Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - JamesJamie

Pages: 1 2 [3]
61
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect Proves Earth's Rotation
« on: September 19, 2010, 08:31:30 PM »
...What?

First please explain what you are saying, anyone can throw out a word.

Second, please present your evidence to support why you believe the gravitomagnetic effect of the rotating heavens explains this phenomenon.

62
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect Proves Earth's Rotation
« on: September 19, 2010, 08:12:48 PM »
Thork, did you just skip over what I just posted? My whole entire argument refutes what you just posted, and you can actually test and prove everything I just said. If I launch a heavy plastic ball like an artillery shell, it will still move off course like that of a metal shell. Magnetism has NOTHING to do with this, nothing at all.

And, I am posting this as because it: proves the rotation of the Earth which most FE'ers say the Earth doesn't, void of all the conspiracy theories out there FE'ers create as a fog to hide in, and can be empirically tested and verified numerous times with the same result.

It also proves the shape of the Earth to a lesser extent. If the Earth was a flat plane and rotating, the Coriolis effect would be a constant effect in the same direction wherever you go, but it turns out it not only reverses in the southern hemisphere, but becomes dramatically weaker closer to the Equator, which proves Earth isn't flat.

It seems it's true, as most of the FE'ers aren't touching this post even with a 10 ft pole. So until I get some actual evidence from them that contradicts what I've just stated, I will continue to post this. Can't pick and choose what you believe in to fit you theories guys.

63
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect Proves Earth's Rotation
« on: September 19, 2010, 02:12:31 AM »
Mmmmm. some food for thought there. I still have a few issues with it though.  ;)

First I want to clear up the rifling business. You say we consider rifling a major advancement in accuracy, but then in the very next sentence, you say modern artillery does not use rifling. Then you flip back to saying it increases angular momentum? So is rifling good for keeping things straight, and if so, why don't they use it in modern artillery? Surely that would be a step back? Whilst we are on the subject of artillery ....
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981STIN...8214395P
Seems steel is as popular as ever. Google 'Bethlehem Steel Corporation' and the word 'artillery'. Been using steel a long time.
Steel for shells, steel for the casings, steel for the shrapnel inside and hardened steel for the pointy bit at the front, to pierce armour.

Whoah there! You can't just say the trade winds are caused by Coriolis.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_wind.htm
No mention of Coriolis to generate wind there. Wind is quite capable of existing without Coriolis.

Lol, way to bend my words. First, rifling doesn't exist in artillery because we have this technology called laser guided bomb or JDAM. You can't fire a shell with those fitted on it. It launches the shell miles into the atmosphere, then it deploys its "flaps" to guide the missile/shell to its location. They also use smoothebores as rifling reduces kinetic energy. Read up more before calling me out on something.

In the modern everyday guns, most bullets are copper, aluminum, and lead alloys. Modern armor piercing rounds (or SABOT) are almost exclusively Tungsten or Depleted Uranium. Sure there are a few steel ones, but to say "been popular as ever" and "Been using for a long time" are misleading. Of course we have been using steel for a long time, that's a no brainer, and yes, it IS popular in projectiles. But...it has lost its touch here in the USA. However, even if I am wrong...no lets say I AM wrong on that they are not tungsten or DU, and infact steel. Still doesn't account for the fact that other projectiles that aren't magnetic are subject to the Coriolis effect.

I didn't say trade winds are caused by the Coriolis effect, I said their apparent movement and direction are because of the Coriolis effect. Hence why cyclones spin the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere.

P.S, lol that link talks about the Coriolis effect in the first paragraph dude.

64
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: September 18, 2010, 06:32:33 PM »
Baffling to you, so be it. At least we don't have multiple theories on how big the Earth is, what keeps us on, eclipses, the sun, the sky, rotation, stars, universes, light etc...

65
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: September 18, 2010, 05:42:11 PM »
So...FET accepts the Coriolis effect, which means at the very least you have to accept a rotating Earth. But you don't believe in a rotating Earth... ???  Is there something I'm missing here?

Not all FEers do accept the Coriolis effect... but some do recognize that it can be empirically observed that large cyclones rotate one way north of the equator and the other way south of the equator; what's questioned is the cause.

You do realize that if the Earth was flat, than the Coriolis effect would only be in one direction...right? And to be honest, since FET has so many variations and different hypothesis, conspiracy theories, radicals, moderates and formulas, it's really hard to take it seriously. How can a theory exist with so many different people questioning different parts that believe in it? UA, gravity, space conspiracy, sun, it's all too much. IMO get your shit together, and form a neat, straight forward compelling argument the Earth is flat. At least RE'ers follow a specific train of thought.

If I disprove something in the FET, I get responses like "not all FET'ers believe _fill in the blank_. But the ones that DO believe in it have proof that it can work on a flat Earth!" etc... How can we concretely prove something like that when there is so much discrepancy between FE'ers and the theory itself?

66
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect Proves Earth's Rotation
« on: September 18, 2010, 04:40:23 PM »
Hey, I only ever said the earth was flat. I never said whether it spun or not. Just because I share a common belief that the earth is flat doesn't mean I share every other crackpot idea on this site. Of course it may be that they are right and I am wrong. Your example only suggests spin.

However magnetism would create a similar effect on a bullet if it was ferrous (which most are being made of steel). It would make it bend.
Prevailing wind would obviously move a bullet. Trade winds send the bullet the same direction - ie west from the equator or to the right as you explained in your first post. They lose strength as you leave the equator. Geography for kids proves this.  ;)
http://www.kidsgeo.com/geography-for-kids/0094-trade-winds.php
Also, guns are rifled. This makes the bullet itself spin. As Beckham will tell you, when you put spin on something, that also effects its trajectory.
However Trade winds or magnetism or the 'Beckham' factor on a flat earth or any shape, spinning or not, would give the same results as you submit.

So not only am I still in doubt as to whether the earth is round, in fact I'm quite sure its flat, I'm now doubting whether it spins or not. Your not helping.  :P

I'll break this down, it can't be magnetism because the effect is still shown on Tungsten shells and other non magnetic materials. And you are wrong, most bullets are made of mostly copper, zinc and lead alloys (which have very, very weak magnetic influence). I love how you assume and use it as fact that bullets are made of steel.

The trade winds are going that way because...you guessed it! Coriolis effect! So saying the winds are a factor is just proving my point further. However, lets say you account for the wind speed, and aim accordingly. You will still miss the target.

Now for the rifling point. There are three crucial points I want to make.
1.) If rifling causes the bullet to move, WHY...WHY do we consider rifling a major advancement in accuracy!?!? Makes no mother****ing sense. We should have stuck with smoothbore's.
2.) Modern artillery does not use rifling. And their projectiles fire tens of miles, if not more. Still, those munitions are being drawn offcourse by the Coriolis effect.
3.) Rifling, as I said earlier increases accuracy because of the conservation of angular momentum. The spinning PREVENTS the bullet from curving. Crude diagram explaining it http://i27.tinypic.com/2s9ximt.jpg  The reason "bend it like Beckham" works is because the soccer ball or baseball has grooves on it, deflecting the air causing various ways for the ball to "bend".

On a flat Earth, the Coriolis effect should be constant wherever you go. This is not the case. Stronger as you go North and South, and a reverse direction points to the Earths rotation, and that of being a sphere!

67
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: September 17, 2010, 11:59:23 PM »
So...FET accepts the Coriolis effect, which means at the very least you have to accept a rotating Earth. But you don't believe in a rotating Earth... ???  Is there something I'm missing here?

68
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect Proves Earth's Rotation
« on: September 17, 2010, 11:25:25 PM »
Just a thought, but if the earth was round and flat like a plate and spinning in space with its own gravity, would that not give the same effects as a Coriolis? Any liquid on the surface would be driven round by the same force.

And lets just say that plate was two sided like a coin, would that not make fluids on the opposite side, turn the opposite direction? As for strength this would be increased the further from the centre of coin you go, like going up and down the latitudes. Toroidal shapes would give similar results.

I'm not sure Coriolis proves shape. Merely spinning and a distance from the core or centre of spin.

Good post though. Lots of interesting stuff in there.

But here lies where the FET falls apart. FET does not believe in a rotating Earth. Also, if on a flat plane as you said, you would not have the reverse in the other hemisphere.

69
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect Proves Earth's Rotation
« on: September 17, 2010, 05:17:15 PM »
Maybe I haven't made myself clear. You need an object spinning to create the Coriolis effect, and a sphere to create the difference of the effect (greater the farther north/south you go from the equator).

I'm pretty sure this proves the rotation, and if not that the Earth is round. Pretty big flaw you guys have there...

70
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: September 17, 2010, 03:22:48 PM »
I dont really belive the toilet flush direction thing myself... who knows?

What don't you believe about it?

71
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: September 17, 2010, 02:57:10 PM »
Regardless, the question about the rotation still exists to the FE'er's out there! What is making that bullet or artillery shell miss!

People with horrible aim.

Good trolling, that's why anyone with two eyes can get into Sniper school, right?

72
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Enlighten me
« on: September 17, 2010, 12:15:01 PM »
Now suggesting the Theory of UA is true, pushing everything upwards. What does that say about something that lie's in the middle of space? Where there is no gravitational push or poll, which would not be the case in this situation, but it wouldn't be moving because of UA. Suggesting UA is false, Unless UA act's on all matter, but how can we be moving up? How are we if matter cannot be created nor destroyed the matter above us can't or shouldn't be moving suggesting it would be destroyed if the universe wasn't infinity long.

Please enlighten me FE'er
Actually, we know that the UA is false in that the Earth's gravity is demonstratively both radial and non-uniform. There's just no denying it. The UA is false and all FE models that rely on it are likewise false.

Yes! There is an easy experiment to do that proves this. Take a pendulum, and measure its period at sea level, and then on a relatively high mountain or hill. If the Earth was under constant UA, the period should be constant wherever you go. This is not the case however.

Now lets amp this up a little bit. How does FET explain the Foucault Pendulum?

73
Flat Earth Debate / Coriolis Effect Proves Earth's Rotation
« on: September 17, 2010, 11:45:13 AM »
Regarding the FAQ for Coriolis Effect, it only addresses a small portion of it.

Q: "How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?"
A: You are mistaken. The Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day, and fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet spins much faster than that (at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day), so the additional or lost rotation from the Coriolis effect would not be noticed.

So with that statement, I am concluding you DO believe in the Coriolis effect, only it's very weak. But, lets be serious here. Given that toilets are on a very small scale, designs and other various things can easily overcome the effect. Look on a much grander scale. Take cyclones for example. They spin counter clockwise in the Northern, and clockwise in the Southern. This does not have to do with the fact that you get turned 180 degrees when you move across the Equator. If you were to theoretically jump out of an airplane over a cyclone in the Northern, and then again over one in the Southern and stay there for a day; you would see clearly they rotate oppositely. What is clearly making a cyclone in the Southern hemisphere rotate clockwise? (More on this in the videos).

As I said earlier, that is only a small portion of the Coriolis effect. What about trajectories over long distances? Take for example a sniper, who shoots at his target +1 mile away in the Northern hemisphere. His crosshairs are between the eyes - with no calibrations to his scope, he will hit his target below and to the right. We understand the below part here, be it gravity or UA as some of you believe here. What about the right part? Now lets adjust that scope. You aim high for gravity, then you aim a little bit left to account for the wind. You fire again...and the bullet STILL misses to the right. Why is the bullet missing!?! It's because of the Coriolis effect. Objects in the Northern hemisphere are deflected right as viewed from the original movement (vice verse in the Southern).

When have a trajectory traveling long distances, you have to take into account of the rotation of the Earth! If you are in the military, specifically artillery or a sniper, you HAVE to learn about this (granted computers do the math now, you still have to manually plug in your coordinates). As the bullet or artillery shell is traveling through the air, it is not affect by the rotation of the Earth, but your target still is. In that distance, and when the bullet or shell exits the barrel to when it reaches its target; the target will have moved, be it ever so slightly (snipers) or over great distances (artillery).

I'll give you two accounts where the Coriolis effect played a crucial effect in history. First, the Battle of the Falkland Islands during WW1. When the British entered combat with the German navy, the British shells kept missing. Shell after shell into the water. ~1000 shells later, someone smart decided, oh it's because we didn't reverse our Coriolis coordinates! Nearly ALL of those 1000 shells missed the German boats by 10 miles+ to the left as they still had their old Coriolis coordinates in the Northern hemisphere where you aim left of your target, but in the Southern, you have to aim to the right.

Another part is the infamous Paris Gun. I'll give you an excerpt.
The Paris gun was used to shell Paris at a range of 120 km (75 miles). The distance was so far that the Coriolis effect  — the rotation of the Earth — was substantial enough to affect trajectory calculations. The gun was fired at an azimuth of 232 degrees (west-southwest) from Crépy-en Laon, which was at a latitude of 49.5 degrees North. The gunners had to account for the fact that the projectiles landed to the right of where they would have hit if there were no Coriolis effect.

In summary of all this, to an observer on the ground, it would appear that the object, be it a cyclone or a bullet/artillery shell is curving left or right, when in actuality your trajectory is straight. To an observer ABOVE the plane of the Earth, that object is to be going in a straight line. THE ONLY THING THAT CAN CAUSE THE CORIOLIS EFFECT IS THE ROTATION OF A ROUND EARTH. So, regarding the FAQ, you believe in the effect (unless it's worded wrong). So therefor you HAVE to believe the Earth is rotating (and that it's round, it goes hand in hand).

*Also, from the FAQ again: you are saying the effect becomes less important as you are getting closer to the equator. So essentially it gets more important as you get farther away from the Equator. This is essentially saying the Earth is indeed round, as with the rotation of the round Earth, objects farther away from the Equator travel deflect left and right more than than an object on the Equator. FET essentially just proved itself wrong by saying they don't disprove of the Coriolis effect.*

Couple videos on it if you are having trouble. Highly regard watching these videos. All of them are no longer than 2 minutes.






74
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Infinite Plane
« on: September 15, 2010, 08:28:29 PM »
To Markjo, haha you got me! However, as you probably know I was talking about height above sea level.

Ever hear of the Multi-verse theory Englsh? That is essentially what he is stating. If there is an infinite amount of time/space (in this case land) than there are an infinite number of possibilities.

75
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Infinite Plane
« on: September 15, 2010, 07:36:49 PM »
I think this shows how silly an infinite plane Earth really is, because for all we know, WW9880000545 is happening somewhere.

76
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Infinite Plane
« on: September 15, 2010, 07:22:53 PM »
This is addressed primarily to John Davis, but by no means limited to him.  Okay, so it's well accepted that the earth is an infinite flat plane with mountains and canyons dotting its surface.  Do you think that these geographical features extend as infinitely as the plane it self?  Would that mean that there are also infinitely high mountains and infinitely deep canyons as well?  On an infinite landscape you can always find a taller mountain if given infinite time to look.  So, my real question (and one that I myself am leaning towards yes on), is do you think that the earth is also infinitely tall and infinitely deep?

Find me the mountain taller than Mt. Everest. If in the infinite Earth, there should be an infinite number of mountains higher than Mt. Everest right? So find me one, it cant be THAT hard.

Well on an infinite Earth, theoretically there would be an infinite number of "you" so in short, yes.

Do I have an infinite amount of time to look for it?

In an infinite plane Earth, there would be an infinite number of "you", so in theory, yes.

77
Flat Earth General / Re: Why so serious?
« on: September 15, 2010, 07:20:01 PM »
At least with UFOs and the paranormal there are pictures, but you guys have absolutely nothing to prove what you're saying is true.

How much trust to you place on these pictures as evidence of UFO's?

I'd rather place an UFO nut as President than a FE'er thats for sure.

78
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Infinite Plane
« on: September 15, 2010, 07:12:29 PM »
This is addressed primarily to John Davis, but by no means limited to him.  Okay, so it's well accepted that the earth is an infinite flat plane with mountains and canyons dotting its surface.  Do you think that these geographical features extend as infinitely as the plane it self?  Would that mean that there are also infinitely high mountains and infinitely deep canyons as well?  On an infinite landscape you can always find a taller mountain if given infinite time to look.  So, my real question (and one that I myself am leaning towards yes on), is do you think that the earth is also infinitely tall and infinitely deep?

Find me the mountain taller than Mt. Everest. If in the infinite Earth, there should be an infinite number of mountains higher than Mt. Everest right? So find me one, it cant be THAT hard.

79
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The sun?
« on: September 15, 2010, 07:06:12 PM »
I myself have written an excellent treatise on the subject, in the form of an open letter to my zetetic colleagues, which can be found here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0

In the letter, I marshaled a large and diverse body of evidence in support of this discovery.

I read the Red Moon part, stating that moonlight is harmful to plants. So, you could say plants would benefit far more with 24/7 sunlight exposure James?

80
Flat Earth Q&A / Coriolis Effect and Rotation?
« on: September 15, 2010, 01:06:58 PM »
So as I understand it, FE'ers believe that the Earth does not rotate. Then please be so kind as to explain this mystery of the Coriolis effect on trajectories at long distances flying freely through the air.

In the FAQ, you state the the Coriolis does exist, so therefor you also state that objects on the ground are subject to the rotation of the Earth.

81
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: September 15, 2010, 12:55:04 PM »
In relative terms, it's hard to accurately show a sniper putting in calculations for the Coriolis effect. First off, they now have small computers that calculate for them, and they also zero their scope so even if you do put a camera in the scope with the crosshairs, it wouldn't show their how far off to the left they are. For the sniper, you would just have to talk to them, and they can accurately say they have to account for it.

Artillery is a little bit easier to show. This is an excerpt from WW1 for the Paris Gun

The Paris gun was used to shell Paris at a range of 120 km (75 miles). The distance was so far that the Coriolis effect  — the rotation of the Earth — was substantial enough to affect trajectory calculations. The gun was fired at an azimuth of 232 degrees (west-southwest) from Crépy-en Laon, which was at a latitude of 49.5 degrees North. The gunners had to account for the fact that the projectiles landed to the right of where they would have hit if there were no Coriolis effect.
 
I'm also going to post this in the general, seeing as no FE'er has responded yet

82
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: September 15, 2010, 12:38:48 PM »
You brought up spinning and how it would curve, I was simply stating that it could only curve if it's angular momentum was offcenter, or there were "seams" that distorted the air flow around the spinning bullet, much like what a pitcher does when throwing a curveball.

This is out of the question now, lets get back to the actual question at play here.

okay.... so other than trying to compare munition physics to a ball being thrown a few yards... Has anyone ever actually shot a target that far taking account every possible complication other than the Coriolis effect?

Like I said, lets get back the the actual question and not the analogy. Oh and yes, there have been numerous shots a mile or longer. Also, artillery shells go beyond tens of miles, and they follow the same principle of firing a gun.
figure in the seconds of firing, to the actual bullet hitting the target. Over 1000 yrds that's for sure.  Oh and here.
ignore the music, its god awful

83
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: September 15, 2010, 12:18:03 PM »
You brought up spinning and how it would curve, I was simply stating that it could only curve if it's angular momentum was offcenter, or there were "seams" that distorted the air flow around the spinning bullet, much like what a pitcher does when throwing a curveball.

This is out of the question now, lets get back to the actual question at play here.

84
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: September 15, 2010, 12:13:06 PM »
A bullet also curves because it is spinning as it leaves the barrel from the grooves if im not mistaken, any professional sniper must take the Coriolis Effect into account as well, but It is worth noting that a bullet rotates on its own which can cause some of that to occur.
The rifling, the groves in the barrel, causes the spinning. The spinning prevents, though not entirely, the bullet from curving--due to the conservation of angular momentum. I think that's the opposite of your claim. --but I'm not a expert on rifles.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling

I don't claim I am either, but I highly doubt over longer ranges when the spin becomes dramatically slower that it will still allow it to keep a significantly straight path.

Ok, then lets take modern (USA) artillery for example, which doesn't have rifling. They still need to account for SOME effect that magically makes the shell miss its target.

And in actuality, the spin is consistent, so curving due to rifling does not happen. Think of it this way, a pitchers pitch moves because of the airflow around the seams when he puts a certain spin on it, the bullet has no "seams" to speak of.

There we go, clocktower backed me up.

I agree with the effect as well but I'm just saying what FE'rs might say so we can get it out of the way and laugh when they bring it up :P.

I didn't know pitchers have to throw their balls through the grooving of a barrel in order to gain spin, thanks for the analogy 0.o?

I said when they pitch/throw the ball, the reason it curves is because of the airflow over the seams... I wasn't making an analogy to the barrel, I was making an analogy to the in flight rotation an object has.

Regardless, the question about the rotation still exists to the FE'er's out there! What is making that bullet or artillery shell miss!

85
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: September 15, 2010, 12:04:55 PM »
Ok, then lets take modern (USA) artillery for example, which doesn't have rifling. They still need to account for SOME effect that magically makes the shell miss its target.

And in actuality, the spin is consistent, so curving due to rifling does not happen. Think of it this way, a pitchers pitch moves because of the airflow around the seams when he puts a certain spin on it, the bullet has no "seams" to speak of.

There we go, clocktower backed me up.

86
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: September 15, 2010, 11:38:48 AM »
And a quick question, do FE'ers believe the Earth rotates, or doesn't rotate?  

One of the few things that FE'ers agree on is that the flat earth does not rotate.  There seems to be a difference of opinion on almost all other aspects of the flat earth, however.

Than please explain to me firing a rifle from long range (lets say 1 mile ~1760 yards). You don't account for anything (lets leave wind, humidity and all that junk out), your crosshairs in your scope are dead center between the eyes. You fire and the bullet not only misses below your crosshairs, but to the right (or left in the southern hemisphere). What makes that bullet miss to the right in the FET? The only possible explanation is that the Earth rotates, so when firing from a long distance, your target will be rotating ever so slightly as well. Talk to any number of professional long range marksman, they can tell you the exact same thing.

On another note, artillery has the same exact problem, but because they fire at longer distances it's much more apparent.

87
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Coriolis Effect
« on: September 15, 2010, 09:21:33 AM »
That makes no sense! If you were to jump out of a plane (as FE'ers say space travel is all a hoax) and theoretically stay at a very high altitude, you would clearly see the effect if the cyclone were in the northern vs. the southern.

Also, I still want a FE'er to elaborate on that FAQ!! And a quick question, do FE'ers believe the Earth rotates, or doesn't rotate?

88
Flat Earth Q&A / Coriolis Effect
« on: September 15, 2010, 02:29:50 AM »
In the FAQ:
Q: "How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?"

A: You are mistaken. The Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day, and fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet spins much faster than that (at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day), so the additional or lost rotation from the Coriolis effect would not be noticed.

Could you please refine this statement? Right now it's a little vague, or miss-worded on what you are trying to say about the Coriolis effect. I want to critique it, but I have no clue what the answer is trying to say.

Pages: 1 2 [3]