Article June 25, 2010: How does the earth’s rotation affect the path of a bullet?

I cannot imagine any property of physics that would account for the earth spinning at 1040 mph at the equator amounting to 1,525 ft. per second would cause a targeting adjustment of only a few inches. A formula can be created; however the contradictions that occur keeps the formula at a stage of unproven theory. Following
is my analysis regarding the Coriolis effect and gravity:

I. If you stand dead center of the North Pole, there is no centrifugal force. It takes 24 hours for one to rotate 360°.
 Weights and measures have to be determined where there is no centrifugal force; at dead center of the North or South Pole?
II. An airplane and/or helicopter that is disconnected from earth can land on an aircraft carrier that is a moving target as fast as 1040 mph.
 A Cessna 172 that is disconnected from earth at flight speed of 161 mph can adjust for earth’s rotation speed of 1040 mph at the equator?

Two tests of theory & path of totality.

Subject: Gravity makes one gallon of water appear to weigh 8.34 pounds per gallon, regardless of centrifugal force generated by multiple rotation speeds of the earth.

Centrifugal force at the perimeter of the object is determined by how fast the perimeter is traveling and the diameter of the object. For the earth, the centrifugal force is variable as to its diameter; its latitude location. In Dallas, Texas latitude 32.7767 N° the speed of rotation is 863.8 mph compared to 537.4 mph at Olympia, Washington latitude 47.0379° N. These different earth rotation speeds of 863.8 mph and 537.4 mph generate a different centrifugal force on an object. In our case, the object is one gallon of water that appears to weigh 8.34 pounds per gallon both in Dallas, Texas and Olympia, Washington.

In fact, one gallon of water appears to have the same static weight as it runs in a river from north to south across multiple earth diameters (180° of latitudes) and earth’s corresponding multiple rotation speeds. The standard weight of one US liquid gallon of water is about 8.34 pounds at 62° F. There is no adjustment for the weight of water as to its latitude location. Apparently, gravity makes this adjustment for weights and measures.

If one were to believe the conclusion that gravity makes an adjustment for weights and measures to be accurate and that the conclusion can be proven to be true then you have a fact. Otherwise, if there is some other factor(s) that causes one gallon of water at 62° F to be 8.34 lbs. but it cannot be proven, then you have a theory. Is the theory about how to calculate centrifugal force, or is the theory about whether the earth rotates 360° in a 24 hour time frame?

This is quickly becoming complicated. At what latitude is the one gallon of water at 8.34 pounds at 62° F determined? It has to be dead center of the North or South Pole where there is no centrifugal force. At dead center of the poles, there is no diameter or travel speed to consider for the math components of centrifugal force. For the math of Centrifugal Pounds Force, a gallon of water in Olympia, Washington is 12.415 lbs. as opposed to Dallas, Texas at 19.915 lbs. Otherwise, gravity has made all of the math work out to be that water weight is 8.34 lbs. per gallon regardless of its location in lakes, ponds, and rivers running from the north to the south.

There are “Earth does not move experiments”:  The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed over the spring and summer of 1887 by Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley …an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The result was negative…the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles, was found not to exist; this result…eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether. The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution".  Michelson–Morley type experiments have been repeated many times with steadily increasing sensitivity…recent optical resonator experiments confirmed the absence of any aether wind at the 10−17 level.				

Bradley’s (in 1725) so-called ”aberration of star light” gave the first experimental disproof of the heliocentric hypothesis. A hypothesis is the starting point for further investigation.
http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html

Science cannot be wrong, there surely must be an equation that resolves the conundrum that gravity makes one gallon of water weight be 8.34 lbs. per gallon regardless that earth’s multiple, surface speeds range from 1040 mph at the equator to zero mph at the poles.
Subject: How does a Cessna 172 at flight speed of 161 mph adjust for earth’s rotation speed of 1040 mph at the equator?

In Dallas, Texas latitude 32.7767° N the speed of earth’s rotation is 863.8 mph compared to 537.4 mph at Olympia, Washington latitude 47.0379° N. These different earth rotation speeds are determined from the fact that earth rotates 360° in a 24 hour time frame corresponding to the diameter of the earth at these respective latitudes. In fact, there are 180° of latitudes resulting in earth’s multiple surface speeds ranging from 1040 mph at the equator to zero at the poles.

These multiple speeds are mathematically described as the Coriolis effect (Rotating Earth) for an object that becomes disconnected from earth. Described in “Long Range Shooting Handbook” by Ryan M Cleckner, military snipers have to adjust their sight targeting based on their latitude location as well as the angle of the sniper’s shot relative to his latitude location In an email exchange I had with Mr. Cleckner regarding one parachuting from an airplane, he states “Although I’ve jumped out of a plane many times, I was never in charge of determining the jump point for the drop zone - I can’t speak to how those calculations are made.”

It gets complicated. Degrees of latitude are parallel so the distance between each degree remains almost constant. Each degree of latitude is approximately 69 miles (111 kilometers) apart. Coriolis effect takes into account 180° of latitudes then each half mile, each quarter mile and so on with 360° of angles off each latitude. Does a sniper’s rifle that requires precision targeting have precision GPS? A .30-06 hunting rifle fired due north at the equator has to adjust for earth spin at 1,525 ft. per second. Usually these type rifles are used for taking 350 to 500 yard shots.

The Coriolis effect requires that airline pilots must adjust flight path to reach their target destination. The instrumentation used by airlines is Honeywell: Air Data Inertial Reference System (ADIRS) which includes an Alignment Calibration Module (ACM) for the Coriolis effect (e.g. multiple rotation speeds).

The Coriolis effect is further described and illustrated as an animation on Exploring Earth stating that pilots take the Coriolis effect into account so they do not miss their targets. Exploring Earth states that the analysis is a collaboration with NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center and others (identified at the bottom of the animation web site). View the animation and pay attention, it is misleading. For the animation of south to north - Tierra del Fuego, Argentina directly toward Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – a flight taking an estimated time of five hours, the surface speed of the target destination is 948.5 mph. The target destination would move 4,743 miles; the Earth’s diameter is 7,918 miles.
https://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es1904/es1904page01.cfm

How did WWII vintage aircraft land on an Aircraft Carrier; how is it done with modern day aircraft? ADIRS supposedly provides calibration for point to point navigation. What happens when a Navy pilot (the aircraft is disconnected from earth) arrives at his Aircraft Carrier destination that is on the equator and the target landing “spot” is moving at 1,525 ft. per second?

Neil deGrasse Tyson has even commented that the spinning earth affects football games; that the Coriolis effect does have to be considered regarding the flight of the football on a field goal attempt. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000555398/article/neil-degrasse-tyson-earths-rotation-helped-cincy-win

Regarding these supposedly known facts, then for the objects that are disconnected from earth, the following must be true:

In Dallas Texas, latitude 32.78° N, rotation speed is 863.8 mph:

  1. Hover in a helicopter and you will arrive at your (same latitude as Dallas, Texas) Artesia, NM destination in 31 minutes or your San Diego California destination in one hour and 22 minutes.
  2. A parachute drop of 5,280 ft. (1 mile) descending at an average of 20 mph requires elapsed time of three minutes. The target football stadium moves 43.2 miles.
  3. A field goal kicked from east to west that has a one second flight time has an increased distance of 422 yards.

In a Cessna 172 at 161 mph for a 300 mile flight for the same longitude of 102.07° W:

  1. Earth’s rotation speed at Stratford, Texas is 835.4 mph
     Flying South to North, from Midland Texas to Stratford, TX; the target destination has moved 1,557 Miles.
  2. Earth’s rotation speed at Midland, Texas is 884.2 mph
     Flying North to South, from Stratford, TX to Midland, TX; the target destination has moved 1,647 Miles.

In reality we know that light aircraft, such as a Cessna 172 that has air speed of 161 mph does not have to adjust its flight path to be on target to its destination, a helicopter cannot hover and reach its distant destination and a parachutist or airplane pilot does not have to hit a moving target. So, do these examples represent the utilization of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to maintain a fixed relationship to the rotation of earth?

Science cannot be wrong, there surely must be an equation that reconciles between certain disconnected objects that are - or are not - subject to the Coriolis effect. If you decide to search for the formula or create the formula, remember precision is required:
the earth’s multiple rotation speeds range from 1040 mph at the equator to zero mph at the poles and there are innumerable angles off each of the innumerable latitudes.

For this exercise, do not include the curvature of earth. That can be worked on at a later time.

Nikola Tesla explains the preceding conflicts as follows: “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

Sources:
Honeywell: Air Data Inertial Reference System (ADIRS)


Determine point to point time and distance
https://sunrise-sunset.org/
http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html
Subject: What is to be gained by those who promote a spherical earth and cover up flat earth?

Perhaps at its initial conception of earth as a sphere there was no conscious decision to gain anything. Now that we have the ability to attempt space travel, governments and academia have so much of their power structure based on solar centric science, no one wants to risk what happens when the truth becomes known.

The August 2017 solar eclipse path of totality was 70 miles wide.  A shadow (the path of totality) cannot be smaller than the object (the moon) that causes the shadow.  Therefore, the moon is less than 70 miles wide.

And, science acknowledges the moon and sun is the appearance of being the same size. High altitude balloon (130,000 ft.) videos indicate close proximity of the sun to the earth, likely less than 3,000 miles. The sunspot that shows on the clouds is relatively small; the appearance is that the sunspot is the same size as the sun

It is very likely the sun and moon are at the same distance from earth.

The equations say that a bullet will be deflected only a very small amount. The experiments also show that a bullet is, in fact, only deflected a small amount. If the experiment and equations both agree, but it is your opinions which differ with both, then it is your opinions which must be revised, not the equations or experiments.

So, you know have a staggering lack of knowledge about basic Physics and you want to criticize Scientists?

Wow, just wow.

Read up about eclipses. Esp. penumbras and umbras. Get a big light. Put something smaller in front of it. Put a piece of paper after it. Move the paper farther and farther away. What happens?

This is grade school stuff. Literally.

If you don’t know grade school Science, the best course of action is to trust people who know a billion times more than you.

I’m trying to figure out why you’d assert something that can be disproved by anyone in a few seconds.

I haven’t had any success thus far. Can you help me?

Too long and full of bullshit so I only skimmed it.

Planes might be disconnected from the earth, but they aren’t disconnected from the atmosphere. And the atmosphere moves at more or less the same speed as the earth.

And if the sun and moon are at the same distance, then they should collide during an eclipse. Since that has never happened, then they must not be at the same distance.

And, I’m already exhausted by this tediousness. Read a damn text book instead on loony CT websites.

It may possibly be worth noting that the width of the umbra (the area of totality) varies a lot. It can reach 1000 km at high latitudes, and of course can be zero (in the case of an annular eclipse). (Could this be an indication that the moon regularly shrinks and expands?)

Also notable is the extreme accuracy of eclipse predictions when these are based on the standard model of the solar system. Many hundreds of thousands of people in the US saw the August 2017 eclipse, and in every case the timing they observed matched the prediction, to a fraction of a second.

I’d love to see the formulas that can produce comparable results from a flat earth model.

Link to the column so it can be quickly found :

The key factor here is that it is not just the earth spinning, it is also the earth and everything on it that is spinning as well. So, even when the bullet is fired, it is still subject to the same effects as everything else that is spinning at over 1,000 MPH along with the earth.

Here is a primitive example: A quarterback is flushed out of the pocket and is sprinting horizontally towards the sidelines when he releases a long pass. The football, even though released, is still subject to that “sideways” momentum that was produced from the quarterback’s sprint towards the sidelines.

2200 years ago, Aristarchus estimated the size of the Moon with considerably more accuracy than you have done (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Sizes_and_Distances_(Aristarchus)#Half_Moon). Please recheck your work.

In addition, for the solar eclipse in February 1999 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_February_16,_1999) the area of totality was zero miles wide. What conclusion about the size of the moon can be drawn from that fact?

The moon doesn’t exist, which proves that the moon landings were faked!

Once the football is free it is no longer connected to the q b. He has to throw harder to overcome his own momentum.

Supposedly there is navigation equipment that commercial and military aircraft use for calibrating adjustments to account for the spinning earth; the Coriolis effect. This type equipment is not on a Cessna 172 that flies at 161 mph which has no capability to adjust for earth spinning at 1040 mph at the equator.

I cannot imagine any property of physics that would account for the earth spinning at 1040 mph at the equator amounting to 1,525 ft. per second would cause a targeting adjustment of only a few inches. A formula can be created; however the contradictions that occur keeps the formula at a stage of unproven theory. There is very limited information about Inertial Navigation Systems (INS), because it is a cover up; it is fake. Supposedly, Inertial Navigation Systems deal with the inertia of the spin of the earth speed at the takeoff location point so that the required flight adjustments occur for destination targeting.

Air Data Inertial Reference System (ADIRS) with digital gyros provides automatic re-alignment

Dual Portable Alignment Tool applications include alignment of flight critical surfaces, boresight alignment for weapons systems and calibration of inertial navigation systems.

Our solution makes field level calibration possible by filtering out ambient motion caused by wind, personnel, or other environmental factors. The inertial reference technology eliminates the need for line of sight while maintaining +/- 0.5 mRad accuracy for pitch, roll and yaw.

Supposedly, Coriolis effect must be accounted for in long range missile and artillery systems. The authors (E. Linacre and B. Geerts) http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap11/artillery.html indicate that targeting errors were prior to rifling of the cannon bore. It appears to me that Gustave Coriolis’ observations became the basis of a formula and formulas causing long range targeting adjustments of only a few inches regardless that the earth supposedly spins ranging from zero to 1,525 ft. per second at the equator.

I think that Einstein recognized the problems with Coriolis effect and he then developed the theory of relativity and theory of special relativity. Yet, the Coriolis effect continues to be used by science to quantify the effect of a spinning earth on objects that become disconnected from earth. Science also uses the Eötvös effect which is “the change in perceived gravitational force caused by the change in centrifugal acceleration resulting from eastbound or westbound velocity.”

So, we have three theories: Coriolis effect, Eötvös effect, Gravity and then the “everything moving with the planet” theory of relativity and theory of special relativity; all of these theories are used to explain the forces associated with the spinning earth. And then somehow these theories defy the properties of physics related to the centrifugal force for spin speeds ranging from zero at the North and South Poles to 1040 mph at the equator.

Nikola Tesla explains the contradictions as follows:

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

I believe the properties of physics and centrifugal force are correct. I do agree with you that Coriolis effect and Eötvös effect is wrong. In addition, I believe the theory of relativity and theory of special relativity is wrong and that the theory of gravity is still just a theory.

At the present, I have not found any literature as to how any adjustments are made for the curvature of the earth for long range artillery targeting.

All aircraft utilize gyroscopes to maintain level flight; the gyroscope maintains level orientation to indicate turns, ascent and descent. Especially for instrument flying, the gyroscope is essential when the pilot cannot see the horizon. As to level flight, the gyroscope spins up (calibrates) at ground level before takeoff and there is no feature to adjust for the curvature of the earth for any distance of flight. When an aircraft is enclosed in clouds and the pilot loses sight of the horizon, the pilot is maintaining level flight via the gyroscope which was calibrated at the location of takeoff. Obviously, the distance can be thousands of miles for military aircraft that can be refueled in the air. There is no mechanism to maintain inflight calibration of the gyroscope.

What column is this thread about?

Translation: You don’t know how to use Google.

This is the very first hit for “naval guns curvature of the earth”: Link.

Again, all you are achieving here is displaying a deep lack of basic knowledge.

Once a plane leaves the ground the motion of the air takes over. If there’s a 200mph wind from the North, the pilot corrects for that. Why the air is moving doesn’t matter much. Just how fast and what direction. How can you not understand this at all. Not at all!

What are you going to do next, debunk that Foucault pendulums don’t exist?

Think about this. The ancient Greeks knew the world was round. How does a conspiracy effort perpetuate itself for over 2500 years? There are many thousands of amateur astronomers out there (all of which know much, much more than you apparently do) and they are all magically in on it?

How many excuses are you allowed to perpetuate such a ridiculous idea before you have to face up that you really don’t understand basic facts?

You don’t know how light works, you don’t understand the idea of what an atmosphere is, etc.

Also, what column is that about???

This one:

I had a similar reaction to the fellow who thought that the speed of gravity must be faster than light, even though the predictions of general relativity (in which the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light) match observations of both the solar system and of orbiting neutron stars, just because when he thought about gravity effects being at light speed, the results he imagined didn’t match observations.

The theory that “the Earth and all its atmosphere and weather are all moving with the planet” is sourced from: Special relativity explains motion only if you’re traveling in a straight line at a constant speed and Einstein’s general theory of relativity explains the general case of any sort of motion.

Yet science states for objects that become disconnected from earth, flight path adjustments are required to account for Coriolis effect and Eotvos effect to enable the object to hit the destination, hit the target for aircraft and bullets, e.g. the earth spins at 1,525 ft. per second at the equator as opposed to zero mph at the North and South Poles.
.
Nikola Tesla stated: “Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors.”

Multiple earth speeds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-vIoLzlVoY&feature=youtu.be

Have you read any of the responses to your statements yet?

The basics of atmospheric motion doesn’t have a single bleeping thing to do with relativity. Nothing. Nada.

Furthermore, you clearly do not understand SR or GR at all. How could you? You don’t even understand Newton’s Laws!

This displays an astonishing lack of knowledge of the simplest concepts of Science.

Again. If your ignorance is this astonishing, why are you questioning people who actually know stuff?