Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe vid about Coriolis? I gather that is fake too? It is most certainly NOT fake. Why would you think otherwise? Why can't you answer the other objections?
Since you're out of your depth on all of them, let's just start with the first one since you brought it up.
Go back to my comment which quoted the video and respond to it, please.
Could it be you can't google the right rational?
Originally posted by sonhouseI posted a video on the Coriolis Effect from the standpoint of a long-range rifleman.
The vid about Coriolis? I gather that is fake too? It is most certainly NOT fake. Why would you think otherwise? Why can't you answer the other objections?
Could it be you can't google the right rational?
I plucked a comment of his out of the video.
I am asking you for your response to the comment of his which I quoted.
Stay focused, please.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYep. Applies to ballistics. The bullet will have a velocity equal to the exit velocity from
"... when the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun, it is actually [b]leaving the surface of the earth.
So as the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun, the earth is still rotating, and the bullet is not rotating with the surface of the earth, so the earth will actually rotate out from underneath the bullet while it is in flight."
Hmmm ...[text shortened]... the surface of the earth, so it is no longer rotating at the earth's speed.
Makes sense, right?[/b]
rifle PLUS the component of rotational speed tangential to earth's orbit. (Simplification)
But you cannot apply that to a plane because the plane is not a projectile like a
bullet. It is flying in the atmosphere - which is rotating (it is part of the earth).
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59Holy fecal matter.
Yep. Applies to ballistics. The bullet will have a velocity equal to the exit velocity from
rifle PLUS the component of rotational speed tangential to earth's orbit. (Simplification)
But you cannot apply that to a plane because the plane is not a projectile like a
bullet. It is flying in the atmosphere - which is rotating (it is part of the earth).
Do you truly believe what you just typed?
Think on your sins.
EDIT: I am ashamed to think that otherwise reasonable people reason along such lines.
The bullet, he innit the atmosphere, but the airplane? He in it all the way.
He no escape the majic atmosphere, it stuck to earth by gravity.
Again, holy fecal matter stuck to the butt hairs of the Pope.
That's some scary shiitake mushrooms right there, mmhmm.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHExactly what do you not understand?
Holy fecal matter.
Do you truly believe what you just typed?
Think on your sins.
EDIT: I am ashamed to think that otherwise reasonable people reason along such lines.
The bullet, he innit the atmosphere, but the airplane? He in it all the way.
He no escape the majic atmosphere, it stuck to earth by gravity.
Again, holy fecal matter stuck to the butt hairs of the Pope.
That's some scary shiitake mushrooms right there, mmhmm.
Think of a fly flying in a fast (200Km/h) train.
Now think of a bullet in that train.
See the difference?
Originally posted by wolfgang59I'll parse it out for you since you are stymied.
Exactly what do you not understand?
Think of a fly flying in a fast (200Km/h) train.
Now think of a bullet in that train.
See the difference?
A bullet leaves a barrel of a gun and is shot out into... the atmosphere.
It started in the atmosphere and was shot into the atmosphere.
A plane barrels down the runway and lifts off into... the atmosphere.
It started off in the atmosphere and lifts off into the atmosphere.
Literally and unequivocally no difference whatsoever.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThen why are ballistics and aeronautics different disciplines?
I'll parse it out for you since you are stymied.
A bullet leaves a barrel of a gun and is shot out into... the atmosphere.
It started in the atmosphere and was shot into the atmosphere.
A plane barrels down the runway and lifts off into... the atmosphere.
It started off in the atmosphere and lifts off into the atmosphere.
Literally and unequivocally no difference whatsoever.
You think a bullet flies?
You think a plane has a trajectory?
You think a plane could fly in a vacuum?
A bullet is almost exclusively governed by its velocity out of the barrel and gravity - no other discernible forces on it.
A plane (luckily for passengers) is subject to the Bernoulli Principle, turbulence, the air mass around it and gravity.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Does a plane move through the atmosphere in time?
Then why are ballistics and aeronautics different disciplines?
You think a bullet flies?
You think a plane has a trajectory?
You think a plane could fly in a vacuum?
A bullet is almost exclusively governed by its velocity out of the barrel and gravity - no other discernible forces on it.
A plane (luckily for passengers) is subject to the Bernoulli Principle, turbulence, the air mass around it and gravity.
Then I'd say it has a trajectory.
How does a rocket move in space, exactly, with nothing to push against?
You claim "no other discernible forces" act on the bullet... did you forget the Coriolis Effect?
The fact remains, they're both in the atmosphere which supposedly moves with the earth through some mysterious means.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"Mysterious means". That sounds mysterious. 😉
Does a plane move through the atmosphere in time?
Then I'd say it has a trajectory.
How does a rocket move in space, exactly, with nothing to push against?
You claim "no other discernible forces" act on the bullet... did you forget the Coriolis Effect?
The fact remains, they're both in the atmosphere which supposedly moves with the earth through some mysterious means.
"How does a rocket move in space, exactly, with nothing to push against?"
Hey! I know this one. It doesn't. Amazing how they can do that slingshot thing.