Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1) Let if drift off into space.
2) Hit it with a missile and let all the little pieces disintegrate in the atmosphere.
3) Detonate it with a bomb and let all the pieces disintegrate in the atmosphere.
4) Leave it where it is in orbit.
I assume you are not a carpet fitter by trade. You would experience some very surprised customers.This is nonsense.Math doesn't care how you draw things. It can't see. For math all these shapes are rectangles.
A square has certain properties - 4 equal length sides, 90 degree corners. These are physical things which can be measured.
If the four sides are different lengths - compared to each other - then it's not a square.
If the angles are not all 90 degrees - which is a definition, and the angles can be compared against each other - then it's not a square.
You can define these things in different ways, but that doesn't mean the different things equivalent.
For an observer inside the coordinate system, all these shapes are also rectangles.
For an observer outside of the system, none of these are a rectangle.
This is the way we construct our universes. From the inside they're identical to globe physics, they're only different from the outside.
But as they're all identical on the inside, we can never know the true shape of the universe.
The map has a different distance metric. Distance is just a formula, it's up to you to choose a meaningful one.
Using the correct metric, the circumference of 80N and 80S is the same as the globe and so it's smaller than the equator.
I believe you might be taking an orthonormal straight ruler and be applying it to a non-orthonormal basis and saying everything's wrong.
Flat earth rulers are curved, the markings are not equally spaced, and you need a different shaped ruler depending on position and direction you're measuring. (not very practical but that's flat earth for ya)
If i were to take this flat-earth ruler to the sphere, it won't make any sense at all either.
What exactly are "artificially good conditions"? Do you mean "with precision"?
I left my camera to create an exposed shot to capture on its own; that doesn't mean that I didn't try it a bunch of times, that I didn't go to great lengths to create artificially good conditions, or that I didn't put it through extensive editing to unnaturally make what I wanted.
All of the British royals are pedos.All of the American Royal Family would be pedos. The British Royal Family are paedos.
There are winds which travel both Eastwards and Westwards in both the North and the South. There is no such thing as not taking advantage of any winds for a control flight. The planes always try to take advantage of the winds when they fly. When traveling from New York to Europe the planes fly North along the track and when they fly from Europe to New York they fly over a thousand miles south to take advantage of the opposite winds.
There isn't actually any reliable way to measure the distance between two distant points. Planes and ships are liable to be behind or ahead, and pilots strategically use jet streams to reach distant points. Most of the long distance flights typically pointed out wouldn't be possible without jet streams. The pilots travel between the coordinate points. And the coordinate points are based on the position of Polaris or time zones.Most, if not all, of the long distance flights typically pointed out have return legs that are not aided by jetstreams. Pilots know the distance. That s how they know how much fuel they need and when they will arrive.
The only reliable distance measurement method is an odometer, and people haven't measured large portions of the earth with it.
Duncin one of the first things you say in your earlier post was that my hypothetical plane travels a few hundreds miles an hour before hitting a 17,000mph jet stream at which point it goes 17,600mph.And a Happy New Year to you too.
That is opposite of what Ive been trying to say in my last three posts and the reason I made the Cookie chart to begin with! Again, there's no wind near the poles (that I'm referring to anyway)! I'm only speaking of aero and engine capacity.
And thank you for correcting me on the second chart. I'd just say that once you get a 747 going having a million pounds of thrust will still get you places fast.
And stack, calling everybody a liar when you confront something you don't understand is not useful. I plan on looking more into the instruments aviators use to calculate speed etc, but for now I'm going to bed and I wish you guys a happy New year.
Guys, there's a big misunderstanding. I'm trying to make the point that I no longer believe that Jet Streams are responsible for the very fast plane speeds we see near the Polar Regions on a Flat Earth. Rather, it's the thin air that allows these planes to travel so fast.
Below is a simple example to help answer some of your questions: At the top, plane one is flying through 10 cookies in about 10 seconds. And plane two is also flying through 10 cookies in 10 seconds! The only difference is that plane 2 needs to fly faster! That means that lift and air pressure and drag are presumably the same for both planes.
To propel Plane 2 to such great speeds, you need to assume their jet engines are producing enough thrust in these conditions until the aircraft reaches its structural limit. I don't know the ins and outs of Jet Engines, but so far, they seem similar to Rocket's and in some cases produce more thrust (Scram jets anyway). The Boeing 747 has a power to rate ratio greater than an SR-71 - One of the fastest Jet Planes to ever fly.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust
It's the increase of airspeed which gives the aircraft lift in thin air.I don't think you're really following this.
And it's Newton's 3rd law of action and reaction I was referring to. NASA explain that it's like a person standing on a skateboard and by pushing a bowling ball outwards with his hands can generate movement.
