firing a bullet from one of the poles and watching as it hits slightly left or right of the target.  Firing east or west along a latitude midway between the equator and pole would also see the bullet drift left or right, along with an elevation difference with the impact. 

If an airplane took off from a pole and headed directly toward the other pole, (and was not affected by air currents), then yes, it would end up east or west of whatever spot along the equator it was originally aimed at.  Taking off from the equator east or west, it would not experience the same effect as the bullet because the plane controls it's elevation and direction.  Trying to keep an exact straight-line trajectory to see if the surface drops away such as with the bullet, would itself require precise control over the airplane's flight. 

If a helicopter lifted off from a point along the arctic circle and simply hovered, (again impervious to wind current) then it will still keep moving along with it's take-off spot on the ground for a bit, after all it was moving the same speed as the ground when it lifted off, but then it should eventually start drifting south as it's launch site follows the surface rotation out from beneath it.

So depending on whether or not, or how much, an airplane is affected versus a bullet, depends on where and what direction it is fired or takes off.
'for a bit'. How long for and what would make it move south, how is the pilot controlling this?  The atmosphere is moving with the ground.  Please explain why the ground does not move when I jump.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 10, 2015, 07:04:41 AM
Quote
Please explain why the ground does not move when I jump.
I did above. The Coriolis Effect does not apply to this.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 10, 2015, 07:27:04 AM
inquisitive, for the Coriolis Effect to apply you need 4 components:
The easiest way to describe the Coriolis Effect then is ... where do you shoot (bullet) / fly (plane) to get to the target (i.e. how much LEAD do you need to "hit" it)? - no lead, no Coriolis Effects.

In your example, you only have 2 components (i.e. Earth and You) so the Coriolis Effect does not apply.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 10, 2015, 08:38:34 AM
Thinking about it some more, if you are the point of origin, the projectile and the target, the Coriolis Effect can apply.
If:
As you move toward the poles, or your height is lower, or your "float" time is less, the distance gets shorter. So jumping for 1 sec to a very small height (1 ft?) on the equator would move you approx 0.00087 inches - hard to measure. Your jump to 1 ft would not be instantaneous, so that measurement would even be smaller. Away from the equator, that distance gets even smaller. That 1 sec and 1 ft would have to be measured accurately and no other factors could influence it (e.g. wind).
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 10, 2015, 08:50:15 AM
'for a bit'. How long for and what would make it move south, how is the pilot controlling this?
Technically it would start moving south as soon as it lifted off, but it will be very slow at first before it becomes noticeable.  An object on the arctic circle would be following a left turn (facing east) as Earth rotated.  With nothing to make the helicopter follow this turn, it would continue straight (drifting south).  The pilot would have to maintain a hovering position and let it drift where it may.  Again this is assuming wind isn't affecting it.

 
Quote
The atmosphere is moving with the ground.  Please explain why the ground does not move when I jump.
Simple, you're moving the same speed as the ground.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: inquisitive on October 10, 2015, 09:02:41 AM
'for a bit'. How long for and what would make it move south, how is the pilot controlling this?
Technically it would start moving south as soon as it lifted off, but it will be very slow at first before it becomes noticeable.  An object on the arctic circle would be following a left turn (facing east) as Earth rotated.  With nothing to make the helicopter follow this turn, it would continue straight (drifting south).  The pilot would have to maintain a hovering position and let it drift where it may.  Again this is assuming wind isn't affecting it.

 
Quote
The atmosphere is moving with the ground.  Please explain why the ground does not move when I jump.
Simple, you're moving the same speed as the ground.
How does the pilot do this without maintaining the same position above the earth?
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 10, 2015, 10:21:53 AM
Only maintain elevation.  Does that make sense yet?
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 10, 2015, 11:38:20 AM
There has been a lot of discussion on this subject while I've been gone, That is good. It seems you all get the picture. Now I want to play another scenario for everyone to think about.

If an airplane takes off from Chicago, Illinois and it's destination is Albuquerque, New Mexico. Instead of heading directly towards Albuquerque, which is 1,126 miles away, the plane flies directly south towards Cherokee, Alabama for one hour at a speed of 500mph. After one hour of flight time, where Cherokee used to be would now be Albuquerque. Because the lateral distance between the two cities is 1000 miles and the Earth rotates W-E around 1000 mph the plane saved one hour of flight time. That is a big savings.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 10, 2015, 01:14:06 PM
There has been a lot of discussion on this subject while I've been gone, That is good. It seems you all get the picture. Now I want to play another scenario for everyone to think about.

If an airplane takes off from Chicago, Illinois and it's destination is Albuquerque, New Mexico. Instead of heading directly towards Albuquerque, which is 1,126 miles away, the plane flies directly south towards Cherokee, Alabama for one hour at a speed of 500mph. After one hour of flight time, where Cherokee used to be would now be Albuquerque. Because the lateral distance between the two cities is 1000 miles and the Earth rotates W-E around 1000 mph the plane saved one hour of flight time. That is a big savings.
Your principle is good but the velocities are not - they change by latitude. (1000 mph is the approximate speed at the equator)

(Latitudes & Longitudes)(approx. velocity at that latitude)
(41.8369 N,   87.6847 W) (772 mph) Chicago
(34.7583 N,   87.9685 W) (852 mph) Cherokee
(35.1107 N, 106.6100 W) (848 mph) Albuquerque

It is complicated since Cherokee and Albuquerque are both moving...

So, if the plane flew from Chicago to Cherokee, AL approx 500 mi at 500 mph, Cherokee would have moved 80 mi (852-772) east by the time it got there. So flying to Albuquerque would still require the whole 1086 mi or so - from Cherokee.

I think you mean:
Flying from Chicago due south, initially aiming at Cherokee, AL but not flying toward it throughout the trip. In 1 hour, Cherokee would be 80 mi east.  The E-W velocity difference between Chicago and Albuquerque is only 76 mph (848-772). So unfortunately, Albuquerque would only be about 76 miles closer...

What might also be confusing is people using the N. Pole and equator in examples to simplify things.  N. Pole (90.0000 N)(0 mph) and equator (0.0000 N/S, 1000 mph). The velocity difference is 1000 mph (1000-0).
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: inquisitive on October 10, 2015, 01:31:16 PM
Only maintain elevation.  Does that make sense yet?
How when the navigation system and visual will keep tthe helicopter above the same place.  Please provide proof from results of a test.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 10, 2015, 03:19:41 PM
There has been a lot of discussion on this subject while I've been gone, That is good. It seems you all get the picture. Now I want to play another scenario for everyone to think about.

If an airplane takes off from Chicago, Illinois and it's destination is Albuquerque, New Mexico. Instead of heading directly towards Albuquerque, which is 1,126 miles away, the plane flies directly south towards Cherokee, Alabama for one hour at a speed of 500mph. After one hour of flight time, where Cherokee used to be would now be Albuquerque. Because the lateral distance between the two cities is 1000 miles and the Earth rotates W-E around 1000 mph the plane saved one hour of flight time. That is a big savings.
Your principle is good but the velocities are not - they change by latitude. (1000 mph is the approximate speed at the equator)

(Latitudes & Longitudes)(approx. velocity at that latitude)
(41.8369 N,   87.6847 W) (772 mph) Chicago
(34.7583 N,   87.9685 W) (852 mph) Cherokee
(35.1107 N, 106.6100 W) (848 mph) Albuquerque

It is complicated since Cherokee and Albuquerque are both moving...

So, if the plane flew from Chicago to Cherokee, AL approx 500 mi at 500 mph, Cherokee would have moved 80 mi (852-772) east by the time it got there. So flying to Albuquerque would still require the whole 1086 mi or so - from Cherokee.

I think you mean:
Flying from Chicago due south, initially aiming at Cherokee, AL but not flying toward it throughout the trip. In 1 hour, Cherokee would be 80 mi east.  The E-W velocity difference between Chicago and Albuquerque is only 76 mph (848-772). So unfortunately, Albuquerque would only be about 76 miles closer...

What might also be confusing is people using the N. Pole and equator in examples to simplify things.  N. Pole (90.0000 N)(0 mph) and equator (0.0000 N/S, 1000 mph). The velocity difference is 1000 mph (1000-0).


What you think I meant to say is correct. I messed up. I wasn't thinking about the speed changes at different latitudes and I forgot about flying to  Albuquerque would be flying west towards the earth rotating east.

So, all of this we have been discussing you are convinced is real. That is, if a plane leaves Chicago and has a destination of Cherokee, the pilot would be fling south east instead of south in order to eventually arrive at Cherokee. What if you simply fly east or west. Wouldn't you have to allow for the <=1000 mph rotation and wouldn't that be hard to do if you were flying west in a plane that only went 500 mph?


Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 10, 2015, 10:06:36 PM
I believe the Coriolis Effect is real - it is just leading targets that we observe and do all the time, just on a spinning object.

Quote
if a plane leaves Chicago and has a destination of Cherokee, the pilot would be fling south east instead of south in order to eventually arrive at Cherokee.
Yes... heading due south you would not hit Cherokee. You have to aim where Cherokee will be in 1 hr. It is along the exact same lines as:
I would appreciate it if both Mikey and Jdyyn would go to this website and read it especially the part that talks about a hypothetical airplane. After you read it, I would like someone explain why i'm wrong as to what i've bee saying. Guys, I understand how Coriolis is said to work, if it did work the way they tell us then what I'm telling you is correct. It is just that you don't want to believe it. This is just one of many sites that explains it correctly. Please take the time and read it. This doesn't come from me, it comes from a former Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and is a Professor Emeritus of Geography at Appalachian State University, Boone, NC.)

http://demo.maps101.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=2:geography-in-the-news&id=407:hurricanes-and-the-coriolis-effect (http://demo.maps101.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=2:geography-in-the-news&id=407:hurricanes-and-the-coriolis-effect)

This is the crux of the matter:
As a simple example, a hypothetical airplane leaves the North Pole on a 12-hour trip flying directly south toward Quito, Equador, located on the equator (80 degrees west longitude). During this 12-hour trip, the earth would rotate half way around and the plane would arrive in Sumartra, Indonesia (100 degrees east longitude). Clearly, from the ground, the plane's direction was due south, but the earth's rotation beneath the plane's flight path created the illusion of the plane flying southwestward—a deflection to the right (from the plane's origin at the Pole). No matter which direction air moves in the Northern Hemisphere, the earth's rotation causes it also to be deflected to the right for the same reason.

Quote
What if you simply fly east or west. Wouldn't you have to allow for the <=1000 mph rotation and wouldn't that be hard to do if you were flying west in a plane that only went 500 mph?
(Latitude) Circumference @ Earth rotation speed - City - Plane at 500 mph (relative to the ground) going EAST or WEST
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: inquisitive on October 10, 2015, 11:56:52 PM
I believe the Coriolis Effect is real - it is just leading targets that we observe and do all the time, just on a spinning object.

Quote
if a plane leaves Chicago and has a destination of Cherokee, the pilot would be fling south east instead of south in order to eventually arrive at Cherokee.
Yes... heading due south you would not hit Cherokee. You have to aim where Cherokee will be in 1 hr. It is along the exact same lines as:
I would appreciate it if both Mikey and Jdyyn would go to this website and read it especially the part that talks about a hypothetical airplane. After you read it, I would like someone explain why i'm wrong as to what i've bee saying. Guys, I understand how Coriolis is said to work, if it did work the way they tell us then what I'm telling you is correct. It is just that you don't want to believe it. This is just one of many sites that explains it correctly. Please take the time and read it. This doesn't come from me, it comes from a former Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and is a Professor Emeritus of Geography at Appalachian State University, Boone, NC.)

http://demo.maps101.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=2:geography-in-the-news&id=407:hurricanes-and-the-coriolis-effect (http://demo.maps101.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=2:geography-in-the-news&id=407:hurricanes-and-the-coriolis-effect)

This is the crux of the matter:
As a simple example, a hypothetical airplane leaves the North Pole on a 12-hour trip flying directly south toward Quito, Equador, located on the equator (80 degrees west longitude). During this 12-hour trip, the earth would rotate half way around and the plane would arrive in Sumartra, Indonesia (100 degrees east longitude). Clearly, from the ground, the plane's direction was due south, but the earth's rotation beneath the plane's flight path created the illusion of the plane flying southwestward—a deflection to the right (from the plane's origin at the Pole). No matter which direction air moves in the Northern Hemisphere, the earth's rotation causes it also to be deflected to the right for the same reason.

Quote
What if you simply fly east or west. Wouldn't you have to allow for the <=1000 mph rotation and wouldn't that be hard to do if you were flying west in a plane that only went 500 mph?
  • The Earth rotating at 1000 mph at the equator and 772 mph at Chicago's latitude are relative to the N. Pole (0 mph). These are E-W velocity components.
  • The 500 mph E-W velocity component of the plane is relative to the ground at that latitude.
(Latitude) Circumference @ Earth rotation speed - City - Plane at 500 mph (relative to the ground) going EAST or WEST
  • (  0.0000 N) 24,875 mi @ 1000 mph = 24 hrs - Equator            - Plane 48 hrs.
  • (41.8369 N) 18,528 mi @   772 mph = 24 hrs - Chicago, IL       - Plane 37 hrs.
  • (61.2167 N) 11,977 mi @   499 mph = 24 hrs - Anchorage, AK  - Plane 24 hrs.
The atmosphere is moving with the earth. Pilots do not aim for where their destination will be.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 11, 2015, 07:28:00 AM
I believe the Coriolis Effect is real - it is just leading targets that we observe and do all the time, just on a spinning object.

Quote
if a plane leaves Chicago and has a destination of Cherokee, the pilot would be fling south east instead of south in order to eventually arrive at Cherokee.
Yes... heading due south you would not hit Cherokee. You have to aim where Cherokee will be in 1 hr. It is along the exact same lines as:
I would appreciate it if both Mikey and Jdyyn would go to this website and read it especially the part that talks about a hypothetical airplane. After you read it, I would like someone explain why i'm wrong as to what i've bee saying. Guys, I understand how Coriolis is said to work, if it did work the way they tell us then what I'm telling you is correct. It is just that you don't want to believe it. This is just one of many sites that explains it correctly. Please take the time and read it. This doesn't come from me, it comes from a former Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and is a Professor Emeritus of Geography at Appalachian State University, Boone, NC.)

http://demo.maps101.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=2:geography-in-the-news&id=407:hurricanes-and-the-coriolis-effect (http://demo.maps101.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=2:geography-in-the-news&id=407:hurricanes-and-the-coriolis-effect)

This is the crux of the matter:
As a simple example, a hypothetical airplane leaves the North Pole on a 12-hour trip flying directly south toward Quito, Equador, located on the equator (80 degrees west longitude). During this 12-hour trip, the earth would rotate half way around and the plane would arrive in Sumartra, Indonesia (100 degrees east longitude). Clearly, from the ground, the plane's direction was due south, but the earth's rotation beneath the plane's flight path created the illusion of the plane flying southwestward—a deflection to the right (from the plane's origin at the Pole). No matter which direction air moves in the Northern Hemisphere, the earth's rotation causes it also to be deflected to the right for the same reason.

Quote
What if you simply fly east or west. Wouldn't you have to allow for the <=1000 mph rotation and wouldn't that be hard to do if you were flying west in a plane that only went 500 mph?
  • The Earth rotating at 1000 mph at the equator and 772 mph at Chicago's latitude are relative to the N. Pole (0 mph). These are E-W velocity components.
  • The 500 mph E-W velocity component of the plane is relative to the ground at that latitude.
(Latitude) Circumference @ Earth rotation speed - City - Plane at 500 mph (relative to the ground) going EAST or WEST
  • (  0.0000 N) 24,875 mi @ 1000 mph = 24 hrs - Equator            - Plane 48 hrs.
  • (41.8369 N) 18,528 mi @   772 mph = 24 hrs - Chicago, IL       - Plane 37 hrs.
  • (61.2167 N) 11,977 mi @   499 mph = 24 hrs - Anchorage, AK  - Plane 24 hrs.
The atmosphere is moving with the earth. Pilots do not aim for where their destination will be.

They better aim for their destination or they won't get there. They can't just fly straight there because the Earth will have moved and they will miss it.

Visit this website to see where I'm coming from.

http://demo.maps101.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=2:geography-in-the-news&id=407:hurricanes-and-the-coriolis-effect] [url]http://demo.maps101.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=2:geography-in-the-news&id=407:hurricanes-and-the-coriolis-effect (http://[url)  [/url]

This website demonstrates it well :

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es1904/es1904page01.cfm] [url]http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es1904/es1904page01.cfm (http://[url)  [/url]
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: inquisitive on October 11, 2015, 09:05:23 AM
This means that a plane will fly a longer or shorter distance than that on the actual earth?  Flight times on east-west flights will therefore be very different to those west-east between the same points.  eg. New York-Paris.

How far up above a point on the equator do you have to go to find a 1000mph wind?
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 11, 2015, 09:12:32 AM
I was trying to explain the Coriolis Effect. It is complicated because in the "real world" there are many external factors to consider that don't have anything to do with it. We ELIMINATE them to just discuss the effects of just the Coriolis Effect.

Now you want to add them to make the example "REAL".

Basically, if the atmosphere and/or wind is moving E-W, THEY are adding an E-W velocity component. The plane can point (and appear to fly inside the plane) DUE SOUTH or even WEST and end up in Cherokee, AL (that has moved 80 mi EAST due to Coriolis Effect) due to an east blowing wind that may vary in velocity. That is why airplanes have pilots/computers to correct for this in the "real world".

Furthermore, to complicate this even further if you want, you must consider ALTITUDE. For an example on the equator (7918 mi dia; 24,875 mi circ), if a plane is heading DUE WEST at an altitude of say 10 mi (7938 mi dia; 24,937 mi circ) it is in "orbit". Instead of 1036.5 mph (ground speed), it would have to fly 1039.0 mph to keep the same point on the ground underneath it. This kind of difference varies with altitude and latitude to complicate it further.

As you can see, there are many factors involved in the "real world" that need to be accounted for that don't have anything to do with the Coriolis Effect. The shorter the distance, typically, the less these factors influence the flight. That is why planes have pilots/computers to correct for these. They do not give a plane an initial "push" pointing it in the "best guess" direction and hope it ends up where they want it to.

Look at a "real world" flight:
If there was a 100 mph wind going East (hitting the plane sideways), would its flight path be the same as if there was no wind? Which way would it point (appear to fly) in both cases?

The wind has nothing to do with the Coriolis Effect that we were discussing but is "real".
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 11, 2015, 09:54:18 AM
This means that a plane will fly a longer or shorter distance than that on the actual earth?  Flight times on east-west flights will therefore be very different to those west-east between the same points.  eg. New York-Paris.
inquisitive, again, do you want to discuss the "real world" with probably a dozen factors - all at the same time - to see the effect? This WILL be difficult to do because each factor can influence the flight at different times during the flight and can appear or disappear or change in magnitude (e.g. wind).

In your question above, YES, the distance (flight path) will change on the actual earth as will flight times. The ground distance does not change but flight path and time do.

For example, where is the Jet Stream at the time the plane is flying? How does that affect weather/wind velocities (flying with a tail wind vs head wind)? When are you taking this flight? - as the Jet Stream changes over time. How does that affect flight time/path (sometimes airlines will fly planes differently (different paths) to avoid those head winds or get into tail winds)?

Does a flight from NY-Paris sometimes go around weather in the North Atlantic? How does that affect flight time/path?

Are we talking about the Concord, a 747, Lear Jet, or F16? Their flight characteristics vary. The other factors will probably affect one type of plane more or less than another. How does that affect flight time/path?

This is why airlines give you an estimate on flight time - but the actual fight time can vary - sometimes by a lot (even something as stupid as planes being "grounded" - that would change the flight time from NY-Paris, perhaps by a day or two).

Either we discuss the "real" world with its dozen factors at the same time or we don't. You can't just pick some and ignore others.

We CAN discuss one factor, isolating it from the others, to see how it affects the trip (i.e. the Coriolis Effect I was discussing). Adding other factors simply makes the Coriolis Effect more confusing than it already is.

Finally, this discussion here is why we discuss the Coriolis Effect with bullets instead of planes. Planes complicate discussions A LOT - needlessly. Half of the factors would not make any affect on a bullets traveling a few seconds over a few kilometers. To be sure, the factors exist but are negligible. The discussion would be greatly simplified.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jeff Zheng on October 11, 2015, 09:56:46 AM
 inside
'for a bit'. How long for and what would make it move south, how is the pilot controlling this?
Technically it would start moving south as soon as it lifted off, but it will be very slow at first before it becomes noticeable.  An object on the arctic circle would be following a left turn (facing east) as Earth rotated.  With nothing to make the helicopter follow this turn, it would continue straight (drifting south).  The pilot would have to maintain a hovering position and let it drift where it may.  Again this is assuming wind isn't affecting it.

 
Quote
The atmosphere is moving with the ground.  Please explain why the ground does not move when I jump.
Simple, you're moving the same speed as the ground.
How does the pilot do this without maintaining the same position above the earth?
the same way when your in a moving car and hover a model helicopter in side(or in a moving RV To be safer)
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 11, 2015, 10:50:42 AM
I was trying to explain the Coriolis Effect. It is complicated because in the "real world" there are many external factors to consider that don't have anything to do with it. We ELIMINATE them to just discuss the effects of just the Coriolis Effect.

Now you want to add them to make the example "REAL".

Basically, if the atmosphere and/or wind is moving E-W, THEY are adding an E-W velocity component. The plane can point (and appear to fly inside the plane) DUE SOUTH or even WEST and end up in Cherokee, AL (that has moved 80 mi EAST due to Coriolis Effect) due to an east blowing wind that may vary in velocity. That is why airplanes have pilots/computers to correct for this in the "real world".

Furthermore, to complicate this even further if you want, you must consider ALTITUDE. For an example on the equator (7918 mi dia; 24,875 mi circ), if a plane is heading DUE WEST at an altitude of say 10 mi (7938 mi dia; 24,937 mi circ) it is in "orbit". Instead of 1036.5 mph (ground speed), it would have to fly 1039.0 mph to keep the same point on the ground underneath it. This kind of difference varies with altitude and latitude to complicate it further.

As you can see, there are many factors involved in the "real world" that need to be accounted for that don't have anything to do with the Coriolis Effect. The shorter the distance, typically, the less these factors influence the flight. That is why planes have pilots/computers to correct for these. They do not give a plane an initial "push" pointing it in the "best guess" direction and hope it ends up where they want it to.

Look at a "real world" flight:
  • Alaska Airlines flight from Anchorage, AK to Honalulu, HI.
  • Starts 2:32 PM, lands 6:51 PM (6h 19m flight time). 2 time zone difference, so using Anchorage TZ, Starts 2:32 PM, lands 8:51 PM.
  • Since this is a 6 hr flight, the Earth spins 1/4 around during the flight.
  • With NO other E-W influence, the plane would fly to where Honalulu will be at 8:51 PM directly.
  • If there IS any E-W influence (atmosphere, wind, altitude), it will fly to the E or W off that direct flight to reach Honalulu (probably NOT flying directly at Honalulu).
  • On the plane, it will point one way and the E-W influence will "push" it sideways some other way.
If there was a 100 mph wind going East (hitting the plane sideways), would its flight path be the same as if there was no wind? Which way would it point (appear to fly) in both cases?

The wind has nothing to do with the Coriolis Effect that we were discussing but is "real".

I don't want to get too carried away with this because I understand the meaning:

In physics, the Coriolis effect is the apparent deflection of moving objects when the motion is described relative to a rotating reference frame.

This site has an animation that demonstrates it.
 classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es1904/es1904page01.cfm   (http://classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es1904/es1904page01.cfm)

I know you are saying plans have computers to compensate for the effect, but a small plane may not. Please explain to me how a small plane flying dead reckoning with just a pilot and only a compass and a map can leave from any location on the equator and fly directly east and be able to find the location he wants to land if the Coriolis effect has deflected the plane a certain amount. How would he know how much deflection there was so he could compensate for it? Another thing while he was flying say 500 mph, the Earth was rotating under him at 1000 mph east. How could he possibly reach his destination if the Earth was rotation twice as fast as he was flying?

Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 11, 2015, 12:53:51 PM
First, my last two posts were in response to inquisitive's questions. He was adding additional factors.

Quote
I don't want to get too carried away with this because I understand the meaning:

In physics, the Coriolis effect is the apparent deflection of moving objects when the motion is described relative to a rotating reference frame.

This site has an animation that demonstrates it.
classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es1904/es1904page01.cfm 

I know you are saying plans have computers to compensate for the effect, but a small plane may not. Please explain to me how a small plane flying dead reckoning with just a pilot and only a compass and a map can leave from any location on the equator and fly directly east and be able to find the location he wants to land if the Coriolis effect has deflected the plane a certain amount. How would he know how much deflection there was so he could compensate for it? Another thing while he was flying say 500 mph, the Earth was rotating under him at 1000 mph east. How could he possibly reach his destination if the Earth was rotation twice as fast as he was flying?

1) From my understanding of piloting, if the distances are short or the pilot has flown the route several times, pilots just use visual clues (mountains, lakes, etc.) or hop (go E to this town, then go NW to this town, then go E to this lake, etc.) - the flight doesn't need to be direct (from Point A to Point B) or efficient.  For longer, unknown flights, I don't think pilots would just be navigating with a compass. Even small planes use flight transponders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aeronautics)) with maps (https://where2sir.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/laf-area-sectional-chart.gif) and beacons on the ground to tell them where they are so they can correct their paths. Non-commercial pilots flying Cessna's and such fly closer to the ground. They do not fly at 30,000 ft because among other things, the air is too thin without special equipment. Typically pilots use some sort of navigation equipment (IFR) just in case they can't see (VFR) (fog, clouds, night). I could be wrong... Any pilots out there with comments/corrections?

2) On the equator, the Coriolis Effect does not turn the plane right or left.

3) The 500 mph is relative to the ground not the N. Pole (a person appears to walk at 3 mph).  The 1000 mph east is relative to the N. Pole (the same person appears to be walking at 1003 mph since he goes around the Earth in 24 hrs).

4) So a car on the ground or plane in the air can go at whatever speed. You only have to add the rotational velocity if you are viewing it from the N. Pole. You need to add/subtract the rotational velocity differences if you are calculating the Coriolis Effect between latitudes.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 11, 2015, 12:57:28 PM
I know you are saying plans have computers to compensate for the effect, but a small plane may not. Please explain to me how a small plane flying dead reckoning with just a pilot and only a compass and a map can leave from any location on the equator and fly directly east and be able to find the location he wants to land if the Coriolis effect has deflected the plane a certain amount.
Because there is no left/right deflection along the equator.

 
Quote
Another thing while he was flying say 500 mph, the Earth was rotating under him at 1000 mph east. How could he possibly reach his destination if the Earth was rotation twice as fast as he was flying?
As has been explained many, many, times before, once again, The plane is already moving with the surface (and the atmosphere, give or take a few mph in whatever direction, aka wind) at whatever speed the surface is moving at that latitude.  As he gets up to 500mph, he now has a 'surface speed' of 500mph. 

So yes, if you were hovering stationary in space, but close enough to watch the surface moving past at 1000mph, you would see the plane moving by at an additional 500mph.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 11, 2015, 01:10:00 PM
I know you are saying plans have computers to compensate for the effect, but a small plane may not. Please explain to me how a small plane flying dead reckoning with just a pilot and only a compass and a map can leave from any location on the equator and fly directly east and be able to find the location he wants to land if the Coriolis effect has deflected the plane a certain amount.
Because there is no left/right deflection along the equator.

 
Quote
Another thing while he was flying say 500 mph, the Earth was rotating under him at 1000 mph east. How could he possibly reach his destination if the Earth was rotation twice as fast as he was flying?
As has been explained many, many, times before, once again, The plane is already moving with the surface (and the atmosphere, give or take a few mph in whatever direction, aka wind) at whatever speed the surface is moving at that latitude.  As he gets up to 500mph, he now has a 'surface speed' of 500mph. 

So yes, if you were hovering stationary in space, but close enough to watch the surface moving past at 1000mph, you would see the plane moving by at an additional 500mph.

I don't believe you are on the same page as Jadyyn and myself.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: inquisitive on October 11, 2015, 01:21:18 PM
Aircraft typically will take the shortest route, dependent on air traffic control.  The atmosphere revolves round with the earth and a navigation system will send the plane to the required destination which remains fixed to the earth.

The idea you navigate to where your destination will have moved to when you arrive makes no sense.  How would that work with a 13 hour flight?  Set off in the opposite direction?

Look at www.flightradar24.com (http://www.flightradar24.com)
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 11, 2015, 02:40:29 PM
Quote
Aircraft typically will take the shortest route, dependent on air traffic control.
Somewhat true...
Quote
The atmosphere revolves round with the earth and a navigation system will send the plane to the required destination which remains fixed to the earth.
Both true... Keep in mind the navigation system is taking "ALL" the factors into account to get the plane from where it is to where it is going (like the GPS in your car). It may have the plane go farther N/S/E/W depending on those factors. Sideways motion (caused by whatever) may deflect it to the target (e.g. plane may be going due south but with the wind and flight time of several hours, its actual path may be SE). The navigation system would be telling the pilot to do this.
Quote
The idea you navigate to where your destination will have moved to when you arrive makes no sense.
The navigation equipment is doing EXACTLY that for you (behind the covers). First, somehow, it has to calculate what path to take to your destination (among other factors, this is where Coriolis Effects would have to be accounted for - i.e. where the target will be in say 12 hours). Once calculated, second, it uses beacons or GPS to make sure you are on the correct calculated path.
Quote
How would that work with a 13 hour flight?  Set off in the opposite direction?
It could. Airlines and their airplanes have to consider several things (assuming a non-stop flight), such as:
BTW, that site is "cool".
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: 29silhouette on October 11, 2015, 02:52:19 PM
I know you are saying plans have computers to compensate for the effect, but a small plane may not. Please explain to me how a small plane flying dead reckoning with just a pilot and only a compass and a map can leave from any location on the equator and fly directly east and be able to find the location he wants to land if the Coriolis effect has deflected the plane a certain amount.
Because there is no left/right deflection along the equator.

 
Quote
Another thing while he was flying say 500 mph, the Earth was rotating under him at 1000 mph east. How could he possibly reach his destination if the Earth was rotation twice as fast as he was flying?
As has been explained many, many, times before, once again, The plane is already moving with the surface (and the atmosphere, give or take a few mph in whatever direction, aka wind) at whatever speed the surface is moving at that latitude.  As he gets up to 500mph, he now has a 'surface speed' of 500mph. 

So yes, if you were hovering stationary in space, but close enough to watch the surface moving past at 1000mph, you would see the plane moving by at an additional 500mph.

I don't believe you are on the same page as Jadyyn and myself.
My answers are based on, and directly pertain to, the parts in bold. 
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 11, 2015, 03:03:41 PM
I know you are saying plans have computers to compensate for the effect, but a small plane may not. Please explain to me how a small plane flying dead reckoning with just a pilot and only a compass and a map can leave from any location on the equator and fly directly east and be able to find the location he wants to land if the Coriolis effect has deflected the plane a certain amount.
Because there is no left/right deflection along the equator.

 
Quote
Another thing while he was flying say 500 mph, the Earth was rotating under him at 1000 mph east. How could he possibly reach his destination if the Earth was rotation twice as fast as he was flying?
As has been explained many, many, times before, once again, The plane is already moving with the surface (and the atmosphere, give or take a few mph in whatever direction, aka wind) at whatever speed the surface is moving at that latitude.  As he gets up to 500mph, he now has a 'surface speed' of 500mph. 

So yes, if you were hovering stationary in space, but close enough to watch the surface moving past at 1000mph, you would see the plane moving by at an additional 500mph.

I don't believe you are on the same page as Jadyyn and myself.
My answers are based on, and directly pertain to, the parts in bold.
Forgive me if I'm wrong. I must have misread what you wrote.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Yendor on October 11, 2015, 04:16:25 PM
Aircraft typically will take the shortest route, dependent on air traffic control.  The atmosphere revolves round with the earth and a navigation system will send the plane to the required destination which remains fixed to the earth.

The idea you navigate to where your destination will have moved to when you arrive makes no sense.  How would that work with a 13 hour flight?  Set off in the opposite direction?

Look at www.flightradar24.com (http://www.flightradar24.com)

You see I have a problem with this notion that, like what Jadyyn is saying, GPS and instruments and other methods compensate for this coriolis effect on airplanes. Back in the old days pilot must certainly have just pointed the plane in the direction  it showed on the map and kept the heading in that direction and kept track of his flight time the best he could. Eventually he would be be close enough to land the plane. This was simply the skill of flying. I tend to agree with inquisitive on this matter. I also don't believe the Coriolis effect causes bullets or cannonballs to veer right or left either. I can't see a sniper trying to figure out if he should shoot left or right of a target and by how much when he is shooting. It just makes no sense to me. I believe when he looks through the scope, he has to mainly figure for distance and windage before he fires. There maybe other things to account for, but certainly not the Coriolis effect. I believe the Coriolis effect is just another way to try and prove the Earth does rotate. The internet is jam packed with stuff about it and many sites contradict each other. From what I've read, they must teach it many different ways in schools. People read about it and right away they think it must be real because this shooter or pilot says so. That must be the reason I keep missing the deer when I go hunting. To me the whole concept is without merit.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 11, 2015, 06:26:41 PM
Like I said, airplanes are complicated because of pilots and equipment. Isolating just one effect is difficult as many factors are involved in plane flight. Equipment and software compensate for many things "behind the scenes" and we just see the end result. I am sure even pilots, probably unconsciously, at some point compensate for it (aiming at a certain destination, they find they always drift to the left, so they automatically go a little to the right and end up spot on - not knowing why).

That is why I said we should be using bullets, because they make half the factors in plane flight negligible. Once receiving the initial "push" their motion is not corrected by anything. The external factors can be analyzed. Under controlled circumstances, some or most other factors can be eliminated (e.g. wind). They can be repeated many times and measured quite accurately.

For me, I understand LEADING targets that have sideways motion. On a spinning sphere or disk, that sideways motion is caused by the spin. This involves the physical laws of motion. Hunters lead flying ducks when they shoot. Merry-go-rounds intensify the spinning motion. The Coriolis Effect can be seen directly and experienced by people sitting on them tossing balls. People, if they are willing, can experience the Coriolis Effect directly if they wish. If this is not enough proof, I don't know what is.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: inquisitive on October 11, 2015, 11:19:38 PM
Jadyyn - provide some evidence that any aircraft navigation system takes account of the destination 'moving'.  The atmosphere moves with the earth.  A plane follows a track across the earth.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 12, 2015, 07:24:28 AM
Jadyyn - provide some evidence that any aircraft navigation system takes account of the destination 'moving'.  The atmosphere moves with the earth.  A plane follows a track across the earth.

I believe this book discusses the Coriolis Effect and its calculations as applied to Avionics Systems.
Quote
https://books.google.com/books?id=TmnHKNRPC3gC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=avionics+coriolis&source=bl&ots=6VQFZJ6Dhh&sig=4xnU1urskzek3Fd_ugYubaEoSz0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBmoVChMIxaa27ou9yAIVRv5jCh0WXg6P#v=snippet&q=coriolis%2026&f=false
Page 26, where it shows the inputs to do its calculations - Coriolis correction being one.

You have to understand that MY discussing the Coriolis Effect as LEADING a target (i.e. shooting, flying, whatever to where the target WILL BE - to make it easier to understand) is not the common description of the Effect. Normally, people discuss it as MISSING the target if you aim for where it is NOW. This typically doesn't make much sense to people as people don't want to MISS something. The shooter in videos misses left or right. Then the discussion goes to "correcting" the drift - moving the sight a couple "clicks". The result is hitting the target. "Correcting" the drift = LEADING ... this is not talked about that way.

So probably, leading will not be discussed anywhere as LEADING. In Avionics, MISSING the target will not be discussed either (your equipment doesn't want to MISS the destination). What will be discussed is the Coriolis Effect (in drift correction factors) being accounted for..
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 12, 2015, 08:12:56 AM
Think of it this way...

In American Football, when the quarter back throws to the receiver, does he lead him (left or right)? Is it easier to describe this as him LEADING the receiver to hit him or him throwing the ball where the receiver IS and missing him? What is more natural to people?

The same physics is involved. To describe the Coriolis Effect, I say you have to LEAD the target (throw, shoot, fly to where the target WILL BE) given any sideways motion. The sideways motion on a spinning sphere or disk is caused by the spin. So if the Coriolis Effect applies, to correct for it, you have to LEAD (go to where the target WILL BE).

So whether described as hitting your target or missing your target, it is the same effect.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: inquisitive on October 12, 2015, 10:08:02 AM
Think of it this way...

In American Football, when the quarter back throws to the receiver, does he lead him (left or right)? Is it easier to describe this as him LEADING the receiver to hit him or him throwing the ball where the receiver IS and missing him? What is more natural to people?

The same physics is involved. To describe the Coriolis Effect, I say you have to LEAD the target (throw, shoot, fly to where the target WILL BE) given any sideways motion. The sideways motion on a spinning sphere or disk is caused by the spin. So if the Coriolis Effect applies, to correct for it, you have to LEAD (go to where the target WILL BE).

So whether described as hitting your target or missing your target, it is the same effect.
This is a different situation.  When leaving Paris the distance and direction of Kuala Lumpa does not change over the 13 hour flight.  The atmosphere moves with the earth.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Jadyyn on October 12, 2015, 11:51:06 AM
You are correct. The Coriolis Effect is "taken care of" by the atmosphere and the winds it creates.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: mikeman7918 on October 12, 2015, 03:26:01 PM
You are correct. The Coriolis Effect is "taken care of" by the atmosphere and the winds it creates.

Actually it still has to be accounted for by pilots.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 12, 2015, 03:50:41 PM
You are correct. The Coriolis Effect is "taken care of" by the atmosphere and the winds it creates.

Actually it still has to be accounted for by pilots.

This thread is about snipers.  Please don't derail.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: rabinoz on October 12, 2015, 07:30:23 PM
OK, this is not quite about snipers. 
It is similar but on a much bigger scale!  Long range artillery is much more affected by Coriolis than even sniper fire because the time of flight is so much longer.  A sniper bullet may have a time of flight of a second or so, long range artillery has a much lower muzzle velocity and much longer range, so its time of flight can be 3 minutes or so!
The "Paris Gun" used by the Germans to shell Paris in WWI had no fire control computers to do the work, so it all had to be done by hand.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun)

The following quote from Wikipedia  (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AParis_Gun#coriolis_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AParis_Gun#coriolis_effect))
"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 393 metres (1,290 ft) short and 1,343 metres (4,406 ft) to the right of where they would have hit if there were no Coriolis effect."
There seems to be some conjecture about the direction of the correction etc, but you can chase up the details.

There is a big difference between aircraft and artillery shells.
Aircraft are intended to fly with respect to the atmosphere (hence all the lift and control surfaces).
Artillery shells, however, are designed to be minimally affected by the atmosphere, though of course crosswind corrections are still significant.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2015, 03:30:18 AM
Artillery is not exactly accurate.  In fact, even modern artillery needs someone with a radio to be located very close to the target in order to tell the gunners how far off their shots are so they can make adjustments.  I am quite sure the Paris gun had forward observers located outside of Paris in order to tell them how to make corrections. 
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: rabinoz on October 13, 2015, 05:26:15 AM
Be that as it may, but they also reportedly did allow for Coriolis in laying their long distance artillery!
Numerous references as to the importance of this are available eg: http://thearmsguide.com/5329/external-ballistics-the-coriolis-effect-6-theory-section/ (http://thearmsguide.com/5329/external-ballistics-the-coriolis-effect-6-theory-section/). 
If you really want to brush up on these things you could try http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/ballstic/Ballstic.htm (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/ballstic/Ballstic.htm). 
If you believe in all the conspiracies around you will probably think all this was written purely to refute FEers trying to deny Coriolis!
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2015, 05:42:52 AM
So, the Coriolis effect is taken into account, yet they still can't hit their target on the first shot.  Am I the only one here who sees the BS in this? 
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: TexasH on October 13, 2015, 06:02:09 AM
So, the Coriolis effect is taken into account, yet they still can't hit their target on the first shot.  Am I the only one here who sees the BS in this?

Considering that there are multiple factors that affect the trajectory of the projectile, this isn't surprising.  Fire 10 rounds and they will land in 10 different spots.  Artillery isn't the most precise form of weaponry.  Laser- and GPS-guided missiles were developed for a reason.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2015, 06:52:38 AM
Then why are you people even bringing up artillery in a thread about snipers?  You people seem like you are dodging and evading because you can't come up with proof of your Round Earth Theory.  It is sad, sometimes. 
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: TexasH on October 13, 2015, 06:58:20 AM
Then why are you people even bringing up artillery in a thread about snipers?  You people seem like you are dodging and evading because you can't come up with proof of your Round Earth Theory.  It is sad, sometimes.

Just because you can't account for everything, doesn't mean you don't account for anything.  As stated earlier, the Coriolis effect would affect the location of impact by nearly a mile.  If I can account for it, I will.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2015, 07:04:54 AM
Then why are you people even bringing up artillery in a thread about snipers?  You people seem like you are dodging and evading because you can't come up with proof of your Round Earth Theory.  It is sad, sometimes.

Just because you can't account for everything, doesn't mean you don't account for anything.  As stated earlier, the Coriolis effect would affect the location of impact by nearly a mile.  If I can account for it, I will.

For all you know, the calculation is what made the round be so far off, and the forward observer/spotter is cancelling this by giving corrections.  I do not see how this is proof about anything. 
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: TexasH on October 13, 2015, 07:19:30 AM
Then why are you people even bringing up artillery in a thread about snipers?  You people seem like you are dodging and evading because you can't come up with proof of your Round Earth Theory.  It is sad, sometimes.

Just because you can't account for everything, doesn't mean you don't account for anything.  As stated earlier, the Coriolis effect would affect the location of impact by nearly a mile.  If I can account for it, I will.

For all you know, the calculation is what made the round be so far off, and the forward observer/spotter is cancelling this by giving corrections.  I do not see how this is proof about anything.

I am not seeing where it was stated on how far the target was missed and in what direction.  Did the initial impacts after the adjustment miss their targets by nearly a mile in the direction the adjustment was made?
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2015, 07:30:36 AM
Then why are you people even bringing up artillery in a thread about snipers?  You people seem like you are dodging and evading because you can't come up with proof of your Round Earth Theory.  It is sad, sometimes.

Just because you can't account for everything, doesn't mean you don't account for anything.  As stated earlier, the Coriolis effect would affect the location of impact by nearly a mile.  If I can account for it, I will.

For all you know, the calculation is what made the round be so far off, and the forward observer/spotter is cancelling this by giving corrections.  I do not see how this is proof about anything.

I am not seeing where it was stated on how far the target was missed and in what direction.  Did the initial impacts after the adjustment miss their targets by nearly a mile in the direction the adjustment was made?

I used to be a forward observer in the Marine Corps, and I can assure you that sometimes Artillery would be a kilometer or more off target, even when they have exact coordinates.  Once again, I ask how this information is in any way relevant to the shape of the Earth?
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: TexasH on October 13, 2015, 08:12:21 AM
Then why are you people even bringing up artillery in a thread about snipers?  You people seem like you are dodging and evading because you can't come up with proof of your Round Earth Theory.  It is sad, sometimes.

Just because you can't account for everything, doesn't mean you don't account for anything.  As stated earlier, the Coriolis effect would affect the location of impact by nearly a mile.  If I can account for it, I will.

For all you know, the calculation is what made the round be so far off, and the forward observer/spotter is cancelling this by giving corrections.  I do not see how this is proof about anything.

I am not seeing where it was stated on how far the target was missed and in what direction.  Did the initial impacts after the adjustment miss their targets by nearly a mile in the direction the adjustment was made?

I used to be a forward observer in the Marine Corps, and I can assure you that sometimes Artillery would be a kilometer or more off target, even when they have exact coordinates.  Once again, I ask how this information is in any way relevant to the shape of the Earth?

I am aware of the inaccuracies of artillery.  I even stated this earlier.  I don't see the point of restating what we have both agreed on.  There are many factors that affect the trajectory, wind speed and direction, air density, etc...  If we don't need to take Coriolis Effect into account as you suppose, why has it been adjusted for for 70+ years?  At some point, the guys that are making the calculations are going to notice that the rounds are landing in a location that is off by the amount they adjusted for and realize the adjustment isn't necessary.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2015, 08:30:29 AM
Then why are you people even bringing up artillery in a thread about snipers?  You people seem like you are dodging and evading because you can't come up with proof of your Round Earth Theory.  It is sad, sometimes.

Just because you can't account for everything, doesn't mean you don't account for anything.  As stated earlier, the Coriolis effect would affect the location of impact by nearly a mile.  If I can account for it, I will.

For all you know, the calculation is what made the round be so far off, and the forward observer/spotter is cancelling this by giving corrections.  I do not see how this is proof about anything.

I am not seeing where it was stated on how far the target was missed and in what direction.  Did the initial impacts after the adjustment miss their targets by nearly a mile in the direction the adjustment was made?

I used to be a forward observer in the Marine Corps, and I can assure you that sometimes Artillery would be a kilometer or more off target, even when they have exact coordinates.  Once again, I ask how this information is in any way relevant to the shape of the Earth?

I am aware of the inaccuracies of artillery.  I even stated this earlier.  I don't see the point of restating what we have both agreed on.  There are many factors that affect the trajectory, wind speed and direction, air density, etc...  If we don't need to take Coriolis Effect into account as you suppose, why has it been adjusted for for 70+ years?  At some point, the guys that are making the calculations are going to notice that the rounds are landing in a location that is off by the amount they adjusted for and realize the adjustment isn't necessary.

70+ years and they still can't hit the target on the first shot.  And this proves the Earth is round how? 
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: TexasH on October 13, 2015, 09:00:58 AM
Then why are you people even bringing up artillery in a thread about snipers?  You people seem like you are dodging and evading because you can't come up with proof of your Round Earth Theory.  It is sad, sometimes.

Just because you can't account for everything, doesn't mean you don't account for anything.  As stated earlier, the Coriolis effect would affect the location of impact by nearly a mile.  If I can account for it, I will.

For all you know, the calculation is what made the round be so far off, and the forward observer/spotter is cancelling this by giving corrections.  I do not see how this is proof about anything.

I am not seeing where it was stated on how far the target was missed and in what direction.  Did the initial impacts after the adjustment miss their targets by nearly a mile in the direction the adjustment was made?

I used to be a forward observer in the Marine Corps, and I can assure you that sometimes Artillery would be a kilometer or more off target, even when they have exact coordinates.  Once again, I ask how this information is in any way relevant to the shape of the Earth?

I am aware of the inaccuracies of artillery.  I even stated this earlier.  I don't see the point of restating what we have both agreed on.  There are many factors that affect the trajectory, wind speed and direction, air density, etc...  If we don't need to take Coriolis Effect into account as you suppose, why has it been adjusted for for 70+ years?  At some point, the guys that are making the calculations are going to notice that the rounds are landing in a location that is off by the amount they adjusted for and realize the adjustment isn't necessary.

70+ years and they still can't hit the target on the first shot.  And this proves the Earth is round how?

...and they never will.  That is why other weapon systems were developed that do hit the target on the first shot. 

The Coriolis Effect is real and measurable.  The Coriolis Effect proves the Earth is rotating/spinning.  The fact that the Coriolis Effect is the opposite on the other side of the equator proves the Earth is a rotating sphere.  The only way we would see this effect on a flat Earth is if the areas on each side of the equator were spinning in opposite directions.  This is obviously not occurring.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2015, 09:20:11 AM
Well, I guess this is the wrong thread to talk about this with you people since you have already admitted that they are not very accurate. 
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: TexasH on October 13, 2015, 09:32:52 AM
Well, I guess this is the wrong thread to talk about this with you people since you have already admitted that they are not very accurate.

The thread is about long-range snipers and they are pretty accurate. 

I wasn't the one that derailed this on to artillery.  However, are you familiar at all with statistical models?  They are used to explain the variability in a set of data.  You add items to the model to help explain some of the variability.  With any real-world data, there will always be variability.  You would never dismiss something in the model that is explaining some of the variability just because it doesn't explain all of the variability.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 13, 2015, 09:40:27 AM
I see that now that I have defeated your people, you change the subject.  Typical roundie. 
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: TexasH on October 13, 2015, 10:05:26 AM
I see that now that I have defeated your people, you change the subject.  Typical roundie.

My entire second paragraph is still on the same subject of artillery.  Please try and keep up.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: rabinoz on October 14, 2015, 08:13:43 PM
TexasH - I wonder what is the point of giving more evidence about the application of Coriolis in gun-laying.

I know I am slow, but I have finally worked out why a certain poster here cannot follow simple logical arguments in is this and other threads.
Down under in this backward country we usually call our floor sweepers "cleaners" or "maybe janitors", but now I realize that your more advance country these professions are commonly called "custodial engineers".  That explains a lot!
I don't see any point bothering that poor fellow about Coriolis, it is a bit subtle.

I know I should not post this as it attacks the "messenger" and not the "message", but gradually I'm learning the tactics.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 15, 2015, 06:07:23 PM
You got me, burn!  lol.  If you want me to, I could share the story behind me giving myself that title. 
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: rabinoz on October 16, 2015, 01:36:55 AM
I guess I was only trying to be "smart", if it's an interesting story and not too personal, why not?
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 16, 2015, 02:49:22 AM
It's not really interesting or personal.  Before I was a mod here, I was a Flat Earth Curator, which was just a fancy name for a janitor.  I could only move posts when they were posted in the wrong forum and delete spam.  The former name for the Curators was the Flat Earth Custodians and I have an Engineering degree, so I made Custodial Engineer my personal title. 

I told you it was not a very interesting story.   ;D
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Justin_0318 on May 05, 2016, 03:26:51 AM
Coriolis and Einstein's theory of relativity contradict each other. Einstein proposed relative motion to account for why the Michelson-Morely experiment failed. This was a major experiment conducted to prove earths rotation. Einstein stated that no optical experiment can be conducted to detect earths movement. So everything you guys are saying contradicts relativity. The Linear Aircraft Model as defined by NASA operates under the "flat, non-rotating earth assumption" because of relative motion, so they claim. An explantion needs to be provided as to why those experiments to detect earths movement failed, yet there is somehow coriolis? It makes no sense.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: NewtSmooth on May 05, 2016, 09:43:48 AM
Coriolis and Einstein's theory of relativity contradict each other. Einstein proposed relative motion to account for why the Michelson-Morely experiment failed. This was a major experiment conducted to prove earths rotation. Einstein stated that no optical experiment can be conducted to detect earths movement. So everything you guys are saying contradicts relativity. The Linear Aircraft Model as defined by NASA operates under the "flat, non-rotating earth assumption" because of relative motion, so they claim. An explantion needs to be provided as to why those experiments to detect earths movement failed, yet there is somehow coriolis? It makes no sense.
The Michelson-Morley Experiment was dependent on the existence of an ether as the "material" on and from which everything is built and through which light propagates. The most obvious conclusion to draw from this is that that simply doesn't exist, not that the Earth is not rotating. That's the explanation, and it's been clear as day since the experiment was first performed. Just because one method of determining something fails doesn't mean that the expected result isn't true. For example, I can have a drawer of socks and tell you that because the sock I'm going to draw is blue then the sky is blue, then draw a red sock; that doesn't mean the sky isn't blue. Likewise, just because there's no ether for Earth to move in relation to doesn't mean Earth isn't moving. So Einstein developed his theory of relativity as an alternate explanation of things based on actual mathematics instead of speculation and philosophy.

Now as for the Coriolis Effect, that's not simply an optical test. "Optical tests" are where you look at the sky and see if it's moving; the results are ambiguous, either the sky is moving under you or you are moving under the sky. The Coriolis Effect, however, clearly shows a difference in the motion of the atmosphere at different latitudes. As air move towards or away from the equator it will deflect. A globe Earth's angular momentum and the conservation of the air's momentum explains this perfectly. It has absolutely nothing to do with the physics of light, it's not based on relativity, it's basic mechanical physics, it's not an optical test, it's observation of momentum and location. Just because you have to look up doesn't mean it's in the same boat as the experiments Einstein said can't be used to prove Earth's rotation.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: ConfusedEarthling on February 20, 2017, 05:21:49 PM
Yendor, an insect riding on a bullet wouldn't be able to see the rotation if the Earth.  If you were in a car going 50 miles per hour and you shoot a gun facing backwards then the bullet will be traveling 50 miles per hour slower then normal relative to the ground, and if you shoot it forwards then it will be going 50 miles per hour faster then normal relative to the ground.  Relative to the car though the bullet's speed is normal in both instances  Simelarly, shooting a gun east and west are the same as far as the bullet's speed goes.  It will hit a target to the east with the same speed as a target to the west.

Great point here with the bullet being fired from the car and it's relative speeds going forward and backwards. So, the earth is the car and the plane is the bullet. If the earth is rotating at 1,000mph(just a general number) and a plane is shot out (takes off) in the earth's forward direction(west to east) at 500mph(just a general number), how do pilots land on North/South runways. Based on the car?bullet example above, the plane is moving 1000mph faster than its normal relative speed to the earth(1000 + 500 = 1500mph). In order to match the runway speed of the earth moving at 1000mph from west to east, wouldn't the pilot have to reduce speed to near zero(0)? Based on the same example, if you shot the plane towards the back of the earths directional movement, wouldn't it it travel at -500mph, since the speed would be 1000mph slower than its normal relative speed?
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: 29silhouette on February 20, 2017, 07:08:59 PM
Hello ConfusedEarthling, if you want to quote someone, type your response below the [/quote] tag.  Much less confusing that way.

To answer your question, the plane is flying through the air, which is also moving roughly the same speed as the ground.  The plane already has the same speed as the ground when it takes off.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: FEskeptic on February 20, 2017, 07:16:57 PM
They might need to factor in wind speed and distance. Bullets shoot in a straight line so there is no curvature to factor unless you are confusing fiction with reality as seen in the movie Wanted.


Uhh no. Bullets follow a ballistic path, which is in no way a straight line. Bullets have to travel up from the barrel to meet the scopes point of aim at a set distance. So the bullet leaves the barrel traveling on a slightly upwards trajectory, passes the imaginary line the extends from the scope, continues to travel upwards until it loses upwards momentum and starts falling back to earth on a curved trajectory.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: FEskeptic on February 20, 2017, 07:25:48 PM
The point is that snipers are not the magically accurate super computing shooters that the OP makes them out to be.  Otherwise, they would not need to make adjustments for followup shots.

It is astounding the amount of evidence you all just disregard. Corialis Effect is set. It doesn't change depending on anything other then where in the world you are in the world and can be predicted easily and accurately. On the other hand, and why snipers need spotters, the wind (which can change from where the shooter is to where the target is), humidity (which again can change between the shorter and target),air density (again same thing) and even the fact that the shooter could be in shade while the target and bullet path are in direct sunlight or vise versa, are variables that are not easily predicted or accounted for and at extreme distances it helps to have a spotter redirect your point of aim based on the not easily observed variables. Yet even with all that, tons of snipers are able to hit the target on the first shot.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: FEskeptic on February 20, 2017, 07:50:13 PM

So are Flat Earthers saying that military snipers and gun manufactures are in on the "conspiracy" too?

(http://)

If you watch the video you referenced above, starting at 0:44 second, The guy say that when the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun it is actually leaving the surface of the Earth. He goes on to say when the bullet leaves the barrel, the Earth is still rotating and the bullet is not rotating with the Earth. The Earth will actually rotate out from underneath the bullet as it is in flight.

How can this be true? The bullet has to rotate with the Earth because the atmosphere rotates with the Earth and it will carry the bullet along with it. At least that's what I've been told. If you can believe that a bullet doesn't have to rotate with the Earth, then why does an airplane have to rotate with the Earth and a bullet doesn't. Seriously, what is the difference? Following this logic, a plane should be able to take off and head north and the pilot should be able to watch the Earth rotate under him. Could you please explain this to me?

Planes are not bullets. They travel much slower, and also can change trajectory mid flight. A bullet travels much faster and cannot change its trajectory. Further, planes do not take off and keep flying straight to the destination. The follow either an air route, which by the way also rotates with the earth since it is "fixed", or a magnetic compass heading, again which also rotates with the earth. If you watched a plane fly over the surface of the earth from a reference point outside the rotation of earth you would see the plane is also moving sideways with the earth.

The coriolis effect is very slight over short distances and even slighter at low speeds.  So even though the correction is necessary in principle, it tends to get lost in all of the other corrections that pilots make during a flight.  The most important influence of Coriolis on aircraft is the effect it has on wind direction.  Pilots account for winds and make periodic corrections for changing winds, the Coriolis effect is not even felt — even on long-range flights.    So, in effect, by the time the pilot has made corrections for the  winds, he has  also automatically corrected for the Coriolis effect without even  thinking or knowing about it.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: FEskeptic on February 20, 2017, 07:55:25 PM
If you watch the video you referenced above, starting at 0:44 second, The guy say that when the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun it is actually leaving the surface of the Earth. He goes on to say when the bullet leaves the barrel, the Earth is still rotating and the bullet is not rotating with the Earth. The Earth will actually rotate out from underneath the bullet as it is in flight.

How can this be true? The bullet has to rotate with the Earth because the atmosphere rotates with the Earth and it will carry the bullet along with it. At least that's what I've been told. If you can believe that a bullet doesn't have to rotate with the Earth, then why does an airplane have to rotate with the Earth and a bullet doesn't. Seriously, what is the difference? Following this logic, a plane should be able to take off and head north and the pilot should be able to watch the Earth rotate under him. Could you please explain this to me?

The guy in the video didn't really explain it very well and you are right in assuming that the bullet moves with the atmosphere and stays in motion just as it did before it left the barrel, the Coriolis effect is apparent strange motion of an object from a rotating frame of reference.  If you and a friend sit on a spinning platform and you try to throw a ball to him then common experience states that you should throw the ball towards him but because the platform is spinning from your frame of reference the ball will appear to swerve in it's trajectory and your friend wouldn't catch the ball.  If you want him to catch it then you have to aim to the side of your friend and the ball will swerve and he will catch it.  The same thimg happens on Earth, but it's not as extreme because Earth has a rotation period of 24 hours which means that the effect rarely pronounces it's self, but it's noticeable for things like bullets and hurricanes that move rather fast relative to Earth's surface.

"The guy on the video didn't really explain it very well"...have you looked on the internet, it is full of the same kind of BS exactly the way he describes it. The Coriolis effect is not real or we could see the Earth moving under an airplane. The Earth is not rotating at all, it is stationary. The coriolis effect is an imaginary fairy tale science has invented to try and fool us again. Don't buy into this nonsense.

Have you ever been on a plane? Does the ground move when you fly over it? Ok now do you know what General Relativity is. Do you know that motion is relative? If you are in a plane traveling due east you are moving faster then the earth rotates. From an outside reference the plane would be moving at its ground speed plus the rotation of the earth at its latitude. If it was traveling west it would be traveling its ground speed subtracted from the earths rotation. Again this is from an outside reference. From the reference of the earth which you are rotating along with, it is just the ground speed of the airplane that you see. In other words if you were in a geosynchronous orbit, the plane would look as if the earth and you were rotating independent of the plane.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: FEskeptic on February 20, 2017, 08:01:00 PM
If you can believe that a bullet doesn't have to rotate with the Earth, then why does an airplane have to rotate with the Earth and a bullet doesn't. Seriously, what is the difference?
If you understood the differences between a bullet and an airplane, then it would all be much less confusing for you.

Tell me funny guy, what is it about substituting a plane for the bullet that confuses you? In this discussion, they both can fly over the Earth at certain altitudes. They both can fly straight north, they both can fly at certain speeds and the both can hit a target straight away. If the fairyfly can see the Earth rotate under him while he rides on the bullet, why can't a pilot see the Earth rotate while he flies the plane? I'll await your answer.

Maybe it's the whole, planes and bullets are similiar thing that confuses most people with a brain.

Planes do not follow a ballistic path, they are not tied to the variables that were in effect when they left the ground. A bullet has no way to correct its trajectory, it is not powered, it is moving way faster then a plane. Seriously to think a plane and an object that is strictly bound to a ballistic path are similiar is dumb.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: physical observer on February 21, 2017, 12:08:48 AM

So are Flat Earthers saying that military snipers and gun manufactures are in on the "conspiracy" too?

(http://)

Yeah, the Coriolis effect didn't affect the snipers the week before, but they come back a week later and all of the sudden the Coriolis effect bothers them? If the Coriolis is so huge, you'd think it would be an automatic adjustment. That it would be taken into account without question, without thought. by snipers. But this guy says it is always forgotten by snipers. This is nothing but a propaganda film. 
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: physical observer on February 21, 2017, 12:11:04 AM

So are Flat Earthers saying that military snipers and gun manufactures are in on the "conspiracy" too?

(http://)

Besides, there is but a dite of curvature at 1,000 yards, hardly needing consideration by a speeding bullet.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: rabinoz on February 21, 2017, 03:30:59 AM

So are Flat Earthers saying that military snipers and gun manufactures are in on the "conspiracy" too?

(http://)

Yeah, the Coriolis effect didn't affect the snipers the week before, but they come back a week later and all of the sudden the Coriolis effect bothers them? If the Coriolis is so huge, you'd think it would be an automatic adjustment. That it would be taken into account without question, without thought. by snipers. But this guy says it is always forgotten by snipers. This is nothing but a propaganda film.
Yes, the Coriolis effect has only a very slight effect at 1000 yds, but make that over 67 miles and it's a different story. The Germans in the First World seemed to think it was important enough to consider in long range artillery calculations.

Quote
The "Paris Gun"
With all the scientific calculations and engineering problems engendered by this project, the research of Coriolis was reviewed by Professor von Eberhardt, and an additional adjustment made. Having been advised that the projected firing site was in the forest of Crépy-en-Laonnois, near Laon, and the target Paris, he calculated the distance between the two as 67.6 miles. The firing vector was close enough to a north-south axis, bringing the Coriolis Effect into play. Coriolis and von Eberhardt knew that Laon and Paris were traveling at different speeds. Although each rotated once in 24 hours, Laon was farther from the equator than Paris and thus moving somewhat slower in miles per hour. A point on the equator travels at 1041.66 mph.

Eberhardt estimated a rotational speed of 567.126 mph at Paris on the 49th parallel, and 555.55 mph at Laon on the 48th parallel. An adjustment of 11.576 mph, or .003215 miles per second, had to be provided for in the laying of the gun.

The final calculations were assembled. To achieve the required muzzle velocity, a chamber pressure of 59,000 pounds per square inch had to be reached. Flight time was predicted at 176 seconds. This called for an easterly correction of 0.5659 miles or roughly 995.984 yards to compensate for the differing rotational speeds of gun and target. On March 23, 1918 everything was ready to go.

From Military History, World War I Weapons: Germany’s Big Guns (http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/world-war-i-weapons-germanys-big-guns/)

Still, I don't suppose you'll take any notice!
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: 29silhouette on February 21, 2017, 07:09:15 PM

So are Flat Earthers saying that military snipers and gun manufactures are in on the "conspiracy" too?

(http://)

Yeah, the Coriolis effect didn't affect the snipers the week before, but they come back a week later and all of the sudden the Coriolis effect bothers them? If the Coriolis is so huge, you'd think it would be an automatic adjustment. That it would be taken into account without question, without thought. by snipers. But this guy says it is always forgotten by snipers. This is nothing but a propaganda film.
Depends on latitude, range, and direction fired.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: physical observer on February 22, 2017, 05:04:51 AM

So are Flat Earthers saying that military snipers and gun manufactures are in on the "conspiracy" too?

(http://)

Yeah, the Coriolis effect didn't affect the snipers the week before, but they come back a week later and all of the sudden the Coriolis effect bothers them? If the Coriolis is so huge, you'd think it would be an automatic adjustment. That it would be taken into account without question, without thought. by snipers. But this guy says it is always forgotten by snipers. This is nothing but a propaganda film.
Yes, the Coriolis effect has only a very slight effect at 1000 yds, but make that over 67 miles and it's a different story. The Germans in the First World seemed to think it was important enough to consider in long range artillery calculations.

Quote
The "Paris Gun"
With all the scientific calculations and engineering problems engendered by this project, the research of Coriolis was reviewed by Professor von Eberhardt, and an additional adjustment made. Having been advised that the projected firing site was in the forest of Crépy-en-Laonnois, near Laon, and the target Paris, he calculated the distance between the two as 67.6 miles. The firing vector was close enough to a north-south axis, bringing the Coriolis Effect into play. Coriolis and von Eberhardt knew that Laon and Paris were traveling at different speeds. Although each rotated once in 24 hours, Laon was farther from the equator than Paris and thus moving somewhat slower in miles per hour. A point on the equator travels at 1041.66 mph.

Eberhardt estimated a rotational speed of 567.126 mph at Paris on the 49th parallel, and 555.55 mph at Laon on the 48th parallel. An adjustment of 11.576 mph, or .003215 miles per second, had to be provided for in the laying of the gun.

The final calculations were assembled. To achieve the required muzzle velocity, a chamber pressure of 59,000 pounds per square inch had to be reached. Flight time was predicted at 176 seconds. This called for an easterly correction of 0.5659 miles or roughly 995.984 yards to compensate for the differing rotational speeds of gun and target. On March 23, 1918 everything was ready to go.

From Military History, World War I Weapons: Germany’s Big Guns (http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/world-war-i-weapons-germanys-big-guns/)

Still, I don't suppose you'll take any notice!

The article: "The firing vector was close enough to a north-south axis, bringing the Coriolis Effect into play."

It has been proven with scientific observations, the Coriolis effect does not exist. Water flows in both directions north and south of the equator. It all depends on which side of the sink you pour the water, and how you face the water outlets in a toilet. I have done the experiment in my own kitchen sink! Your article is just propaganda BS to save the dying spherical earth claims. I have taken shooting lessons from several Marine sniper friends, and they NEVER have mentioned the Coriolis effect when setting up for a kill. Believe me, the Marines are not going to leave out a critical step in training their snipers! And how is it, your article states the shooters had no issue one week, then come back the following week all bothered by the Coriolis effect? Where was the Coriolis effect the week before?
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: frenat on February 22, 2017, 05:30:37 AM

So are Flat Earthers saying that military snipers and gun manufactures are in on the "conspiracy" too?

(http://)

Yeah, the Coriolis effect didn't affect the snipers the week before, but they come back a week later and all of the sudden the Coriolis effect bothers them? If the Coriolis is so huge, you'd think it would be an automatic adjustment. That it would be taken into account without question, without thought. by snipers. But this guy says it is always forgotten by snipers. This is nothing but a propaganda film.
Yes, the Coriolis effect has only a very slight effect at 1000 yds, but make that over 67 miles and it's a different story. The Germans in the First World seemed to think it was important enough to consider in long range artillery calculations.

Quote
The "Paris Gun"
With all the scientific calculations and engineering problems engendered by this project, the research of Coriolis was reviewed by Professor von Eberhardt, and an additional adjustment made. Having been advised that the projected firing site was in the forest of Crépy-en-Laonnois, near Laon, and the target Paris, he calculated the distance between the two as 67.6 miles. The firing vector was close enough to a north-south axis, bringing the Coriolis Effect into play. Coriolis and von Eberhardt knew that Laon and Paris were traveling at different speeds. Although each rotated once in 24 hours, Laon was farther from the equator than Paris and thus moving somewhat slower in miles per hour. A point on the equator travels at 1041.66 mph.

Eberhardt estimated a rotational speed of 567.126 mph at Paris on the 49th parallel, and 555.55 mph at Laon on the 48th parallel. An adjustment of 11.576 mph, or .003215 miles per second, had to be provided for in the laying of the gun.

The final calculations were assembled. To achieve the required muzzle velocity, a chamber pressure of 59,000 pounds per square inch had to be reached. Flight time was predicted at 176 seconds. This called for an easterly correction of 0.5659 miles or roughly 995.984 yards to compensate for the differing rotational speeds of gun and target. On March 23, 1918 everything was ready to go.

From Military History, World War I Weapons: Germany’s Big Guns (http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/world-war-i-weapons-germanys-big-guns/)

Still, I don't suppose you'll take any notice!

The article: "The firing vector was close enough to a north-south axis, bringing the Coriolis Effect into play."

It has been proven with scientific observations, the Coriolis effect does not exist.
No, it has not.

Water flows in both directions north and south of the equator. It all depends on which side of the sink you pour the water, and how you face the water outlets in a toilet.
Nobody who actually knows what the coriolis effect is claims it is big enough to be seen in a sink or toilet.  Thank you for proving your ignorance.

 I have done the experiment in my own kitchen sink!
further proof of your ignorance.

Your article is just propaganda BS to save the dying spherical earth claims. I have taken shooting lessons from several Marine sniper friends, and they NEVER have mentioned the Coriolis effect when setting up for a kill.
Sure you have.  ::) 

Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: Sam Hill on February 22, 2017, 07:13:25 AM
It has been proven with scientific observations, the Coriolis effect does not exist. Water flows in both directions north and south of the equator. It all depends on which side of the sink you pour the water, and how you face the water outlets in a toilet. I have done the experiment in my own kitchen sink!
This nonsense again?  We all know the sink/toilet/bathtub "swirling water" demo of Coriolis Effect is bunk!  You've proven NOTHING.  These guys, on the other hand, set up a more controlled experiment, you should check it out.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: physical observer on February 22, 2017, 01:22:44 PM
It has been proven with scientific observations, the Coriolis effect does not exist. Water flows in both directions north and south of the equator. It all depends on which side of the sink you pour the water, and how you face the water outlets in a toilet. I have done the experiment in my own kitchen sink!
This nonsense again?  We all know the sink/toilet/bathtub "swirling water" demo of Coriolis Effect is bunk!  You've proven NOTHING.  These guys, on the other hand, set up a more controlled experiment, you should check it out.


When I can, I go a step further and test the idea myself. I live in the northeast, and I got the water in my kitchen sink to flow both ways. The Coriolis effect is a crock of feces!

Hurricane over New Zealand: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2014/03/Screenshot_3_5_14_10_28_AM.jpg

Hurricane over Fuji Islands: https://phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/nasaseesdang.jpg

One area is south of the equator, the other north of the equator, but both spin in same direction. Tell me, a storm that started south of the equator and moves north of the equator, does it suddenly change spin direction?
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: JackBlack on February 22, 2017, 01:28:16 PM
The article: "The firing vector was close enough to a north-south axis, bringing the Coriolis Effect into play."

It has been proven with scientific observations, the Coriolis effect does not exist. Water flows in both directions north and south of the equator. It all depends on which side of the sink you pour the water, and how you face the water outlets in a toilet. I have done the experiment in my own kitchen sink! Your article is just propaganda BS to save the dying spherical earth claims. I have taken shooting lessons from several Marine sniper friends, and they NEVER have mentioned the Coriolis effect when setting up for a kill. Believe me, the Marines are not going to leave out a critical step in training their snipers! And how is it, your article states the shooters had no issue one week, then come back the following week all bothered by the Coriolis effect? Where was the Coriolis effect the week before?
No. The exact opposite has been proven. Science has shown that the Coriolis effect does exist.

Water in a sink is far too small of a system to have any noticeable effect from the Coriolis effect.

Try it in a sink that is a 100 km wide.

The spherical Earth is a reality which wont be going away any time soon.

Maybe your marine friends didn't think you would understand, or they new you were a delusional nutcase and thus thought it would be better to not provoke you, or maybe they weren't training you to be a sniper, or maybe you are just full of shit and it never happened?

I'm pretty sure that was explained.
The Coriolis effect produces a different result in the different cardinal directions.
E-W it is basically nothing.

Seriously, you quoted the answer to your question.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: frenat on February 22, 2017, 01:29:07 PM
It has been proven with scientific observations, the Coriolis effect does not exist. Water flows in both directions north and south of the equator. It all depends on which side of the sink you pour the water, and how you face the water outlets in a toilet. I have done the experiment in my own kitchen sink!
This nonsense again?  We all know the sink/toilet/bathtub "swirling water" demo of Coriolis Effect is bunk!  You've proven NOTHING.  These guys, on the other hand, set up a more controlled experiment, you should check it out.


When I can, I go a step further and test the idea myself. I live in the northeast, and I got the water in my kitchen sink to flow both ways. The Coriolis effect is a crock of feces!
Thank you for proving you have't bothered to read the replies.  The coriolis effect is not large enough to be seen in a sink.  You've disproved NOTHING.


Hurricane over New Zealand: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2014/03/Screenshot_3_5_14_10_28_AM.jpg

Hurricane over Fuji Islands: https://phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/nasaseesdang.jpg

One area is south of the equator, the other north of the equator, but both spin in same direction. Tell me, a storm that started south of the equator and moves north of the equator, does it suddenly change spin direction?
WRONG.  Those are the Fiji islands (there are no Fuji islands from what I can tell) and they are ALSO south of the equator.  So BOTH locations you've listed are SOUTH of the equator.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: JackBlack on February 22, 2017, 01:34:24 PM
When I can, I go a step further and test the idea myself. I live in the northeast, and I got the water in my kitchen sink to flow both ways. The Coriolis effect is a crock of feces!

Hurricane over New Zealand: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2014/03/Screenshot_3_5_14_10_28_AM.jpg

Hurricane over Fuji Islands: https://phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/nasaseesdang.jpg

One area is south of the equator, the other north of the equator, but both spin in same direction. Tell me, a storm that started south of the equator and moves north of the equator, does it suddenly change spin direction?
Go get a kiddy pool and set it up.

And do you mean Fiji? In the sothern hemisphere, and NZ, in the southern hemisphere.

I'm sorry, which one is north of the equator, because in reality they are both to the south.

When a storm crosses the equator, they begin to die. It doesn't just change direction.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: physical observer on February 22, 2017, 04:30:47 PM
It has been proven with scientific observations, the Coriolis effect does not exist. Water flows in both directions north and south of the equator. It all depends on which side of the sink you pour the water, and how you face the water outlets in a toilet. I have done the experiment in my own kitchen sink!
This nonsense again?  We all know the sink/toilet/bathtub "swirling water" demo of Coriolis Effect is bunk!  You've proven NOTHING.  These guys, on the other hand, set up a more controlled experiment, you should check it out.


When I can, I go a step further and test the idea myself. I live in the northeast, and I got the water in my kitchen sink to flow both ways. The Coriolis effect is a crock of feces!
Thank you for proving you have't bothered to read the replies.  The coriolis effect is not large enough to be seen in a sink.  You've disproved NOTHING.


Hurricane over New Zealand: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2014/03/Screenshot_3_5_14_10_28_AM.jpg

Hurricane over Fuji Islands: https://phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/nasaseesdang.jpg

One area is south of the equator, the other north of the equator, but both spin in same direction. Tell me, a storm that started south of the equator and moves north of the equator, does it suddenly change spin direction?
WRONG.  Those are the Fiji islands (there are no Fuji islands from what I can tell) and they are ALSO south of the equator.  So BOTH locations you've listed are SOUTH of the equator.

I'm very sorry, did I say Fiji, I meant storm Nangka bearing down on Japan:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Nangka_2015-07-16_0130Z.png/220px-Nangka_2015-07-16_0130Z.png

Spins in the same direction as the storm hitting New Zealand, south of the equator:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=h2nedSvw&id=6AA902041CC8345BC19F7172903732C4FE2A0185&q=hurricane+hitting+new+zealand&simid=607988257458356759&selectedIndex=10&qpvt=hurricane+hitting+new+zealand&ajaxhist=0

Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: frenat on February 22, 2017, 04:37:39 PM
It has been proven with scientific observations, the Coriolis effect does not exist. Water flows in both directions north and south of the equator. It all depends on which side of the sink you pour the water, and how you face the water outlets in a toilet. I have done the experiment in my own kitchen sink!
This nonsense again?  We all know the sink/toilet/bathtub "swirling water" demo of Coriolis Effect is bunk!  You've proven NOTHING.  These guys, on the other hand, set up a more controlled experiment, you should check it out.


When I can, I go a step further and test the idea myself. I live in the northeast, and I got the water in my kitchen sink to flow both ways. The Coriolis effect is a crock of feces!
Thank you for proving you have't bothered to read the replies.  The coriolis effect is not large enough to be seen in a sink.  You've disproved NOTHING.


Hurricane over New Zealand: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2014/03/Screenshot_3_5_14_10_28_AM.jpg

Hurricane over Fuji Islands: https://phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/nasaseesdang.jpg

One area is south of the equator, the other north of the equator, but both spin in same direction. Tell me, a storm that started south of the equator and moves north of the equator, does it suddenly change spin direction?
WRONG.  Those are the Fiji islands (there are no Fuji islands from what I can tell) and they are ALSO south of the equator.  So BOTH locations you've listed are SOUTH of the equator.

I'm very sorry, did I say Fiji, I meant storm Nangka bearing down on Japan:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Nangka_2015-07-16_0130Z.png/220px-Nangka_2015-07-16_0130Z.png

Spins in the same direction as the storm hitting New Zealand, south of the equator:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=h2nedSvw&id=6AA902041CC8345BC19F7172903732C4FE2A0185&q=hurricane+hitting+new+zealand&simid=607988257458356759&selectedIndex=10&qpvt=hurricane+hitting+new+zealand&ajaxhist=0
Except that is NOT a storm hitting New Zealand.  Doing a google search for the image itself shows it is Typhoon Phanfone bearing down on Japan from 2014. 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Phanfone_2014-10-03_0155Z_full.jpg
In Chrome you can right click on the image and select "search google for image".  The link I posted is the same hurricane and the island at the top is the southern Japanese island.
Bing got it wrong and you didn't check your source.
Just because it shows up in a search for hurricane+hitting+new+zealand doesn't mean it matched all those words.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: rabinoz on February 22, 2017, 06:41:07 PM
I'm very sorry, did I say Fiji, I meant storm Nangka bearing down on Japan:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Nangka_2015-07-16_0130Z.png/220px-Nangka_2015-07-16_0130Z.png
Spins in the same direction as the storm hitting New Zealand, south of the equator:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=h2nedSvw&id=6AA902041CC8345BC19F7172903732C4FE2A0185&q=hurricane+hitting+new+zealand&simid=607988257458356759&selectedIndex=10&qpvt=hurricane+hitting+new+zealand&ajaxhist=0
Get your facts right! No hurricane has ever hit New Zealand!
Try searching for "Tropical Cyclones New Zealand" - not "Hurricanes" or "Typhoons"!
There are plenty of matches for "Hurricanes New Zealand", but don't get your hopes up - they look a bit tough!
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Clip%20Art/Hurricane%20New%20Zealand_zps8tenl8b2.png)
Hurricane New Zealand
I did find this match for "Typhoon New Zealand" and got this explanatory note:
Quote
Hurricane? Cyclone? Typhoon? Here's the difference
HURRICANE? CYCLONE? TYPHOON? They're all the same, officially tropical cyclones. But they just use distinctive terms for a storm in different parts of the world. Hurricane is used in the Atlantic, Caribbean Sea, central and northeast Pacific. They are typhoons in the northwest Pacific. In the Bay of Bengal and the Arabia Sea, they are called cyclones. Tropical cyclone is used in the southwest India Ocean; in the southwestern Pacific and southeastern India Ocean they are severe tropical cyclones.

STRENGTH: A storm gets a name and is considered a tropical storm at 63 kph. It becomes a hurricane, typhoon, tropical cyclone, or cyclone at 119 kph. There are five strength categories, depending on wind speed. The highest category is 5 and that's above 249 kph. Australia has a different system for categorising storm strength.

ROTATION: If they are north of the equator they rotate counter-clockwise. If they are south, they rotate clockwise.

SEASON: The Atlantic and central Pacific hurricane seasons are June 1 through Nov. 30. Eastern Pacific: May 15 to Nov. 30; northwestern Pacific season is close to all year, with the most from May to November. The cyclone season in the south Pacific and Australia runs from November to April. The Bay of Bengal has two seasons April to June and September to November.

From: NZ Herald, Hurricane? Cyclone? Typhoon? Here's the difference (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11154348)

Please learn a bit about the earth before coming out with more of these ideas.

Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: physical observer on February 23, 2017, 04:28:13 AM
I'm very sorry, did I say Fiji, I meant storm Nangka bearing down on Japan:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Nangka_2015-07-16_0130Z.png/220px-Nangka_2015-07-16_0130Z.png
Spins in the same direction as the storm hitting New Zealand, south of the equator:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=h2nedSvw&id=6AA902041CC8345BC19F7172903732C4FE2A0185&q=hurricane+hitting+new+zealand&simid=607988257458356759&selectedIndex=10&qpvt=hurricane+hitting+new+zealand&ajaxhist=0
Get your facts right! No hurricane has ever hit New Zealand!
Try searching for "Tropical Cyclones New Zealand" - not "Hurricanes" or "Typhoons"!
There are plenty of matches for "Hurricanes New Zealand", but don't get your hopes up - they look a bit tough!
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Clip%20Art/Hurricane%20New%20Zealand_zps8tenl8b2.png)
Hurricane New Zealand
I did find this match for "Typhoon New Zealand" and got this explanatory note:
Quote
Hurricane? Cyclone? Typhoon? Here's the difference
HURRICANE? CYCLONE? TYPHOON? They're all the same, officially tropical cyclones. But they just use distinctive terms for a storm in different parts of the world. Hurricane is used in the Atlantic, Caribbean Sea, central and northeast Pacific. They are typhoons in the northwest Pacific. In the Bay of Bengal and the Arabia Sea, they are called cyclones. Tropical cyclone is used in the southwest India Ocean; in the southwestern Pacific and southeastern India Ocean they are severe tropical cyclones.

STRENGTH: A storm gets a name and is considered a tropical storm at 63 kph. It becomes a hurricane, typhoon, tropical cyclone, or cyclone at 119 kph. There are five strength categories, depending on wind speed. The highest category is 5 and that's above 249 kph. Australia has a different system for categorising storm strength.

ROTATION: If they are north of the equator they rotate counter-clockwise. If they are south, they rotate clockwise.

SEASON: The Atlantic and central Pacific hurricane seasons are June 1 through Nov. 30. Eastern Pacific: May 15 to Nov. 30; northwestern Pacific season is close to all year, with the most from May to November. The cyclone season in the south Pacific and Australia runs from November to April. The Bay of Bengal has two seasons April to June and September to November.

From: NZ Herald, Hurricane? Cyclone? Typhoon? Here's the difference (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11154348)

Please learn a bit about the earth before coming out with more of these ideas.

Typhoon/hurricane, they're both the same, just a different name. I'm sure you saw Christ Church highlighted, right? NZ is below the equator, Japan is above the equator, and both storms were turning in the same direction! Did you just conveniently ignore that point? Yeah, all you could do was pick on the name I used, hurricane.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: frenat on February 23, 2017, 04:55:00 AM

Get your facts right! No hurricane has ever hit New Zealand!
Try searching for "Tropical Cyclones New Zealand" - not "Hurricanes" or "Typhoons"!
There are plenty of matches for "Hurricanes New Zealand", but don't get your hopes up - they look a bit tough!
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Clip%20Art/Hurricane%20New%20Zealand_zps8tenl8b2.png)
Hurricane New Zealand
I did find this match for "Typhoon New Zealand" and got this explanatory note:
Quote
Hurricane? Cyclone? Typhoon? Here's the difference
HURRICANE? CYCLONE? TYPHOON? They're all the same, officially tropical cyclones. But they just use distinctive terms for a storm in different parts of the world. Hurricane is used in the Atlantic, Caribbean Sea, central and northeast Pacific. They are typhoons in the northwest Pacific. In the Bay of Bengal and the Arabia Sea, they are called cyclones. Tropical cyclone is used in the southwest India Ocean; in the southwestern Pacific and southeastern India Ocean they are severe tropical cyclones.

STRENGTH: A storm gets a name and is considered a tropical storm at 63 kph. It becomes a hurricane, typhoon, tropical cyclone, or cyclone at 119 kph. There are five strength categories, depending on wind speed. The highest category is 5 and that's above 249 kph. Australia has a different system for categorising storm strength.

ROTATION: If they are north of the equator they rotate counter-clockwise. If they are south, they rotate clockwise.

SEASON: The Atlantic and central Pacific hurricane seasons are June 1 through Nov. 30. Eastern Pacific: May 15 to Nov. 30; northwestern Pacific season is close to all year, with the most from May to November. The cyclone season in the south Pacific and Australia runs from November to April. The Bay of Bengal has two seasons April to June and September to November.

From: NZ Herald, Hurricane? Cyclone? Typhoon? Here's the difference (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11154348)

Please learn a bit about the earth before coming out with more of these ideas.

Typhoon/hurricane, they're both the same, just a different name. I'm sure you saw Christ Church highlighted, right? NZ is below the equator, Japan is above the equator, and both storms were turning in the same direction! Did you just conveniently ignore that point? Yeah, all you could do was pick on the name I used, hurricane.
Except the one with ChristChurch highlighted is this link
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2014/03/Screenshot_3_5_14_10_28_AM.jpg
and is NOT one of the two being compared by you earlier in these quotes.


What is being discussed at this point is this post of yours
I'm very sorry, did I say Fiji, I meant storm Nangka bearing down on Japan:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Nangka_2015-07-16_0130Z.png/220px-Nangka_2015-07-16_0130Z.png
Spins in the same direction as the storm hitting New Zealand, south of the equator:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=h2nedSvw&id=6AA902041CC8345BC19F7172903732C4FE2A0185&q=hurricane+hitting+new+zealand&simid=607988257458356759&selectedIndex=10&qpvt=hurricane+hitting+new+zealand&ajaxhist=0
in which the one you CLAIM is hitting New Zealand is in fact a typhoon hitting Japan.  See my previous post.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: rabinoz on February 23, 2017, 05:44:12 AM
Please learn a bit about the earth before coming out with more of these ideas.

Typhoon/hurricane, they're both the same, just a different name. I'm sure you saw Christchurch highlighted, right? NZ is below the equator, Japan is above the equator, and both storms were turning in the same direction! Did you just conveniently ignore that point? Yeah, all you could do was pick on the name I used, hurricane.
No, not at all! I was quite aware that your photo was of "Typhoon Phanfone" and not "New Zealand Biggest Storm".

You should have twigged when I said "Get your facts right! No hurricane has ever hit New Zealand!"

I do believe that if you really check up on that picture (say do a Google search) that it is not a photo of any Typhoon hitting New Zealand.
Just right click the image and select "Search Googlr for image", and you get "Best guess for this image: typhon phanfone"!

(http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/new-zealand-biggest-storm-660x372.jpg)
Your photo
Mis-labelled as "New Zealand Biggest Storm"
         
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/Typhoon%20Phanfone%202014-10-03_zpszatw9rgl.png)
Typhoon Phanfone (2014) - Wikipedia
Typhoon Phanfone at peak strength . . . . . . . . on October 3

The photo of Typhoon Phanfone  is cropped from Phanfone_2014-10-03_0155Z_full.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Phanfone_2014-10-03_0155Z_full.jpg) to match the size of your image. Typhoon Phanfone areas affected were Mariana Islands, Japan, Alaska.

Do they look identical? Clearly your image was of Typhone Phanfone on 2014-10-03 and was no typhoon hitting New Zealand!

I have no idea who CDNS Your News Wire (http://cdns.yournewswire.com/) are but they are 100% wrong with that image!

It's about time that you learnt that the internet contains almost the sum-total of human knowledge and the sum-total of mis-information!

Better luck next time Mr Physical Observer! But, just remember, the rotating Globe works, the Flat Earth does not work.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: JackBlack on February 23, 2017, 12:16:10 PM
I'm very sorry, did I say Fiji, I meant storm Nangka bearing down on Japan:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Nangka_2015-07-16_0130Z.png/220px-Nangka_2015-07-16_0130Z.png
No. You said Fuji, which was more confusing as that doesn't actually exist. But yes, both your prior images were south of the equator.

Spins in the same direction as the storm hitting New Zealand, south of the equator:
Really?
Don't you remember this picture of the one from NZ?
Hurricane over New Zealand: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2014/03/Screenshot_3_5_14_10_28_AM.jpg

That spins in the opposite direction to the one over Japan.


https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=h2nedSvw&id=6AA902041CC8345BC19F7172903732C4FE2A0185&q=hurricane+hitting+new+zealand&simid=607988257458356759&selectedIndex=10&qpvt=hurricane+hitting+new+zealand&ajaxhist=0
And what makes you say that is in NZ?
Just because that is what you searched for?
Guess what, it doesn't work like that.
It will also match things like hurricane, and show you a picture of a hurricane anywhere.

This (along with your one from Japan) have nothing indicating their position.

However according to this:
http://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/japon/japon-le-typhon-phanfone-se-rapproche-de-lile-principale-honshu-2878790
It is in Japan as well.

Funny that, a storm in Japan, matched a storm in Japan.

Typhoon/hurricane, they're both the same, just a different name. I'm sure you saw Christ Church highlighted, right? NZ is below the equator, Japan is above the equator, and both storms were turning in the same direction! Did you just conveniently ignore that point? Yeah, all you could do was pick on the name I used, hurricane.
Highlighted where?
It wasn't highlighted in the image matching Japan anywhere.

There is absolutely no indication that the storm was in NZ or anywhere near it.

Instead, the one with an indication it was in NZ was the one which matched Fiji, with both in the southern hemisphere.

So no, no contradiction.

Instead of refuting the Coriolis effect, you have provided evidence supporting it.
You have 2 storms in the southern hemisphere spinning one way, and 2 in the northern hemisphere spinning the other way, exactly as you would expect on a spinning Earth.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: rabinoz on February 23, 2017, 11:13:18 PM

Hurricane over New Zealand: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2014/03/Screenshot_3_5_14_10_28_AM.jpg

Hurricane over Fuji Islands: https://phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/nasaseesdang.jpg

One area is south of the equator, the other north of the equator, but both spin in same direction. Tell me, a storm that started south of the equator and moves north of the equator, does it suddenly change spin direction?
This is getting tiresome! You pile errors on top of errors.

Your first image is indeed of a storm over New Zealand - "Christchurch is on the image"!
(http://www.sott.net/image/s8/174239/full/Screenshot_3_5_14_10_28_AM_102.jpg)
Storm brings 100-year flood to Christchurch, New Zealand.
It was not given a name because it was not officially regarded as a cyclone.

But you second image is not a "Hurricane over Fuji Islands". In fact from what I can find, there are no "Fuji Islands"!
I believe that image is of "Cyclone Evan" over the Fiji Islands - a very different matter! Look here:
(https://phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/nasaseesdang.jpg)
Cyclone over Fiji Islands
         
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/znwrtqs5qawul3w/Fiji%20Islands%20-%20Google%20Earth.png?dl=1)
Fiji Islands - Google Earth
Note the outline of the Fifi Islands on the Cyclone Image

Now, maybe you will finally believe this: The Coriolis effect is the reason for the four distinct situations that are observed for High Pressure Weather systems and Low Pressure Weather systems, including Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
     
Northern Hemisphere
     
Southern Hemisphere
Highs
     
Clockwise
     
Anti-clockwise
Lows
     
Anti-clockwise
     
Clockwise
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: rarepolymath on March 19, 2017, 02:52:56 AM
So are Flat Earthers saying that military snipers and gun manufactures are in on the "conspiracy" too?
NO.

They might be taught to compensate for rotation ( although i don't think the marine sniper handbook says anything about this )..but whether they believe it works or not is irrelevant. IF the world were rotating, the WIND alone would still have a bigger impact on the bullet placement than the rotation of the earth, so in the end, you would never know if its the rotation, or the wind that is the cause of displacement, and the rotations effect would be so small that it would be of little or no concern. WIND is the biggest factor, plus it affects the bullet grouping differently every hundred feet or so..AND, you can never tell which direction wind is blowing between you and the target because wind direction is unpredictable at these small scales..it can always affect the placement differently.
a bullet travels too fast to be affected by rotation. The lie might have something to do with trying to keep newtons law of rotation upheld..plus, globers say the atmosphere just CARRIES everything with it as the earth moves, ie : if a heli was hovering, for 24 hours in the same spot, why is it still above the same patch of ground if the earth is spinning? they will tell you the answer is the atmosphere is carrying the heli with it...so..atmosphere would just CARRY the bullet along with it. Besides, there are WORLD champion snipers who will tell you they have never had to account for rotation.. once you hear 40-50 year vet  snipers say its bullshit..WHO cares what some green sniper thinks..

 air "plane" pilots, ..bridge builders...navy boys...etc. ... the people in these professions are NOT in on the conspiracy at ALL...THEY,  are just as clueless as the average citizen is and simply believe what they are told when learning their trade..they account for everything they would need to account for, on a FLAT plane! 
many vets will tell you after years in these professions, they never once have to actually account for curvature.

go look at plane routes..because those will be fixed soon..somehow... they are working hard to combat the truth coming out..they will do whatever it takes to satisfy their sheep and keep them calm ..penned up..... I have been telling people this for 5 years and now it spread like wildfire on youtube and the net. in the next year, two years, etc..there will be a lot of pics of earth from space ( LOL ) from US, china, russia, etc...they will have to step their game up..I respect the liars A LOT for being able to trick billions of  people into believing nonsense. you think you're just going to come along and unravel decades of layered lies after a few hours on the net? ..you go to work ..go home.. that wont get you the truth...they have people working on this agenda around the clock.  good luck
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: itsatorus on March 19, 2017, 12:04:13 PM
So are Flat Earthers saying that military snipers and gun manufactures are in on the "conspiracy" too?
NO.

They might be taught to compensate for rotation ( although i don't think the marine sniper handbook says anything about this )..but whether they believe it works or not is irrelevant. IF the world were rotating, the WIND alone would still have a bigger impact on the bullet placement than the rotation of the earth, so in the end, you would never know if its the rotation, or the wind that is the cause of displacement, and the rotations effect would be so small that it would be of little or no concern. WIND is the biggest factor, plus it affects the bullet grouping differently every hundred feet or so..AND, you can never tell which direction wind is blowing between you and the target because wind direction is unpredictable at these small scales..it can always affect the placement differently.
a bullet travels too fast to be affected by rotation. The lie might have something to do with trying to keep newtons law of rotation upheld..plus, globers say the atmosphere just CARRIES everything with it as the earth moves, ie : if a heli was hovering, for 24 hours in the same spot, why is it still above the same patch of ground if the earth is spinning? they will tell you the answer is the atmosphere is carrying the heli with it...so..atmosphere would just CARRY the bullet along with it. Besides, there are WORLD champion snipers who will tell you they have never had to account for rotation.. once you hear 40-50 year vet  snipers say its bullshit..WHO cares what some green sniper thinks..

 air "plane" pilots, ..bridge builders...navy boys...etc. ... the people in these professions are NOT in on the conspiracy at ALL...THEY,  are just as clueless as the average citizen is and simply believe what they are told when learning their trade..they account for everything they would need to account for, on a FLAT plane! 
many vets will tell you after years in these professions, they never once have to actually account for curvature.

go look at plane routes..because those will be fixed soon..somehow... they are working hard to combat the truth coming out..they will do whatever it takes to satisfy their sheep and keep them calm ..penned up..... I have been telling people this for 5 years and now it spread like wildfire on youtube and the net. in the next year, two years, etc..there will be a lot of pics of earth from space ( LOL ) from US, china, russia, etc...they will have to step their game up..I respect the liars A LOT for being able to trick billions of  people into believing nonsense. you think you're just going to come along and unravel decades of layered lies after a few hours on the net? ..you go to work ..go home.. that wont get you the truth...they have people working on this agenda around the clock.  good luck

If the Coriolis effect didn't need to be corrected for, it should be easy to see that using a statistical analysis of a number of shots and their errors, even if the effect of wind is greater than the Coriolis effect on any individual shot.

For that matter, since wind is more or less along a line and the Coriolis effect causes clockwise or counterclockwise deflection in all directions, firing in different directions and comparing the errors should reveal the Coriolis effect.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: JackBlack on March 19, 2017, 02:32:19 PM
a bullet travels too fast to be affected by rotation. The lie might have something to do with trying to keep newtons law of rotation upheld..plus, globers say the atmosphere just CARRIES everything with it as the earth moves
No. They don't.
It depends entirely upon what the thing is.

A bullet is designed to be aerodynamic and not be effected by the wind.
A helicopter relies upon the air to be able to fly, as such, it will be far more effected.

if a heli was hovering, for 24 hours in the same spot, why is it still above the same patch of ground if the earth is spinning?
Because they were maintaining their position over that spot. The majority of it is actually their own inertia and gravity and their lift maintaining their path.

Besides, there are WORLD champion snipers who will tell you they have never had to account for rotation
[/quote]
So ones that just shoot for compositions, typically being fairly short range?

they account for everything they would need to account for, on a FLAT plane!
Then why do so many follow completely different paths, paths which make no sense on a flat Earth?
Such as leaving south east, travelling straight, without turning, and arriving from the south west?


go look at plane routes
I have. Several make absolutley no sense on a flat Earth, but make perfect sense on a globe.

they are working hard to combat the truth coming out
Yes, FEers seem to love doing that. Why?

I respect the liars A LOT for being able to trick billions of  people into believing nonsense.
Except you haven't.
You have just been able to trick a few gullible idiots. The only question is are you one of the gullible idiots or are you one of the people that know you are spouting bullshit.
Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: CallsignTKTX on May 23, 2017, 12:24:48 PM
If you want a proper, easily understandable explanation of the Coriolis Effect, read this.

I stumbled upon this thread while doing some research on the Coriolis Effect and felt that, from the replies that I have read, none of you are properly explaining it. I will attempt to do that now in a simple and easy to understand way.

What is the Coriolis Effect?
The Coriolis Effect (Coriolis Force as is its true name) is an inertial (or non-accelerating) force which acts upon an object that is in motion relative to a rotating reference frame. The outcome of the Coriolis Force on said object is what is know as the Coriolis Effect.

How is the Coriolis Force/Effect represented, what does it do and why is it important to know?
Well, popular (non-technical) usage of the term "Coriolis Effect" almost always implies that the Earth is the rotating frame of reference. If we assume the Earth is a sphere that spins on an axis, we must then account for the Coriolis Force to correctly determine the motion of an object and where that object will end up after its motion ends (You will understand why I said "If" in the beginning of this sentence if you read through my entire reply). For now, we will be assuming that the Earth is a sphere that rotates on an axis. The Earth completes one rotation per day, so the effect of the Coriolis Force on the motion of an object is usually going to be very small and unnoticeable; it will usually only become noticeable when an object travels a long distance and for a long period of time compared to that object's AVERAGE travel time.

Here is our first example:
Pre-experiment explanation
You are in space looking down towards Earth. There is an object at the equator large enough for you to see. For this experiment, the only three forces that will be acting on this object are the Coriolis Force, a modified form of gravity, and a force that will cause the start of the object's movement (that way you can have a visual understanding of what the Coriolis Force looks like when it is acting upon an object). The only difference between true gravity and our modified form of gravity is, our modified form of gravity will keep the object at the same elevation above sea level from the Earth's surface throughout the entire experiment so that the object can move from the equator to the desired pole without coming into contact with the Earth's surface. Also, the force that causes the object's initial movement will not continue to act upon the object once that object begins moving; the force will only cause the object to begin movement. The speed at which the object moves will stay the same throughout the entire experiment, that way the motion of the object after motion starts is only caused by the effects of the Coriolis Force.

Experiment
Now we will begin the experiment. The object at the equator is acted on by an outside force that causes it to begin movement towards the Northern pole. The object leaves behind a red line that shows the path that it is taking. To the person that caused the object's movement, the object appears to be moving due North. As YOU view the object from SPACE, the object does not appear to be moving due North; the object appears to be moving in a NorthEASTERN direction (to the right and upwards). As you go Northward, the horizontal diameter of the Earth gets smaller at a consistent rate and as the horizontal diameter of the Earth gets smaller, the motion of the Earth's surface gets slower at an equally consistent rate. So, as our object moves North, (where the horizontal diameter of the Earth gets smaller at a consistent rate and the speed of the motion of the Earth's surface gets slower at a consistent rate) the object maintains its eastward speed instead of slowing down to match the reduced speed of the Earth's surface; this causes the rate of the object's movement eastward to appear to be growing. The growth of the object's movement East is NOT consistent however, because unlike the consistent rate at which the horizontal diameter of Earth gets smaller and the consistent rate at which the speed of the Earth's surface movement gets slower relative to the consistent rate of change of the diameter of the Earth as you move further North, the further North you go, the smaller the diameter of the Earth and the slower the speed that the Earth's surface is moving; that causes the rate at which the object moves East to appear to be getting greater at an increasingly faster rate (which means that the object appears to be moving further to the right at an increasingly faster pace).

Experiment Summary
So, to sum up that experiment, our object started moving from the equator to the North pole. As we viewed the object from space, we saw it draw a red line that started out going slightly Northeast. As the object continued to move North, the red line that was drawn by the object curved. The rate at which the object and the red line curved horizontally to the East kept growing increasingly faster, until it reached the North pole.


Now that you know what effect the Coriolis Force has on the motion of an object, I will give you a second example; one that explains how the Coriolis Force affects the movement of objects alongside all other forces. This example is going to fit in with the topic of this thread, which is sniping.

Pre-example Explanation
When a soldier goes to Sniper School, he is taught how hide, how to track an enemy, how to prevent enemies from tracking him, how to get to his target without being discovered, how to eliminate his target, how to survive and maintain himself indefinitely while on mission, and how to get out of the area without being discovered.
We will be talking about how they eliminate their target. A sniper is taught how to "Zero" his scope, how to properly hold his rifle so that he gets the best accuracy possible, how to accurately judge the distance between him and his target, how to make adjustments to his scope so that it is on target before he fires, how to adjust his scope if he misses so that he knows exactly what adjustments are needed to be made to make the second shot count, and how to judge what he needs to do and how to do it when he is lining up a shot. One of the things he is taught so that he can be more accuracy at longer ranges is the "Coriolis Effect".

Example
Now, here is our situation. We are a 2 man sniper team in the US Army. We are out on a patrol and we hear gunfire over the hill to our front. We rush up to the top and set up our rifle and your spotting scope. We see a small group of Taliban fighters with a sandbag fortification and a machine gun firing down on a squad of US Army infantrymen. Our guys are pinned down and won't last much longer. Our problem is that we are too far away to communicate with the squad, we don't know which radio frequency they are on and they won't last long enough for us to figure it out, our guys don't have enough time for us to try to get into a better position, and the Taliban gun emplacement is over 1,000 meters away from us. The distance between us and the Taliban means we will have to take into account the Coriolis Effect. Now, the Coriolis Effect in military terms refers to so much more variables than just what I explained in Example 1. With the military version, we will have to take into account the distance (which at that range will extend to the point where the curvature of the Earth is a factor in the bullets trajectory), the curvature of the Earth, the weather, wind speed, wind direction, a possible wind direction change during mid-flight of the bullet due to how long it will take the bullet to reach its target (and the wind speed of that possible wind direction change), gravity, how gravity will affect the bullet drop as the bullet travels along the curvature of the Earth, temperature, climate, humidity, our altitude, the altitude of our target, air resistance, the angle at which we are shooting, the possible visual distortion due to the heat waves that radiate in the distance if it is hot, AND we will have to take the gun into account. Why do we need to take the gun into account? Well, the M24 (the standard sniper rifle for US Army snipers) has a maximum effective range of 800 meters, though record shots have been made with the M24 at over 1,000 meters. Also, the standard scope that the US Army uses on their M24s has a maximum elevation adjustment of 1,000 meters. So, after we make a quick observation and estimation of all the factors, we take them into account and set up the shots accordingly. There is no way of knowing exactly where our shots will hit because each shot will have slightly different factors at play so we can only guess. We will more than likely hit our targets but we will probably also miss a few shots in the process due to the slight randomness caused by the factors that are constantly changing ever so slightly.

Explanation Summary
We are going to have to take the Coriolis Effect into account when shooting out passed 1,000 meters because if we don't, we will miss every time and our bullets will never hit our target. Now, an opposing argument could be made that, if the Earth is flat, taking into account the Coriolis Effect will cause you to miss every shot and be way off target because you are taking into account a factor which isn't even present. If that were true then the end result would cause your shots to miss, but that isn't the case. If you talk to any sniper, preferably military because civilian shooters don't have to worry about the Coriolis Effect nearly as much as military snipers (actually, the only time you'd ever have to worry about the Coriolis Effect as a civilian shooter is if you wanted to, because the civilian shooter has control over the range at which he shoots), they will tell you that the Coriolis Effect is a real thing and must be accounted for when firing long range shots if you actually want to hit what you intend to hit.

Also, saying that a sniper who has to make adjustments, in order to fire accurately, isn't very good at sniping and shouldn't be doing it shows how much you know about shooting in general. All shooters make adjustments when shooting. Aiming your firearm is an adjustment. Also, your reasoning behind that statement is obviously based on sniping in video games. Believe it or not, sniping in video games is a piece of cake compared to sniping in real life. Just because you can get a head-shot at 2,000 meters on a target that is sprinting straight across your line of sight from left to right or right to left on Battlefield 4 without changing your scope's zero distance does not mean you are a good sniper. A real sniper would make adjustments so that it is easier to hit his target and so he is more likely to hit his target. Snipers don't leave the success of their shots solely to the chance that a "Hail Mary" (a shot where the shooter makes an educated guess as to where he needs to aim in order to hit the target and fires without making any other adjustments) will be effective. Yeah, maybe they could but they want to increase the chance that their shots will actually connect with their intended target as much as possible, and I'm sorry but, a Hail Mary is the way to go if you want to have the smallest chance possible of hitting your intended target.

Also, here's a word of advice.
Don't insult a man who can end your life from another zip code.
That means don't insult snipers.

Title: Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
Post by: rabinoz on May 23, 2017, 02:39:16 PM
If you want a proper, easily understandable explanation of the Coriolis Effect, read this.

I stumbled upon this thread while doing some research on the Coriolis Effect and felt that, from the replies that I have read, none of you are properly explaining it. I will attempt to do that now in a simple and easy to understand way.
. . . . .
Also, here's a word of advice.
Don't insult a man who can end your life from another zip code.
That means don't insult snipers.

Just a coincidence, but this appeared in the local paper (and most others) just yesterday:
Quote from: Neal Baker, The SunNews Corp Australia Network
SAS sniper kills ISIS terrorist 2.4km away using world’s most powerful rifle
AN SAS sniper killed an ISIS terrorist from almost 2.4km away using a mega-powerful rifle, a report says.
The Sun reports, it took three whole seconds for the bullet to reach the terror thug in Mosul, Iraq two weeks ago.

A veteran sniper hit the insurgent in the throat as he tried to escape a burnt-out building, killing him almost instantly, the Daily Star said.
It is believed to be one of the most difficult long-range kills in the elite regiment’s history.

The paper claimed the shot was fired from a CheyTac M200 — a record-breaking US-made rifle with a max range of up to nearly 3.2km.
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/ca39f3e50d8511aa9025850eb4ea6176)

Read more in middle east, SAS sniper kills ISIS terrorist 2.4km away using world’s most powerful rifle (http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/sas-sniper-kills-isis-terrorist-24km-away-using-worlds-most-powerful-rifle/news-story/2fc227ff89367b4527529769c03150a0)
[/size]