Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,428
What does heliocentrism have to do with the coriolis effect?
Deniers of both display astounding ignorance.What does heliocentrism have to do with the coriolis effect?
What does heliocentrism have to do with the coriolis effect?
What risible lazy claims does Daniel make.
Let's start with Polaris and the southern cross. He misquotes an article reciting an anecdote to justify his position. Nowhere in the article does it refer to 23.5 degrees SOUTH - so fail.
Now the naval guns. They can be used for both direct and indirect NGS, depending how far away and where the target is, as well as weather and light conditions. Daniel does not understand this, apparently. All guns fire projectiles along a trajectory, a word that Daniel appears not to understand. High velocity projectiles have a flatter trajectory and therefore, for any given angle of muzzle elevation, assuming comparable projectile mass and wind resistance, will fire further. Railgun trajectories are flatter, so need less elevation to traverse a given distance. Nowhere is it cited that rail guns can only be a LOS weapon.
Give it up. You're out of your depth.
Coriolis Effect is a hoax.
Ironically, this globe displays all kinds of arrows except those that matter...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Coriolis_effect14.png
Heliocentric Big Lie reduced to minimum
Heliocentric Big Lie, the "mother" of all Big Lies taught today as "science".
Now reduced to minimum, e.g. to one single fact which is visible with one single image.
The Image:
http://images.intellicast.com/WxImages/SatelliteLoop/hiafsat_None_anim.gif
The Fact:
If Heliocentrism would be true then the _ _ _ Z would NOT go west.
The word is an acronym for them.
1. Yes. Well as I said, I'm Retired Military and that I TRAINED WITH SNIPERS and made shots personally @ 1500 Meters....which should IMMEDIATELY bring "Coriolis" into account, it doesn't and NEVER WILL.
The Fact:
If Heliocentrism would be true then the _ _ _ Z would NOT go west.
The word is an acronym for them.
Really?? LOL, then...
*Snipped, trivial data bout air pressure.
Ergo...
How can you have a Vacuum (Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) and still retain the Properties of a Vacuum and a Non-Vacuum in the same system, simultaneously....?
Can you explain this in a Law of Entropy context?
If there's a "Non Perfect" Vacuum surrounding the Earth's Atmospheric layers as we are 'TOLD', then there should be a colossal cascading chain of envelopment from the Exosphere to Thermosphere to Mesosphere down to your feet like dominoes faster than you can say "ENTROPY" until equilibrium is reached. Hard Stop!
Well water "Fluids" always conform to their container. duh
*snip*
If Heliocentrism would be true then the _ _ _ Z would NOT go west.
The word is an acronym for them.
The what?
ITCZ - Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone.
It's a well known feature of tropical meteorology, and Kyoon thinks that because he has found one sequence showing the clouds in this zone moving from East to West that it proves something. The only thing it's proven is his lack of knowledge about the subject, but this hasn't stopped him before.
Bumping this one. It appears to have been overlooked for some reason...
ETA - I could provide some very good reasons why I know this, including being on watch during indirect NGS exercises, but I have no intention breaching my privacy for the sake of a troll.
You're wasting your time.
I gave links to standard references on Ballistics and the Coreolis effect including a link to the Marine Corps manual and practical worked examples of applying correction to 7.62 rounds and he just ignored it all.
Has he asked for the Scientific Theory of Gravity yet?
Well, he's asked for an experiment proving gravity can overcome entropy, by which I guess he means an experiment to demonstrate that gravity can prevent the atmosphere drifting off into space. He also assaulted Isaac Newton with some terrible algebra.
I wonder what kind of experiment would he be prepared to accept. It´s easy to ask for experiment or proof, without saying what kind of experiment or proof you accept, and then just not accepting anything presented.