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

[Andy_L]

@Chronos

I know that there is no adjustment required for weight at the pole as opposed to the weight of an object at the equator.

Yet one more of the many incorrect things you “know”.

Here, for example, is a detailed discussion on how to adjust a spring scales output to account for difference in gravity https://www.aandd.jp/support/materials/product_training1_balances.pdf

[Irishman]

@snfaulkner

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

It’s too long, so you quoted the whole damn thing?

@Exapno_Mapcase

When a one-step experiment is enough to disprove your claims, your reasoning has failed badly.

Technically, it is not a one step experiment - he had to walk all the way to Ecuador.

[Irishman]

@kertmoore

Notice in the below “Shape of the earth” description the word “slightly” and the phrase “is so slight” to illustrate the flattening of the poles. Compare the miles, the radius of the poles is 3,949.90 miles and radius of the equator 3,963.19 miles. The North Pole radius is 13 miles less than the equator!!!

The description of only a difference of 13 miles radius amounts to a difference of 26 miles diameter. The description is a round object at its height midpoint has a diameter of 7,926 miles. The diameter of the poles is 7,900 miles. The description is a round object that has a flat top and a flat bottom. The radius of 7,900 miles is a very long distance. The distance from the North Pole to the South Pole is 12,416 miles. 7,900 miles North Pole, then 12,416 on each side of the round object down to the South Pole that is 7,900 miles across the pole. The area of 7,900 miles that is flat is far from being slight.

Bearing and Distance Calculator With Maps

The shape of the earth
"The earth is not a true sphere but rather an oblate ellipsoid (sometimes called an oblate spheroid) with the poles being slightly flattened and the equatorial regions being slightly bulged out. The earth would be nearly spherical if it were stationary, but because it rotates, the centripetel force of its rotation causes the equatorial regions to bulge out.

The earth’s polar flattening is about 1 part in 298, resulting in an equatorial radius of 3,963.191 miles (6378.137 km) and a polar radius of 3,949.903 miles (6356.7523 km). The polar flattening is so slight that it would be hard to detect with the human eye alone, however, it does make a significant difference when calculating long distances on the surface of the earth."

The description of 7,900 miles wide North Pole and 7,900 miles wide South Pole is significant for how the radius would affect other calculations. The radius is for sure used to calculate speed of the earth spin.

Rotational Speed at Latitude

At latitude 89.75, speed of the spin is 4.539 mph. However, the previous description states the radius of the Poles is 3,949.9 miles and Earth Radius by Latitude Calculator calculates the radius to be 3,949.90 at latitude 89.75. Latitude 89.75 is 17 miles from dead center of the Poles. At latitude 60, radius is 3,953.2 miles and diameter is 7,906.49 miles. Latitude 60 is approximately 2,070 miles from the Poles (69 miles each degree of latitude). After traveling from the North Pole 2,070 miles to latitude 60, diameter at latitude 60 has increased by 6.6 miles compared to the North Pole. This is a very flat area.

Very odd unreal conclusion: travel 2,070 miles from the North Pole to latitude 60 and one has only traveled 3.3 miles from the North Pole; the radius has increased only 3.3 miles. If the conclusion I have made is wrong, I would like to know the correct way to interpret the radius calculator.

You keep repeating this as if it means something, so I will try to explain.

Your description reads as if you are envisioning the Earth as a cylinder, with two flat ends (i.e. the poles) and then two long parallel sides that are minisculely curved. That is incorrect.

Take a tennis ball. Place it in a tabletop. Now push down on the top a bit. You will observe that the top and bottom (i.e. area under your palm and area against the table) flex inward, and the area around the middle (i.e. equator) bulges out slightly. This is what is meant by an “oblate spheroid” or “oblate ellipsoid” - a slightly squished ball.

For a sphere, the diameter must go through the center, and the radius must be measured from that center.

When you say “Very odd unreal conclusion: travel 2,070 miles from the North Pole to latitude 60 and one has only traveled 3.3 miles from the North Pole; the radius has increased only 3.3 miles,” you seem to be looking at the radius as being flat under the pole, like slicing the Earth into disks parallel to the equator. This is wrong. The radius increase of 3.3 miles is a comparison of each radius as projected through the center of the Earth. Traveling 2,070 miles from the exact pole along the surface of the Earth, those radiuses will not be parallel to reach other.

The 3.3 miles has nothing to do with a linear distance between the two points. That distance is … wait for it … 2,070 miles. The altitude had changed 3.3 miles, but it is moved horizontally (i.e. “clocked”, or rotated) that 2,070 miles.

[Irishman]

@kertmoore

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?

There are two fundamental mistakes you are making here.

1. You are forgetting about inertia.

2. You are assuming the atmosphere is completely disconnected from the surface of the Earth. This is incorrect. They are decoupled, but not completely disconnected.

Acknowledge these two misunderstandings and I might consider engaging more fully to help you understand.

Our you can just repeat your erroneous statements as if they are facts, and quote Tesla as if he is more important than any other scientist, much less the bulk of scientific learning since at least the Greeks, and maybe the Babylonians.

[Irishman]

@ftg

Have you never looked at the shadow of your plane as you gained altitude???

“That’s just perspective making it look smaller the further away I go.”

@kertmoore

I am saying science starts with a theory and then leads the public into believing the theory to be fact without proof. Science repeats and repeats theory in terms of fact statements.

This is just false. Theories are just explanations. Science is the process of collecting and evaluating data to confirm or deny proposed theories.

If “science” did as you say, there would never be a revolution in science. Relativity wouldn’t have happened. Plate tectonics wouldn’t have been discovered. Natural Selection and genetics wouldn’t be understood at all. The Germ Theory of disease would never have gotten accepted. Homeopathy and astrology would be widespread.

If your statement is more that most people don’t know or understand the evidence very well, you might have a point. It is hard to be an expert in all of science. Having a passing knowledge of some parts is all most of us can hope to accomplish. That doesn’t mean “science” doesn’t have proof*, that just means learning the details for any one concept takes a lot of time - years.

---

• Science doesn’t really deal in “proof”. It looks at and collects evidence until the results are pretty conclusive. I guess you could call that “proof”.

[snfaulkner]

Yes, I typed in the entire post into my response instead of just clicking a button…

[Irishman]

I said nothing about how much you typed. If it is too long to read, quoting it all doesn’t make it shorter.

[snfaulkner]

Please don’t ask me to explain myself from 2 yrs ago. I’ve had a lot of beer since then and moved halfway across the country.

But I can guess that it’s faster to just click quote and respond than to screw around with the specific parts that needed addressing.

[Hatchie]

Kertmoore I know you haven’t posted here for two years but I trust you will read this. Don’t give up! I find your ideas to be very interesting as they relate to my plan (in MPSIMS as it is jocularly referred to by its many regulars, fools and naysayers all) to solidify the core of Planet Earth (Terra).

Now that I understand just what a danger centrificle force can be I fear there might be even more trouble ahead from stuff that never occurred to me - bad enough there’s nothing but a crust like onion skin between our feet and all that molten iron, now you tell me it all wants to be flung outward which makes sense when you think about it but is not exactly great for my insomnia.

I give up! There’s one hope left now, if I can just get Cong.Ted Yoho on board we may be able to reverse this mess, otherwise we might as well hand the keys to Fort Knox to the Kremlin.

[Irishman]

Wait, did I just multipost to a zombie thread? Yikes, you win.

[Andy_L]

Sorry guys. I ran across the guidelines for adjusting the outputs of a spring scale for different latitudes and posted it without noting that I was replying to a zombie thread.

[TriPolar]

What are you apologizing for? That’s useful information. And it will be very helpful to some day determine if zombies weigh the same at the North Pole as they do in Ecuador.

[Slow_Moving_Vehicle]

I’m disappointed that this is a two year old zombie. I thought we’d finally found a spiritual successor to cladking. Was hoping he’d come back to ask if we thought Tesla was a stinky-footed bumpkin.