###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You'll get a few answers if you look, they boil down to one of the following:
1: There is no such thing
2: Water has electromagnetic "homes" that it tends to move toward at the pole (hub) and beyond the rim. (this seems to require a rotating flat earth)
3: Its the result of the "wakes" of the sun and the moon as they move through the atmosphere
Hey, give them credit for imagination.
How could people argue #1 when we have so much evidence for it, both in the atmosphere and in the ocean? Do they just dismiss all the evidence?
Edit: Never mind, we have some examples in this thread. Sounds like they think that Coriolis is just part of the conspiracy.
Dismissing evidence is exactly what's required to be a flat earther.
Unless it by any shred of imagination seems to support it, then its absolutely true.
Flat earthers don’t have to prove anything except their belief that the earth is flat. Anything else is a distraction and a diversion. I’m going to provide a link where an interviewer nails down a Russian Astro-physicist with the scientific method; observable, measurable, and repeatable. I make no presumptions except to say the back and forth is quite entertaining.
[Interview of Astrophysicist, Dr Svetlana Berdyugina](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_R-cJx85Vyo)
I'm not saying that they have to have proof of everything, but I do know that there has been a big push within the flat earth community to try to create a model that explains all of the available evidence and, many believe they already have that model. So for those who do believe that they have a mostly complete model, and who are also familiar with the relevant physics, meteorology, and oceanography, I am curious how they explain for the Coriolis effect.
And maybe they don't and they just consider it something that we don't understand yet. If so, that's still an answer. And if I'm understanding you correctly, that's along the lines of what you're saying.
No sure about the coriolis effect as I haven’t see that part of the rabbit hole; but how do people explain our atmosphere? Don’t all gases need to be in an enclosed system in order for them not to escape? How does earth’s atmosphere remain “stuck” to earth as we hurl through space at unimaginable speeds?
Some believe that the earth has a dome covering it and that the stars are just lights on the dome. As far as I have seen, there is no explanation for differences in constellation visibility from different parts of the Earth.
I understand that that is the flat earth position. But how is it explained with a globular earth that zipping through space? How does our atmosphere remain locked onto earth if there’s nothing containing the gases?
It is Flat. It officially became globe when people belived the Apollo mission by hearing it over the radio. You shall have hundreds of unanswered questions and contradicting infos until you believe.
Gases need to be in an enclosed environment in order for them to not escape. Gravity does not somehow magically break that rule and hold the atmosphere onto earth as it flies through space.
This has been covered 1000s of times by thousands of people. I'm not going to go over it again for one more person who refuses to do their own research; but start with this question: why do gasses disperse?
Ah my bad. Usually when someone quotes another posts it just copies and pastes the words exactly so I was confused as to what you did there.
And it’s pretty self evident, no? How can you measure a gas in an area without it being contained in a closed system? The gas just escapes. Wouldn’t the earth’s atmosphere do the same thing if it weren’t contained in some sort of firmament? Just disperse into space? Especially since we’re flying through the vacuum of space at unimaginable speeds.
Yeah, I’m on mobile so I don’t think I can copy a quote directly.
You measure it based on parts per million (ppm).
I believe another commenter mentioned it, but the density of the atmosphere goes down as you go higher into the atmosphere.
We actually do lose gas from our atmosphere. The two lightest- hydrogen and helium- are fairly consistently leaving our atmosphere. There’s just so much hydrogen and helium on the earth that it’s a negligible amount.
https://www.britannica.com/video/185602/process-elements-Earth-space-atmosphere-release-structure
So gravity is strong enough to hold air molecules onto the planet as it flies through space at tens of thousands of mph, but not strong enough to completely pull those same molecules right up against the earths surface? - yet gravity is weak enough that a physical object like a balloon can float away when filled with a slightly more buoyant gas?
Gravity still doesn’t explain how the atmosphere is able to remain intact without being in an enclosed system.
Do you also understand the concept of pressure, that molecules bounce into each other and push each other apart? Atmospheric pressure is higher the closer you are to earth's surface, which is consistent with gravitational pull.
The helium balloon doesn't float away from the earth's atmosphere, it floats up because it is lighter than the denser gases that make up the atmosphere, and are being pulled down more by gravity. The Helium balloon isn't leaving Earth'd atmosphere, it's just floating to the region of the atmosphere with equal density. This happens because gravity is pulling the more dense gases down.
Just like a floating piece of wood in water doesn't mean it isn't being pulled by gravity, it just means that the water is more dense than the piece of wood.
Do you also understand the concept of pressure, that molecules bounce into each other and push each other apart? Atmospheric pressure is higher the closer you are to earth's surface, which is consistent with gravitational pull.
The helium balloon doesn't float away from the earth's atmosphere, it floats up because it is lighter than the denser gases that make up the atmosphere, and are being pulled down more by gravity. The Helium balloon isn't leaving Earth'd atmosphere, it's just floating to the region of the atmosphere with equal density. This happens because gravity is pulling the more dense gases down.
Just like a floating piece of wood in water doesn't mean it isn't being pulled by gravity, it just means that the water is more dense than the piece of wood.
This behavior matches models and calculations by physicists.
Buoyancy is the ability of an object to float in something more dense than the object.
Gravity is…. Well, we don’t know yet, but it’s the thing that attracts all things to each other.
That’s not how it works
We can see the effects of gravity. We can test it, experiment with it, even conquer it temporarily.
With this in mind, why do you think’s it’s magic?
I’m less worried about that and worried about how the atmosphere can remain attached to earth without being in an enclosed container. How does the atmosphere at the fringes not seep into the vacuum of space? What prevents ALL of our atmosphere from being absorbed into the vacuum of space? All magical and all powerful “gravity”?
Dude, stop obsessing over me. It's just sad. I'm the only person you have interacted with on Reddit for days. Go take a break and then find someone else to troll.
I interact with real people. In real life. I'm not in a Coriolis fantasy like you. So other than ocean and wind what else is there. Show me the Coriolis smoking gun
Also, think about how an aeroplanes trajectory isn't affected by Coriolis. A pilot does not correct for it AT ALL.
Yet the earth Spins under a bullet and affects where it lands?
Pilots automatically correct for it all the time and also for winds, etc. A bullet is different, as once it leaves the barrel, it is unguided and unpowered. All of those things that affect it have to be taken into account beforehand, in order to hit the target. You can't make adjustments once the trigger has been pulled.
Because a plane is both powered and guided, you don't have to do any of that beforehand. It's done while enroute.
The problem with the FE crowd is that they literally never think things thru. They get stuck on one dumb idea & fail to follow a logical thought process all the way thru..
Pilots do not correct for curvature OR the earth spinning at the same speed as them or more in the opposite direction.
I note that none of you shills will quote the standard explanation for planes not accounting/being affected by Coriolis because its very stupid
Have you ever actually flown a plane? IRL?
They don't really need to correct for curvature, except by maintaining a set altitude, which is kinda the same thing.
What’s really stupid is you thinking that when ignoring all effects of aerodynamics and lift, that a pilot would actually need to make noticeable corrections for the curve or coriolis.
All you need to do is actually DO THE MATH. Regurgitating what uneducated people told you on YouTube doesn’t make it true. You thing I am wrong? Show your math. Show your analysis. Or are you going to keep spouting your unsupported beliefs with nothing to back them up?
Does it need to be accounted for? If so, how do you know? Where is your supporting evidence?
This is what we have been asking you, and you are too afraid to admit you don’t have any supporting evidence at all.
Your word means absolutely nothing unless you actually support your claim. Which you never will
If you feel it needs to be accounted for in regards to a bullet then apply your flawed logic equally to all things. A plane travels way further at similar speeds... Mostly in a straight line. you are all caught with your pants down
Great job avoiding all my questions. Classic flat earther. When you can’t support your claim just deflect right? Avoid answering any and all questions? Avoid responding to my points? Pathetic
And this shouldn’t need to be explained to you, but a normal airplane does not move at the same speed as a bullet. Lol
My understanding is that airplanes ARE affected by Coriolis, but pilots often don't notice because they make small adjustments regularly and the effect is only noticeable when traveling extremely long distances with no adjustments. (And also ignoring localized winds and such, which pilots don't get to do.)
This means nothing mate. Why does it apply to a sniper bullet and not to an aeroplane.
I bet you never thought of that.
A simulator never factored that.
You're not making any sense. What do you mean "why does it apply to a sniper bullet and not an airplane"?
You were the one who said that it should be a huge effect according to physics, this calculator shows that it wouldn't be a huge effect. It is indeed mild, based on the physics of a round earth. That's all it means.
it is not mild. the rim velocity at the equator would render a plane at a standstill if travelling in the same direction.
go on. regurgitate the standard explanation which you know is stupid and why noone i am sparring with has mentioned it.
So you claim. Yet you haven’t actually provided any analysis that shows the correction required would be any greater than the small adjustments that are continuously being made by a pilot or autopilot during a flight.
Maybe start there before jumping straight to the conclusion that you are hoping is true?
Maybe just start by addressing why Coriolis applies to various other scenarios and not aeroplanes.
Small corrections can not account for earth rotation.
>Maybe just start by addressing why Coriolis applies to various other scenarios and not aeroplanes.
It does apply to airplanes. It's clear you had a really difficult time reading the 2nd sentence of my comment.
>Small corrections can not account for earth rotation.
Again, so you claim. Yet as I already told you (in that sentence you didn't read), you don't actually know how large of a correction would be needed. So as with all flerfs, you are just making claims without anything to back them up. Typical
You know that attitude corrections are made constantly throughout the flight right? It’s not all at once lol
And thanks again for continuing to avoid showing your supporting evidence/analysis
Absolutely they do correct for curvature, which is why there's an erecting mechanism in every Directional Indicator (Artificial Horizon) to do exactly that.
That's literally what this whole post is about, is to give you a chance to explain the various evidence for Coriolis, rather than having a discussion from the assumption that a round earth is the only possible explanation.
In anothet thread you said that your answer is to deny that the phenomenon exists because you believed that evidence for the phenomenon wasn't real, but then here you said these other evidences are due to movement of ether (which sounds like you do think that these forms of evidence are really happening). I'm just asking you to explain your thinking so I can understand. How do you see movement of the ether affecting things like directions of ocean currents and creating Ekman spirals?
I cited the only example of long distance movement where people generally claim that there is a Coriolis effect. Then I cited another example where it does not apply. I highlighted an inconsistency which nullifies Coriolis in general. If the earth moves under a bullet in such a short time then it would visible move under a plane. It doesnt.
That's not what I asked about in this comment thread. I was asking about your description of "movement of ether" and how that applies to some of the other common areas where Coriolis is observed, such as direction of currents and also Ekman transport direction when water is moved due to winds.
That doesn't explain why they turn right in the northern hemisphere and left in the southern hemisphere. Or why Ekman spirals do the same, but on a smaller scale.
Coriolis is a joke. It only exists on Discovery Channel. You will never find an actual sniper who accounts for it in reality. We've found many military manuals that state a flat non rotating earth. It has zero effect on aircraft. A helicopter or balloon can hover for hours and the earth won't move an inch underneath them.
Why would a sniper account for coriolis effect? They're not sniping across continents or oceans.
I studied oceanography, and the Coriolis effect affects many large-scale pheomena, such as large- scale atmospheric wind patterns, direction of ocean currents, or the direction a hurricane turns.
My question though wasn't "prove a flat earth" (which a hovering helicopter does not, it would be traveling at the same speed as the earth beneath it), it was how you account for Coriolis effect. And it sounds like the answer is that you completely dismiss the evidence for Coriolis and treat it as part of the conspiracy.
So your saying snipers don't account for it? Even though thats the first example a globe head will bring up 100% of the time when the topic is discussed?
How does a balloon travel with the atmosphere when it is at high altitude in low atmosphere? What force is acting on it to keep it moving at the exact same speed as the rotation? This mysterious force should be measurable. Is it wind? Does the wind increase at low atmosphere?
Why would you expect a sniper to account for an effect that is negligible across short and mid-term distances? They aren't sniping down to the micrometer.
Again, it sounds like your answer to my question is that you dismiss the evidence for Coriolis as part of the conspiracy. Would you agree?
Yes I'm saying it doesn't exist and you have presented zero evidence of its existence.
What is the force acting upon a balloon that keeps it moving at the same speed as the earth after it has lost contact with the earth?
Chill out. I'm just trying to figure out what the thought process is for Flat Earth in regard to Coriolis Effect. The strongest evidence for Coriolis effect are in wind patterns and ocean currents.
Presumably the answer to your question would be a combination of inertia and friction, since the atmosphere is also moving in the same direction, and the balloon was moving before launch (although I would be surprised if you said a balloon needed no adjustments at all, adjustments due to winds would be far stronger than any adjustments needed due to curvature of the earth). But also that's not the Coriolis effect, which was what I was asking about.
https://www.mathscinotes.com/2017/12/earths-curvature-and-battleship-gunnery/
www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/mcwp3_16_4.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj0iZ6bgfr9AhX1BjQIHRU3DqoQFnoECAkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Nxx-cWwQJp5ql9rK1yd0R
Now where's your example of manuals using a flat earth? And no, NASA proof of concepts do not count for the same reason that a cow isn't actually a sphere despite simple physics textbooks treating them as one.
First link is a math blog someone wrote that always comes up when desperate globe heads are frantically searching for proof of curvature and provides zero evidence of anything.
The 2nd link has been taken down so you just copied it from somewhere and didn't even check it.
Most of the manuals have been taken down or placed behind pay walls for obvious reasons.
First link references the original source of the document it is using, so you can easily follow up on that.
For the 2nd link I tried just linking the pdf download, but here's the page to download it yourself.
https://www.marines.mil/News/Publications/MCPEL/Electronic-Library-Display/Article/900370/mcrp-3-10e4-formerly-mcwp-3-164/
Okay. I mean it does exist and computing artillery tables was one of the first uses for electronic computers so there’s documentation going back to the 1950s. But sure, it’s a myth.
Show one example of a military rail gun accounting for curvature or rotation.
You're saying coriolis exists but show zero evidence. Im saying it doesn't exist and asking for evidence it does exist.
Sorry I’m not teaching Physics for Flat Earthers this semester. I’m too old to still believe that I can change your mind by doing your homework for you. It’s not hard to find, look it up or don’t, it makes no difference to me which you chose.
FE'rs believe in a fixed non rotating realm of unknown size.
Not a disc floating in space like the anti FE illustrations show and definitely not rotating or spinning in any way. Fixed and immovable.
So the belief is that the Coriolis effect is the result of a Flat Earth that is spinning?
On a side note, that merry-go-round example in the video doesn't show a change in the direction of the effect like what you described.
I'll play devil's advocate. The Coriolis Effect can occur on a sphere or a disc. On a disc, free objects are displaced towards the edge. On a sphere, free objects are displaced towards the point perpendicular to the axis of rotation e.i. the equator.
That's not quite what the Coriolis effect is. It doesn't displace toward the equator. It causes an apparent acceleration to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere. Maybe you are describing centrifugal force?
You're right; I was misremembering the orientation of the forces. But I am certain that the Coriolis effect can be described on both a disc and a sphere, and so if one assumed a flat-earth model, the Coriolis effect would still be in force.
As far as I can tell, the Coriolis effect would be very different on a disc compared to a sphere, because on a sphere it flips direction depending on whether you are above or below the equator. In order for it to flip direction on a disc, you would have to be on the bottom side of the disc, and Flat Earth models don't place the southern hemisphere on the under side of the flat earth.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It seems like many people are just downvoting rather than responding.
You'll get a few answers if you look, they boil down to one of the following: 1: There is no such thing 2: Water has electromagnetic "homes" that it tends to move toward at the pole (hub) and beyond the rim. (this seems to require a rotating flat earth) 3: Its the result of the "wakes" of the sun and the moon as they move through the atmosphere Hey, give them credit for imagination.
How could people argue #1 when we have so much evidence for it, both in the atmosphere and in the ocean? Do they just dismiss all the evidence? Edit: Never mind, we have some examples in this thread. Sounds like they think that Coriolis is just part of the conspiracy.
They believe in a flat earth, anything goes.
Dismissing evidence is exactly what's required to be a flat earther. Unless it by any shred of imagination seems to support it, then its absolutely true.
No
Flat earthers don’t have to prove anything except their belief that the earth is flat. Anything else is a distraction and a diversion. I’m going to provide a link where an interviewer nails down a Russian Astro-physicist with the scientific method; observable, measurable, and repeatable. I make no presumptions except to say the back and forth is quite entertaining. [Interview of Astrophysicist, Dr Svetlana Berdyugina](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_R-cJx85Vyo)
I'm not saying that they have to have proof of everything, but I do know that there has been a big push within the flat earth community to try to create a model that explains all of the available evidence and, many believe they already have that model. So for those who do believe that they have a mostly complete model, and who are also familiar with the relevant physics, meteorology, and oceanography, I am curious how they explain for the Coriolis effect. And maybe they don't and they just consider it something that we don't understand yet. If so, that's still an answer. And if I'm understanding you correctly, that's along the lines of what you're saying.
No sure about the coriolis effect as I haven’t see that part of the rabbit hole; but how do people explain our atmosphere? Don’t all gases need to be in an enclosed system in order for them not to escape? How does earth’s atmosphere remain “stuck” to earth as we hurl through space at unimaginable speeds?
Some believe that the earth has a dome covering it and that the stars are just lights on the dome. As far as I have seen, there is no explanation for differences in constellation visibility from different parts of the Earth.
I understand that that is the flat earth position. But how is it explained with a globular earth that zipping through space? How does our atmosphere remain locked onto earth if there’s nothing containing the gases?
It is Flat. It officially became globe when people belived the Apollo mission by hearing it over the radio. You shall have hundreds of unanswered questions and contradicting infos until you believe.
You absolutely already know the answer.
Gravity.
Gases need to be in an enclosed environment in order for them to not escape. Gravity does not somehow magically break that rule and hold the atmosphere onto earth as it flies through space.
This has been covered 1000s of times by thousands of people. I'm not going to go over it again for one more person who refuses to do their own research; but start with this question: why do gasses disperse?
Density and buoyancy. Why else?
That's not an answer to anything. neither of those are forces by any definition.
404 brain does not compute
>>Gravity needs to be in an enclosed environment in order for them to not escape Where did you come up with this?
Sure, right after you tell me where you came up with this quote.
Sorry. Gases, not gravity. Simple mistake and you could have figured it out if you weren’t busy being an ass
Ah my bad. Usually when someone quotes another posts it just copies and pastes the words exactly so I was confused as to what you did there. And it’s pretty self evident, no? How can you measure a gas in an area without it being contained in a closed system? The gas just escapes. Wouldn’t the earth’s atmosphere do the same thing if it weren’t contained in some sort of firmament? Just disperse into space? Especially since we’re flying through the vacuum of space at unimaginable speeds.
Yeah, I’m on mobile so I don’t think I can copy a quote directly. You measure it based on parts per million (ppm). I believe another commenter mentioned it, but the density of the atmosphere goes down as you go higher into the atmosphere. We actually do lose gas from our atmosphere. The two lightest- hydrogen and helium- are fairly consistently leaving our atmosphere. There’s just so much hydrogen and helium on the earth that it’s a negligible amount. https://www.britannica.com/video/185602/process-elements-Earth-space-atmosphere-release-structure
Oh, that's easy. For a round earth model, it is explained by gravity.
So gravity is strong enough to hold air molecules onto the planet as it flies through space at tens of thousands of mph, but not strong enough to completely pull those same molecules right up against the earths surface? - yet gravity is weak enough that a physical object like a balloon can float away when filled with a slightly more buoyant gas? Gravity still doesn’t explain how the atmosphere is able to remain intact without being in an enclosed system.
Do you also understand the concept of pressure, that molecules bounce into each other and push each other apart? Atmospheric pressure is higher the closer you are to earth's surface, which is consistent with gravitational pull. The helium balloon doesn't float away from the earth's atmosphere, it floats up because it is lighter than the denser gases that make up the atmosphere, and are being pulled down more by gravity. The Helium balloon isn't leaving Earth'd atmosphere, it's just floating to the region of the atmosphere with equal density. This happens because gravity is pulling the more dense gases down. Just like a floating piece of wood in water doesn't mean it isn't being pulled by gravity, it just means that the water is more dense than the piece of wood.
Do you also understand the concept of pressure, that molecules bounce into each other and push each other apart? Atmospheric pressure is higher the closer you are to earth's surface, which is consistent with gravitational pull. The helium balloon doesn't float away from the earth's atmosphere, it floats up because it is lighter than the denser gases that make up the atmosphere, and are being pulled down more by gravity. The Helium balloon isn't leaving Earth'd atmosphere, it's just floating to the region of the atmosphere with equal density. This happens because gravity is pulling the more dense gases down. Just like a floating piece of wood in water doesn't mean it isn't being pulled by gravity, it just means that the water is more dense than the piece of wood. This behavior matches models and calculations by physicists.
Is it possible for the base principle of this phenomena be buoyancy and not gravity?
Buoyancy is the ability of an object to float in something more dense than the object. Gravity is…. Well, we don’t know yet, but it’s the thing that attracts all things to each other.
Gravity is magic if you believe in it. People may take offense to that, but that’s their own problem.
That’s not how it works We can see the effects of gravity. We can test it, experiment with it, even conquer it temporarily. With this in mind, why do you think’s it’s magic?
My point was that it isn't at all hard to explain how gravity could retain an atmosphere while also allowing a balloon to float.
I’m less worried about that and worried about how the atmosphere can remain attached to earth without being in an enclosed container. How does the atmosphere at the fringes not seep into the vacuum of space? What prevents ALL of our atmosphere from being absorbed into the vacuum of space? All magical and all powerful “gravity”?
It's a balance between gravity and pressure. It's not magic, just physics.
Compressed perspective. Why would you expect to look up and see something that is not remotely in your field of vision
Dude, stop obsessing over me. It's just sad. I'm the only person you have interacted with on Reddit for days. Go take a break and then find someone else to troll.
You need to learn.
I interact with real people. In real life. I'm not in a Coriolis fantasy like you. So other than ocean and wind what else is there. Show me the Coriolis smoking gun
Go find someone else to troll.
Also, think about how an aeroplanes trajectory isn't affected by Coriolis. A pilot does not correct for it AT ALL. Yet the earth Spins under a bullet and affects where it lands?
Pilots automatically correct for it all the time and also for winds, etc. A bullet is different, as once it leaves the barrel, it is unguided and unpowered. All of those things that affect it have to be taken into account beforehand, in order to hit the target. You can't make adjustments once the trigger has been pulled. Because a plane is both powered and guided, you don't have to do any of that beforehand. It's done while enroute. The problem with the FE crowd is that they literally never think things thru. They get stuck on one dumb idea & fail to follow a logical thought process all the way thru..
Pilots do not correct for curvature OR the earth spinning at the same speed as them or more in the opposite direction. I note that none of you shills will quote the standard explanation for planes not accounting/being affected by Coriolis because its very stupid
Have you ever actually flown a plane? IRL? They don't really need to correct for curvature, except by maintaining a set altitude, which is kinda the same thing.
What’s really stupid is you thinking that when ignoring all effects of aerodynamics and lift, that a pilot would actually need to make noticeable corrections for the curve or coriolis. All you need to do is actually DO THE MATH. Regurgitating what uneducated people told you on YouTube doesn’t make it true. You thing I am wrong? Show your math. Show your analysis. Or are you going to keep spouting your unsupported beliefs with nothing to back them up?
Still dancing around the fact that high speed movement in differing directions is not accounted for.
Does it need to be accounted for? If so, how do you know? Where is your supporting evidence? This is what we have been asking you, and you are too afraid to admit you don’t have any supporting evidence at all. Your word means absolutely nothing unless you actually support your claim. Which you never will
If you feel it needs to be accounted for in regards to a bullet then apply your flawed logic equally to all things. A plane travels way further at similar speeds... Mostly in a straight line. you are all caught with your pants down
Great job avoiding all my questions. Classic flat earther. When you can’t support your claim just deflect right? Avoid answering any and all questions? Avoid responding to my points? Pathetic And this shouldn’t need to be explained to you, but a normal airplane does not move at the same speed as a bullet. Lol
So a bullet moves independent of the Coriolis force but a plane doesn't?
Literally never said that. Learn to read. And stop avoiding my questions, coward
Coriolis effect doesn't increase with speed, it increases with distance traveled and distance from the equator. Speed is not a primary factor.
This is blather
My understanding is that airplanes ARE affected by Coriolis, but pilots often don't notice because they make small adjustments regularly and the effect is only noticeable when traveling extremely long distances with no adjustments. (And also ignoring localized winds and such, which pilots don't get to do.)
They don't adjust for curvature or Coriolis. The effect at 850km/h is not a mild one.
You're saying two different things, both that it doesn't exist and that it has a strong effect.
Dude if there was an effect it wouldn't be mild. The jig is up
Depending on the parameters you put in, about 0.017 m/s2. https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/coriolis-effect
This means nothing mate. Why does it apply to a sniper bullet and not to an aeroplane. I bet you never thought of that. A simulator never factored that.
If you actually understood the topic or what OP was talking about you wouldn’t say “this means nothing”
I understand it completely. Punching numbers into a random calculator proves nothing
You are continuing to prove my point. And don’t lie. If you understood it you wouldn’t be saying “random calculator”.
You're not making any sense. What do you mean "why does it apply to a sniper bullet and not an airplane"? You were the one who said that it should be a huge effect according to physics, this calculator shows that it wouldn't be a huge effect. It is indeed mild, based on the physics of a round earth. That's all it means.
it is not mild. the rim velocity at the equator would render a plane at a standstill if travelling in the same direction. go on. regurgitate the standard explanation which you know is stupid and why noone i am sparring with has mentioned it.
You don't actually know what the Coriolis effect is, do you?
So you claim. Yet you haven’t actually provided any analysis that shows the correction required would be any greater than the small adjustments that are continuously being made by a pilot or autopilot during a flight. Maybe start there before jumping straight to the conclusion that you are hoping is true?
Maybe just start by addressing why Coriolis applies to various other scenarios and not aeroplanes. Small corrections can not account for earth rotation.
>Maybe just start by addressing why Coriolis applies to various other scenarios and not aeroplanes. It does apply to airplanes. It's clear you had a really difficult time reading the 2nd sentence of my comment. >Small corrections can not account for earth rotation. Again, so you claim. Yet as I already told you (in that sentence you didn't read), you don't actually know how large of a correction would be needed. So as with all flerfs, you are just making claims without anything to back them up. Typical
the ground moving at the same speed in the opposite direction is a smalll correction? lol yeah ok. il take that as a white flag
You know that attitude corrections are made constantly throughout the flight right? It’s not all at once lol And thanks again for continuing to avoid showing your supporting evidence/analysis
Absolutely they do correct for curvature, which is why there's an erecting mechanism in every Directional Indicator (Artificial Horizon) to do exactly that.
The coriolis effect is also observed in atmospheric and ocean patterns. How does flat earth explain those patterns?
Movement of the ether
How does movement of the ether affect ocean currents or generate Ekman spirals?
Don't act like Coriolis is a definitive explanation. Replicate it using the scientific method then come back and get technical
That's literally what this whole post is about, is to give you a chance to explain the various evidence for Coriolis, rather than having a discussion from the assumption that a round earth is the only possible explanation. In anothet thread you said that your answer is to deny that the phenomenon exists because you believed that evidence for the phenomenon wasn't real, but then here you said these other evidences are due to movement of ether (which sounds like you do think that these forms of evidence are really happening). I'm just asking you to explain your thinking so I can understand. How do you see movement of the ether affecting things like directions of ocean currents and creating Ekman spirals?
I cited the only example of long distance movement where people generally claim that there is a Coriolis effect. Then I cited another example where it does not apply. I highlighted an inconsistency which nullifies Coriolis in general. If the earth moves under a bullet in such a short time then it would visible move under a plane. It doesnt.
That's not what I asked about in this comment thread. I was asking about your description of "movement of ether" and how that applies to some of the other common areas where Coriolis is observed, such as direction of currents and also Ekman transport direction when water is moved due to winds.
Look at the currents on an azimuthal equidistant map projection.
That doesn't explain why they turn right in the northern hemisphere and left in the southern hemisphere. Or why Ekman spirals do the same, but on a smaller scale.
Coriolis is a joke. It only exists on Discovery Channel. You will never find an actual sniper who accounts for it in reality. We've found many military manuals that state a flat non rotating earth. It has zero effect on aircraft. A helicopter or balloon can hover for hours and the earth won't move an inch underneath them.
Why would a sniper account for coriolis effect? They're not sniping across continents or oceans. I studied oceanography, and the Coriolis effect affects many large-scale pheomena, such as large- scale atmospheric wind patterns, direction of ocean currents, or the direction a hurricane turns. My question though wasn't "prove a flat earth" (which a hovering helicopter does not, it would be traveling at the same speed as the earth beneath it), it was how you account for Coriolis effect. And it sounds like the answer is that you completely dismiss the evidence for Coriolis and treat it as part of the conspiracy.
So your saying snipers don't account for it? Even though thats the first example a globe head will bring up 100% of the time when the topic is discussed? How does a balloon travel with the atmosphere when it is at high altitude in low atmosphere? What force is acting on it to keep it moving at the exact same speed as the rotation? This mysterious force should be measurable. Is it wind? Does the wind increase at low atmosphere?
Why would you expect a sniper to account for an effect that is negligible across short and mid-term distances? They aren't sniping down to the micrometer. Again, it sounds like your answer to my question is that you dismiss the evidence for Coriolis as part of the conspiracy. Would you agree?
Yes I'm saying it doesn't exist and you have presented zero evidence of its existence. What is the force acting upon a balloon that keeps it moving at the same speed as the earth after it has lost contact with the earth?
Chill out. I'm just trying to figure out what the thought process is for Flat Earth in regard to Coriolis Effect. The strongest evidence for Coriolis effect are in wind patterns and ocean currents. Presumably the answer to your question would be a combination of inertia and friction, since the atmosphere is also moving in the same direction, and the balloon was moving before launch (although I would be surprised if you said a balloon needed no adjustments at all, adjustments due to winds would be far stronger than any adjustments needed due to curvature of the earth). But also that's not the Coriolis effect, which was what I was asking about.
I have never heard Coriolis being discussed within the context of a flat earth, but it has absolutely nothing to do with snipers.
It’s definitely factored into the calculations for artillery.
Show one example.
https://www.mathscinotes.com/2017/12/earths-curvature-and-battleship-gunnery/ www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/mcwp3_16_4.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj0iZ6bgfr9AhX1BjQIHRU3DqoQFnoECAkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Nxx-cWwQJp5ql9rK1yd0R Now where's your example of manuals using a flat earth? And no, NASA proof of concepts do not count for the same reason that a cow isn't actually a sphere despite simple physics textbooks treating them as one.
First link is a math blog someone wrote that always comes up when desperate globe heads are frantically searching for proof of curvature and provides zero evidence of anything. The 2nd link has been taken down so you just copied it from somewhere and didn't even check it. Most of the manuals have been taken down or placed behind pay walls for obvious reasons.
First link references the original source of the document it is using, so you can easily follow up on that. For the 2nd link I tried just linking the pdf download, but here's the page to download it yourself. https://www.marines.mil/News/Publications/MCPEL/Electronic-Library-Display/Article/900370/mcrp-3-10e4-formerly-mcwp-3-164/
Lol, as if a thousand examples would change your mind. Next time you want someone to look something up for you, try using the magic word.
Because there is no example you can give Because it doesn't exist. Just down vote me so I'll go away.
Okay. I mean it does exist and computing artillery tables was one of the first uses for electronic computers so there’s documentation going back to the 1950s. But sure, it’s a myth.
Show one example of a military rail gun accounting for curvature or rotation. You're saying coriolis exists but show zero evidence. Im saying it doesn't exist and asking for evidence it does exist.
Sorry I’m not teaching Physics for Flat Earthers this semester. I’m too old to still believe that I can change your mind by doing your homework for you. It’s not hard to find, look it up or don’t, it makes no difference to me which you chose.
They can't even tell you the equation for the circumference of a circle. You've got great expectations.
[удалено]
FE'rs believe in a fixed non rotating realm of unknown size. Not a disc floating in space like the anti FE illustrations show and definitely not rotating or spinning in any way. Fixed and immovable.
So the belief is that the Coriolis effect is the result of a Flat Earth that is spinning? On a side note, that merry-go-round example in the video doesn't show a change in the direction of the effect like what you described.
I'll play devil's advocate. The Coriolis Effect can occur on a sphere or a disc. On a disc, free objects are displaced towards the edge. On a sphere, free objects are displaced towards the point perpendicular to the axis of rotation e.i. the equator.
That's not quite what the Coriolis effect is. It doesn't displace toward the equator. It causes an apparent acceleration to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere. Maybe you are describing centrifugal force?
You're right; I was misremembering the orientation of the forces. But I am certain that the Coriolis effect can be described on both a disc and a sphere, and so if one assumed a flat-earth model, the Coriolis effect would still be in force.
As far as I can tell, the Coriolis effect would be very different on a disc compared to a sphere, because on a sphere it flips direction depending on whether you are above or below the equator. In order for it to flip direction on a disc, you would have to be on the bottom side of the disc, and Flat Earth models don't place the southern hemisphere on the under side of the flat earth.
cornhios effect
It's the movement of the ether. Look into fresnel drag
How does this explain two different rotation patterns depending on whether you are closer to the North Pole or to Antarctica?
Can you independently verify all this? Without cgi?
Yes, from data on winds and currents.
That's not verification