Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.

  • 135 Replies
  • 54508 Views
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #60 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

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.

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #61 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

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  [/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  [/url]
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #62 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?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 09:17:52 AM by inquisitive »

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #63 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:
  • 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".
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #64 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.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #65 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)

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #66 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 

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?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #67 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.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 01:03:13 PM by Jadyyn »
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #68 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.

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #69 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.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #70 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

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #71 on: October 11, 2015, 02:40:29 PM »
Quote
Aircraft typically will take the shortest route, dependent on air traffic control.
Somewhat true...
  • If planes are going to a specific location.
  • If the airfield has air traffic control (ATC) (e.g. airport).
  • Planes going for a "joy ride" or a training session for a couple hours and return to original airfield and land - do not.
  • The shortest route may become longer depending on weather and other factors.
  • Small planes can and do land in MANY small airfields without ATC all the time.
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:
  • Before 9/11, there were actually 15 hr flights (http://www.independenttraveler.com/travel-tips/travelers-ed/10-ways-to-survive-a-long-haul-flight).
  • Number of people who want that flight (non-stop vs stops)(is it economically feasible?)
  • Fuel consumption - it might be farther but with a tail wind, might use 20% less fuel (more profits)
  • Safety - if there are problems, where do you land the plane (in the middle of the Pacific or Indian ocean?)
  • No better alternative - fly over the N. Pole vs trying to go around the circumference?
  • Air space restrictions - Are you allowed to fly over Russia or China?
  • Probably several others... these just came to mind
BTW, that site is "cool".
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #72 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. 

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #73 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.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #74 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

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.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #75 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.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #76 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.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #77 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..
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #78 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.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #79 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.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #80 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.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #81 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.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #82 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. 

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #83 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

The following quote from Wikipedia  (from 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.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #84 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. 

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #85 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/
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
If you believe in all the conspiracies around you will probably think all this was written purely to refute FEers trying to deny Coriolis!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #86 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? 

Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #87 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.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #88 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. 

Re: Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect.
« Reply #89 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.