Does a RB travel with constant rotation, or accelerate?

[rdlowe]

Reminds me of Einstein's thought experiment that Hawking talked about in 'A Brief History of Time':

A man bounces a ball on flatcar on a moving train. To him the ball is bouncing straight up and down. Another man is standing beside the tracks and watches the man bouncing the ball as he goes by. To him the ball is flying in a long arc. Both things are true. The ball IS bouncing straight up and down, and it IS bouncing in an arc. All depends on your frame of reference....

Yeah, I remember that. It was kind of a mind-numbing thought. It took me longer than it probably did most to get thru that book, which made me think I was ready for Kip Thorne. Hardy har har! Simpler for me to follow, but exact same thing and we can observe it ourselves in the wild is to replace the light clock in that experiment with a person sitting in the passenger seat of a car tossing and catching a tennis ball a few inches between their lap and the roof of the car. Just a simple idle thing a kid on the way to a game might be doing while dad drives. To the kid, it’s going straight up and down. To someone they pass as they drive by, not so. Pretty cool.

Speaking of tennis balls *and* physics, there is such a thing as the “hairy ball theorem”, which can explain and prove why the wind conditions on at least 2 places on Earth will always be identical to one another, and this must always be true.

ETA: I got thinking of and talking about the light clock when in fact you used the same bouncing ball illustration I had in mind and *then* started talking about. Sorry for geeking out.

 

[Nameless Hunter]

Reminds me of Einstein's thought experiment that Hawking talked about in 'A Brief History of Time':

A man bounces a ball on a flatcar on a moving train. To him the ball is bouncing straight up and down. Another man is standing beside the tracks and watches the man bouncing the ball as he goes by. To him the ball is flying in a long arc. Both things are true. The ball IS bouncing straight up and down, and it IS bouncing in an arc. All depends on your frame of reference....

Spot on example.
The earth's rotation will imprint it's motion upon any upward traveling object to a very large degree until the object starts approaching escape velocity.

 

[Bob McBride]

Yeah, I remember that. It was kind of a mind-numbing thought. It took me longer than it probably did most to get thru that book, which made me think I was ready for Kip Thorne. Hardy har har! Simpler for me to follow, but exact same thing and we can observe it ourselves in the wild is to replace the light clock in that experiment with a person sitting in the passenger seat of a car tossing and catching a tennis ball a few inches between their lap and the roof of the car. Just a simple idle thing a kid on the way to a game might be doing while dad drives. To the kid, it’s going straight up and down. To someone they pass as they drive by, not so. Pretty cool.

Speaking of tennis balls *and* physics, there is such a thing as the “hairy ball theorem”, which can explain and prove why the wind conditions on at least 2 places on Earth will always be identical to one another, and this must always be true.

ETA: I got thinking of and talking about the light clock when in fact you used the same bouncing ball illustration I had in mind and *then* started talking about. Sorry for geeking out.

Lol. Einstein loved thinking about clocks. I'm trying to remember the one about the clock on the belltower and the bicycle I think..... If you can get through that book and also 'The Universe in a Nutshell' I think is the other one, with a firm grasp of Relativity/Special Relativity, you've got some chops, no matter how many times it takes you to read them. Took me dozen or more to get a tenuous grasp. I spent a lot of time nerding out on those books and studying Ecclesiastical Latin in College. The only thing that focuses the brain like Einstein to me is Chess.

 

[rdlowe]

Lol. Einstein loved thinking about clocks. I'm trying to remember the one about the clock on the belltower and the bicycle I think..... If you can get through that book and also 'The Universe in a Nutshell' I think is the other one, with a firm grasp of Relativity/Special Relativity, you've got some chops, no matter how many times it takes you to read them. Took me dozen or more to get a tenuous grasp. I spent a lot of time nerding out on those books and studying Ecclesiastical Latin in College. The only thing that focuses the brain like Einstein to me is Chess.

Brother, I don’t have a firm grasp on *anything*, much less Relativity or my chess defense. I remember we played with the field equations in one of my classes but don’t remember more about it than that. Certainly no more depth than a ‘popular’ level. The belltower/ bicycle was about lightspeed travel? I think that was also featured in Cosmos back in the day, which I’m sure you also watched. I remember there was a dude riding a bike at the speed of light.

 

[Bob McBride]

Brother, I don’t have a firm grasp on *anything*, much less Relativity or my chess defense. I remember we played with the field equations in one of my classes but don’t remember more about it than that. Certainly no more depth than a ‘popular’ level. The belltower/ bicycle was about lightspeed travel? I think that was also featured in Cosmos back in the day, which I’m sure you also watched. I remember there was a dude riding a bike at the speed of light.

Me neither. It was about time contraction as you approach the speed of light I think.

 

[rdlowe]

It was about time contraction as you approach the speed of light I think.

Ok, I’ll show myself out now LOL

 

[Carbon 6]

Perhaps the assumption is that the Earth will rotate beneath the bullet as it goes straight up and down (which wouldn’t account for the same rotation at the moment the bullet was fired)?

Yes.

 

[TNGhost]

Yes.

No.

What's the difference between a duck?

Ah, that's an easy one. A duck has feathers, quacks, and has four more letters in it's name...

"What's the difference between a duck?"

So no need to duck.

Silly goose.

 

[tenngun]

So let’s get to an important piece. It’s called relativity because there is no favored frame of reference. All frames of reference are equally valid.
So if you shoot a ball in to the air, we see the ball go up, maybe a bit to one side as wind moves it or we weren’t pointing exactly straight up, and it come down at one g till air resistance slows it at terminal velocity or it crashes in to the earth.
But the ball sees it different. It’s happily going on its merry way till the earth suddenly and with out mercy falls on it. Bad bad earth.

 

[rdlowe]

So let’s get to an important piece. It’s called relativity because there is no favored frame of reference. All frames of reference are equally valid.
So if you shoot a ball in to the air, we see the ball go up, maybe a bit to one side as wind moves it or we weren’t pointing exactly straight up, and it come down at one g till air resistance slows it at terminal velocity or it crashes in to the earth.
But the ball sees it different. It’s happily going on its merry way till the earth suddenly and with out mercy falls on it. Bad bad earth.

What was the ball thinking? If the thought was, "Oh, no. Not again," then Douglas Adams was right about everything and we've all got bigger fish to fry.

 

[Carbon 6]

No.

Then what's all this gibberish about ?

Good point about the surface rotation. Given the earth, depending on where you are standing is moving anywhere from 0 to 1650 Kilometers per hour. A projectile fired "straight" up will come down a long ways from where you are standing, miles even, unless you are at one of the poles.

So no need to duck.

 

[tenngun]

What was the ball thinking? If the thought was, "Oh, no. Not again," then Douglas Adams was right about everything and we've all got bigger fish to fry.

Forty two bigger problems?

 

[Zonie]

Then what's all this gibberish about ?

You already know what the right answer is but just in case you don't, TNG was talking about the distance the earth will move while the bullet is traveling up and then traveling downward back to earth. The one thing he didn't take into account is person that fires the gun, the gun itself and everything around the area including the air is also traveling at the same speed, in the same direction.
Because of this, his theory that the earth will move while the bullet is in the air, leaving it behind so that it will land in a different place is not correct.

Now, can you please stop posting your question to him?

 

[TNGhost]

So let’s get to an important piece. It’s called relativity because there is no favored frame of reference. All frames of reference are equally valid.
So if you shoot a ball in to the air, we see the ball go up, maybe a bit to one side as wind moves it or we weren’t pointing exactly straight up, and it come down at one g till air resistance slows it at terminal velocity or it crashes in to the earth.
But the ball sees it different. It’s happily going on its merry way till the earth suddenly and with out mercy falls on it. Bad bad earth.

You already know what the right answer is but just in case you don't, TNG was talking about the distance the earth will move while the bullet is traveling up and then traveling downward back to earth. The one thing he didn't take into account is person that fires the gun, the gun itself and everything around the area including the air is also traveling at the same speed, in the same direction.
Because of this, his theory that the earth will move while the bullet is in the air, leaving it behind so that it will land in a different place is not correct.

Now, can you please stop posting your question to him?

Also, and maybe most importantly, the inertia affecting the ball, as it is traveling the same speed as the earth and wants to continue so. Like throwing something out the car window. So there is that.

Unless it hits a goose on the way down.

Then there is no need to duck.

 

[Carbon 6]

You already know what the right answer is but just in case you don't, TNG was talking about the distance the earth will move while the bullet is traveling up and then traveling downward back to earth. The one thing he didn't take into account is person that fires the gun, the gun itself and everything around the area including the air is also traveling at the same speed, in the same direction.
Because of this, his theory that the earth will move while the bullet is in the air, leaving it behind so that it will land in a different place is not correct.

Now, can you please stop posting your question to him?

Yes, I know the answer, but does he ?
He seems to be avoiding or still ignorant to the fact that he made an error. Normally I don't care, but if one thinks that firing a bullet straight up will come down miles away because of the earths rotation, then that "error" poses a significant safety risk. I'd hate to see him get conked on the head with his own bullet. Or worse, an innocent bystander.

 

[Carbon 6]

Also, and maybe most importantly, the inertia affecting the ball, as it is traveling the same speed as the earth and wants to continue so. Like throwing something out the car window. So there is that.

Unless it hits a goose on the way down.

Then there is no need to duck.

I saw a guy throw a ball out of a moving truck window, it came back and hit him in the face.

 

[bisleyjohn]

The answer may be here, I got this from the Flat Earth Society web page “
In an article titled History of the Coriolis Force (Archive) the origin story of the "Coriolis Effect" is described:

“ The first detailed study on a manifestation of the "Coriolis" force was made by Giovanni Borelli in the 1660s, when he considered the problem of falling bodies on a rotating Earth. In a theoretical analysis, he found that they will undergo a small eastward deflection during their fall. ”

Hope this helps?

 

[Carbon 6]

Here is a more concise read without all the French.

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2012/02/epn2012432p14.pdf

 

[Carbon 6]

I calculated the deflection of the Coriolis affect based on the results of Ferdinand Reich's experiment. I extrapolated his results out to a distance of 5 miles. ( the maximum possible distance I think a round ball could ever go fired straight up, and I'm being generous.) The mean eastward deflection would then be 1.4215 meters. Now this doesn't account for the trip upward but that would only be a tiny fraction of the 1.4 meters.

So, in a nutshell, a bullet fired straight up, if unaffected by other forces like wind, will likely land very close to the shooter.
Now in the real world, the Coriolis affect would be vastly over shadowed by things like the guns accuracy. (minute of angle.)
Even at 1 minute of angle the gun could be off by 80.5 meters by the time it reached altitude.

Hopefully this illustrates just how inconsequential the earths rotation is. It will not "come down a long ways from where you are standing, miles even, unless you are at one of the poles "
due to the "surface rotation" of the earth.

 

[TNGhost]

I calculated the deflection of the Coriolis affect based on the results of Ferdinand Reich's experiment. I extrapolated his results out to a distance of 5 miles. ( the maximum possible distance I think a round ball could ever go fired straight up, and I'm being generous.) The mean eastward deflection would then be 1.4215 meters. Now this doesn't account for the trip upward but that would only be a tiny fraction of the 1.4 meters.

So, in a nutshell, a bullet fired straight up, if unaffected by other forces like wind, will likely land very close to the shooter.
Now in the real world, the Coriolis affect would be vastly over shadowed by things like the guns accuracy. (minute of angle.)
Even at 1 minute of angle the gun could be off by 80.5 meters by the time it reached altitude.

Hopefully this illustrates just how inconsequential the earths rotation is. It will not "come down a long ways from where you are standing, miles even, unless you are at one of the poles "
due to the "surface rotation" of the earth.

Any way you slice it then, you don't have to duck when firing straight in the air.