Comment on Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2) by ProperGander.

Something I’ve been working on.

The spinning Earth can not exhibit a Coriolis effect.

It is as if the Earth does not move. It is as if the world does not spin, specifically. This is due to the model of the spinning Earth itself. It precludes such an effect.

1. Earth is a globe. A near perfect sphere. It rotates about its axis. This motion is termed ‘sidereal’ and is slightly less than the mean solar day of 24 hours.

2. The circumferential velocity at the Equator is some 1000 mph and at the Poles nil.

3. The mass of the Earth, including the fluids surrounding and on it, rotate as one mass and have the same rotational inertia. Its rotational due to gravity.

4. The Earth exhibits the property termed ‘gravity’ and we are attracted to it.

5. This attraction is along normals or rays that radiates out from Earth’s center. Like an asterisk.

6. The resulting gravitational vector changes as we or any object moves about the globe. This acceleration is why no object caught up in the Earth’s inertial and gravitational field can ever truly exhibit any constant velocity.

7. The world is round not flat. This is not a matter of a frame of reference but one of perspective. If one could construct a tower high enough, or look back to Earth from say something like a communications satellite, one clearly sees the Earth is a globe. Just like the Apollo astronauts and their photos show. The shape of the world is a matter of perspective not frame of reference. A matter of distance. Not some kind of relativity experiment.

8. The Coriolis Effect applies to rotating systems like the MIT video shows and not the type os system that constitutes the Earth and its resulting gravitational field. It does not apply to the Earth’s motion as the entire mass, including all matter on it and surrounding it (IE the atmosphere), move as one. All matter about the center of Earth’s mass possesses the exact same inertia from Pole across equator to the other Pole. What changes is simply the angle of gravitational pull.

9. This ever changing angle of gravitational pull is what enables us to think the world is flat and not curved. If this did not change, we’d experience a world that would indeed curve away from us (like the ball in the Coriolis effect experiment illustrates). We do not. Objects would not appear to follow parallel with the Earth’s surface as they fly. Clouds would not appear to do the same, etc.

10. The potential energy of the Earth’s inertia due to rotation is not discharged unless one can achieve escape velocity. If this state is achieved, the object is a projectile leaving the “sling” of the Earth. That this motion is rotational, is simply due to gravity itself. Gravity is the other force that alters this object in motion. Were Earth gravity to suddenly cease, the object achieves “escape velocity” without having to achieve any specific speed. Now the object would be in free fall orbit around the Sun, since it cannot fly of in a straight line as it would like to. Just like an astronaut floating along with the space station. The object still has the inertia from the Earth relative the Sun. It has not achieved escape velocity relative to this body and thus remains in solar orbit.

12. Simple geometry in motion shows that no Coriolis effect can be experienced in a gravity field. A 3d program easily illustrates this. The center of mass of the object in the terrestrial gravitational field is towards the center of the Earth (or at it for all practical purposes). Rotation and not translation is the actual motion, and a simple 3d animation will show that the globe, the projectile, the cannon all move relative to each other. There is no Coriolis effect, nor can there be. Not on a rotating sphere with inertia and gravity. There is no different moving atmosphere due to the Earth’s motion to cause any kind of frictional loss dues to some kind of velocity difference. This is simply how this model has to physically work. One can easily show this in any 3d program. A child can recreate this experiment using Blender.

13. Another way to look at it. Earth and atmosphere are in a vacuum. There is no fraction or so little friction, the Earth maintains its rotational motion. You are in the place of the Earth, and like Superman can ignore the vacuum of outer space.You have your arms at your sides and you are simply spinning around once very 24 hours or so. Now you lift your arms so they are as far out perpendicular to your spine as far you can reach. There is no resistance to this motion, since there is no friction. No atmosphere. Your outstretched arms describe a circle, so now you can measure a circumference and associate a velocity with it. But as you can see this motion is slightly misleading. The true base of the motion is a simple rotating axis with no need for any consideration of a circumferential motion. The changing angle of gravitational pull relative to the Earth’s surface is what creates the effect of the difference in circumferential velocity. But this is a matter of angle as the speed of the rotation itself is constant across the globe. Its misleading to think in terms of the circumference and a translational velocity.

Now imagine lines or rather circles of latitude described by your arms length as you spin in one spot. This is the Equator. These circles shrink to points at the poles. These circles move as one despite the difference diameters, roaring about the center of mass. Now imagine the rest of the globe around these circles. The lines of gravitational ‘pull’ radiate out from Earth’s center like an asterisk and the resulting intersection of these lines with the circles of latitude result in the changing gravity vector. These lines always maintain the same distance from center and the same rotational velocity. This is why the mass moves together and its inertia is “one”. This angle is different depending on where one is one the globe’s surface, This is exactly like the (near) parallel rays of the Sun hitting the Earth’s surface, resulting the the apparent solar angle difference one experiences as one moves around the globe. This turning is what explains the apparent discrepancy in motion when there is none. If the gravitational vector did not change when one travelled around the globe, one would experience the fact that one was on a globe as the line of sight would be dramatically different from what we experience. The circumferential velocity is not relevant like claimed. The center of mass of any object associated with Earth’s gravitational field, is by definition somewhere towards ( essentially at- depending on relative mass) Earth’s center.

### ProperGander Also Commented

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2)

http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/physics/phys06/bcentrif/default.htm

“The smaller the velocity of the object, the less centripetal force you will have to apply.

The smaller the length of rope (radius), the more centripetal force you will have to apply to the rope.

Notice that the centripetal force and the centripetal acceleration are always pointing in the same direction.”

Does any of what we can demonstrate for ourselves really jibe with the fantastic and amazing ‘theories’ of philosophers like Galileo and Newton and the rest?

Gravity is the ‘centripetal’ force. The ‘centrifugal’ one is an illusion. Same would have to hold for the rotating Globe.

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2)

http://www.lextalus.com/pdf/The%20Coriolis%20Effect.pdf

Page 5 and 6

The Coriolis Effect is explained.

But please take notice that figure 4 on page 6 does not take into account that the lines of gravity radiate from the center of the Earth, the lines grow closer together the closer one gets to the Earth’s center and further apart, the further away one travels.

So this would seem to compensate for the difference tangential velocity between the higher and lower altitudes.

The ground and objets on the ground, have less distance to travel ( and less velocity) than the object higher up in altitude (with the greater velocity).

Just like how the 3d sphere rotates. The nature of its shape means the tangential velocities across its curved and 3d surface, differ. Yet it rotates as one mass. This is the very means by which it is enabled to do so and retain its shape. .

This would seem to invalidate the conclusions of the mine shaft experiments which mythically show an eastward motion to a dropped object.

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2)

The science websites that discuss the Coriolis Effect use a misleading illustration of the world to show the projectile missing its target.

Yet the circumference velocity these ‘science guys’ point to is simply a result of the angle that gravity is pulling on the object. At the Equator it is at right angles to the latitude. That changes as one moves away from the Equator. Just like a clock face.

The ‘centrifugal force’ from the rotation of the world and ‘centripetal force’ from the effect of gravity are the two ‘forces’ we are dealing with.

In this model of the world, Atlas is someone who is about to engage in the sport of hammer throwing, but never lets the hammer fly free. Not the same as the Coriolis Effect.The latter requires the hammer to be let go.

If one goes into a 3d program and uses the animation and modeling tools, one will see how wrong the mainstream is about this one particular point.

The distances in two directions on the globe are clearly measurable. The motion of the globe and the projectile prove my point.

The cannon ball follows along with the cannon and strikes its target as if the world was still.

The cannonball simply follows the same line of longitude it originates from. The cannon is still where it is and so is the target. All on the same line.

I offer this as a more valid means of ‘proof’ than all the thought experiments and myths.

In this case, the computer can visualize the math for us and we can see for ourselves how the mainstream is wrong. This isn’t something abstract. Its basic motion in a 3d world.

#### Recent Comments by ProperGander

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)

I believe the mainstream physics answer is the object possesses the inertia of the area it originated from.

A projectile shot north from the Equator possesses some 1000 mph velocity compared to say 900 mph some distance north.

Same reasoning holds true for mine shafts and bombs. The velocity higher up is greater than at below sea level, for example.

Not very satisfying when you think about it, but there it is.

They seem to forget about gravity and centripetal force law.

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)

Just to clarify. I’m posting what the mainstream ‘heliocentric’ theory is and how it works and why I think it can be proven to be flawed.

The atmosphere, in this theory, is supposed to possess the same inertia that causes the rotation of the globe.

Gravity, in this theory, is what keeps the gases from flying off the globe. Gravity is the centripetal force that produces the illusionary “centrifugal” force as a result of the effects of inertia. The latter effect would cause the gases of the atmosphere and all matter of the Earth, to fly off into space, were it not for ‘gravity’.

So in this theory, the gases move with the Earth according to centripetal /centrifugal motion. The mathematical equations show the square distance rule at work.The velocity at double the radius is not 2x but 1.4x as great.

The gases of the atmosphere are subject to the very same force of gravity an apple is.

Newton was incorrect when he applied fluid dynamics to the motions of the heavenly bodies and the presumptive motions of the Earth. The mistake is forgetting how centrifugal forces actually work.

The other mistake is ignoring demonstrable ballistics.

We cannot reproduce in a lab on Earth, the result of his famed cannonball thought experiment.

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)

I’d assume that in this model, the atmosphere would follow the laws of fluid dynamics and act like you suggest.

The basic point is that centripetal and centrifugal type experiments and math, clearly show that Newton was wrong in applying a model of fluid dynamics to the apparent motions of the stars and planets. His cannonball thought experiment is as nonsensical as the Einstein thought experiments.

The very model they use, precludes things like the Coriolis effect.

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)

GPS can be explained with simple electromagnetic type transmission towers set up at set distances along the surface of the Earth. Like say cell towers or the wireless base stations.

Wires can and are run across the oceans. The world might simply be wired like your home or office network.

Then there’s the idea of the ionosphere and using that to transmit radio waves. This idea goes back to the early days of radio.

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)

The gases would be subject to centripetal laws and would follow along in a squared root type proportion so that as the radius (distance from the surface of the Earth) doubles, the velocity along the arc is only 1.4x as great Yet the distance along this arc is doubled. So it would take a cloud in the upper atmosphere that much incrementally longer to reach the same point that the Earth’s surface rotates into. It would not follow exactly along like the rotating land mass does.

Brings up the whole reason for the Earth’s spin and how that and gravity work together.

The spin is due to cooling or something like that in the mainstream thinking as far as I can tell.

So if the spin was less, the centripetal force would pull us to the Earth more. That is, the effect of gravity would be increased. If the rotation of the Earth would increase, the pull of gravity would lessen. At least according to centrifugal/centripetal law.

Mass effects gravity. So mass effects the centripetal or real force. The spin or rotation is the result of inertia, so centrifugal is a false force of sorts. The curvature, the result of centripetal force pulling on a mass that would like to fly off into space in what would seem to be a straight line.

Centrifugal force is an illusion. Centripetal force is real and in this case it is gravity – the pull towards the center of Earth’s center.

This force is what defines the shape of the arc or orbit. That is, the closer to the Earth, the more this centripetal force is going to pull and the tighter the resulting arc of orbit becomes. Atomic clocks proving Einstein right, show the different potential of the gravity field at different heights.

This means more energy is required to make the same turn at the same velocity. The larger the radius, the less energy required to make the same turn. And if there is the lag due to centripetal force, and the velocity does not double like the distance, then would we not assume the higher object would lag the object on Earth’s surface and not lead like Newton and Galileo claim?

And if the force of gravity is such that the atmosphere can cover that distance in the same time as the Earth’s surface, then we’d expect a bomb to fall exactly where it would as if the Earth was unmoving (sans atmosphere). As the centripetal force tightens the arc and the apparent velocity of our object will be adjusted accordingly.

The same energy, in this model, is a spin at the Poles and a tangential velocity at the circumference. It is the combination of inertia (IE the cooling of the mass) and the effect of the mass curving ‘space time’ that gives the globe its motion and shape.