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.


Messages - DuncanDoenitz

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8  Next >
41
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 30, 2021, 07:46:44 AM »
Not sure he's still here.  He went to Google some stuff on Friday and, well, you know what a distraction the internet is. 

42
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 28, 2021, 02:46:16 PM »
Google "Hwasong 14 test July 4 2017".  Then come back and tell the class all about it. 

43
Oh .... well we can both play that game

Ends of an axis;  Axis powers were German, Italy and Japan - 3.  North/South/East/West; 4.  Positive/negative/neutral; 3.  On/off; My radio has off and up to 11 - 12.  Matter/antimatter/vacuum; 3.  Contents of my shorts; 2 (legs).  I have an impressive 3rd leg.



Love it.  Crank it up to 11, Thork! 

44
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 28, 2021, 12:53:21 PM »
Kim Jong Un has fired several ICBMs.

45
Ends of an axis; 2.  North/South; 2.  Positive/negative; 2.  On/off; 2.  Matter/vacuum; 2.  Contents of my shorts; 2 (legs). 

Where do we find 3 in nature?

Land, sea and air   Manifesations of the states of matter; see below
Past, present and future   How about past and future?  Is the present just the point of interface?
3 bones in each finger and each toe   Asymmetrical.  2 index digital phalanges per person, etc.  And there are 4 bones in each finger; check your anatomical theory
3 notes in a major chord  Can't comment, as my knowledge of music is not as extensive as yours.
3 leaves on a clover and many other plants   Can't comment, as my knowledge of botany is not as extensive as yours.
There are 3 primary colours   Only in the human-visible spectrum, to create white light.  Primary colours exist beyond what we can directly perceive.
3 sides on the simplest shape possible - triangle  The simplest shape possible is a circle, with infinite sides
3 states of matter ... solid, liquid, gas  And plasma.  4 states of matter.
3 bones in the human ear ... hammer, anvil and stirrup   2 hammers in each head, etc
3 physical dimensions   and time.  4 dimensions
3 parts to an atom ... proton, neutron, electron, 3 quarks in a neutron, 3 quarks in a proton   Can't comment, as my knowledge of nuclear physics is not as extensive as yours. 
3 atoms on a water molecule ... kinda important for life  sort of Correct.  2 atoms of hydrogen.  and one of oxygen.

Kinda trumps the contents of your shorts (legs).
  My shorts contains pairs of many things.  Pockets, for example. 

46
If you just have to drop it to get a different result then the two pole limit to every magnetic construct doesn't seem like a strong theory.


Disregard the word "dropped", its too specific.  The magnet has a flaw in it, either because it was dropped, or because of a manufacturing defect.  The phenomenon is not there just because it is a magnet, but because it is a coherent bar of metal.  (The ferrous material in a magnet is very brittle; ever notice how many chips you get in a well used child's magnet?). 

There is a non-destructive process in engineering called Magnetic Particle Inspection.  A magnetic field is applied to a ferrous component and a fluorescent liquid with iron filings in suspension is applied to the surface.  If there is a break in the continuity of the test-piece then the magnetic field rises to the surface and attracts the fluid, making it visible under uv light.  The process is frequently used in aerospace, and other engineering disciplines, for inspecting thinks like steel engine mounting frames.  Look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_particle_inspection

What you're actually seeing in the original video is not three poles but four, as the magnet is now, essentially, two magnets end to end. 


Oh; I was amused to notice we've invoked the "anomalous winds" again!! How many times do we have to sail around that buoy?  All your sources say they are consistent, and the only use of the word "anomalous" is in the Wiki's introduction. 

47
Ends of an axis; 2.  North/South; 2.  Positive/negative; 2.  On/off; 2.  Matter/vacuum; 2.  Contents of my shorts; 2 (legs). 

Where do we find 3 in nature? 

48
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 27, 2021, 06:20:26 PM »

Why do you believe any of the crap put out by the HIGHLY RELIABLE propogandists?

Pitiful..


I took the trouble to read this reply again, and it says at lot more than the simple words on the page.  "Why would I believe ..... propagandists".  Your assumption is that we have all gained our knowledge second hand, or been duped in some way by "the system". 

Like you, I've no idea who the people on this Forum are; their nationality, age, education or political views.  I'm not claiming to be among the brightest buttons in the box but I get the impression that, like me, some of the correspondents here got themselves educated, got a job, and learned how to do something that the world needs in order to survive.  We met similar people at work and exchanged views on how we thought the world worked.  We traveled the world.  Some of us worked in foreign countries, or with colleagues who came to our workplace from overseas and found that our education and backgrounds often coincided.  We validated our education and training by going places, doing things, actually doing the job, and found that it worked. 

Its equally evident that some people didn't. 

Like everyone, we receive our share of propaganda and fake-news, but our experience has enabled us sort the wheat from the chaff, in most cases.  The Internet is certainly an Information Superhighway, shame its not a Wisdom Superhighway.   

Let me put the question back to you; why do you believe any of the crap put out by the propagandists?  Who do you think are propagandists? 

If I told you that I was personally a propagandist, would you believe me? 


To paraphrase a well known internet sage;

"I won, you lost, I'm done here". 

Bye now. 

49
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 27, 2021, 12:13:48 PM »
I was part of it; I was in the Royal Air Force. 

50
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 27, 2021, 08:16:19 AM »
Tom, can you help Action80 with the fiendish 'finding the distance between two lat/longs' challenge? He's still struggling.


I think Tom is happy to let Action80 muddy the waters. 

51
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 27, 2021, 08:15:15 AM »
From the late 1940s the UK had a strategic nuclear capability in the form of manned aircraft carrying free-fall atomic and hydrogen weapons.  This mirrored similar forces in perceived-allied and opposing nations (United States, USSR, France, later China).  The policy was/is known as deterrence.  The final iteration of this in Britain's case in the 1960s were the Vulcan and Victor bombers of the Royal Air Force carrying a short-range supersonic nuclear missile called Blue Steel. 

In 1969, responsibility for Britain's nuclear deterrence was passed from the RAF to the Royal Navy, in the form of long range SLBMs to be launched by submarines; initially Polaris, currently Trident, with a range of around 7,500 miles.  Blue Steel was retired, but the Vulcan and Victor continued in service for another 15 to 20 years in other roles.  Britain retained a short-range tactical nuclear capability using free-fall bombs carried by Jaguars and Tornadoes until the late 1990s, when this was also retired. 

Among the 5 major nuclear-strategic powers, Britain is currently alone in having all its nuclear eggs in the ICBM/SLBM basket.  The USA and Russia have land-based ICBM, submarine SLBMs, and manned aircraft.  France has SLBMs and manned aircraft. 

Is it likely that the UK would have surrendered its nuclear deterrence to a fictional technology?  Remember that the other powers are aware of the "pretense". 

Why would Kim Jong Un be chasing a mythological technology to threaten the US?



52
Flat Earth Community / Re: i dont understand someone help please
« on: May 26, 2021, 09:47:56 PM »

Again, I am not muddying things by using your source. It is plainly evident from your source that Sigma Octantis could not possibly be visible in all three places at once because it is not dark enough in all three places at once.

Dark enough.

Dark enough.

Your source.

Your source.

ETA: Sigma Octantis not useful for navigation due to the fact it is barely visible. Perhaps it maybe not even a "pole star."
 

Probably pointless, but just for the record;

Good News:  According to the twilight tracker, 21.30 UTC today, 26 May 2021, it is currently astronomical nighttime in Perth (Australia), the entire continent of Africa, and Recife (Brazil). 

Bad News:  I am not in any of those places. 

Further Good News:  This situation will happen nightly, lasting longer each night, peaking around June 21, if @Action80 is in a position to pop down there with a compass and telescope. 

53
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 26, 2021, 08:49:27 PM »

Essentially, being with you requires the thought the latitude/longitude system in place is based on a globe, when it isn't.

So, no.

I will never be "with you."

Because that is a flat out lie.

It's arbitrary, as you just admitted.

All coordinate systems are to some extent arbitrary. You can have any origin you wish. As long as the coordinates all reference the same system, distances between pairs of coordinates will give the same result.

You yourself said you could work it out with your formula, but now you're saying you can't because the system is wrong. But all those mariners through the ages, diligently recording their lat/long based on celestial and solar observations (as per Tom's statement)...were they wrong, then?

And what, exactly, is the lat/long system we should be using then? What system do you suppose our Iraqi Scud aimers were using?

And which FE model are you using?

And how big is the FE?
I am certainly not stating the distance couldn't be worked out using two points.

You are not paying attention.

I am stating the two points being arbitrary would be close, but it was not used to fire those missiles which you love to use.

Like I wrote earlier, a much more likely scenario  would have been actual distances obtained by close up surveillance of the land, performed by live people.


I think what you actually said earlier was that they could drive a car to measure the distance.    Do you think that the Iraqi army drove to Tehran before launching their Scuds, or that Hamas drove from Gaza to Tel Aviv?  What other ways might live people on the ground survey the land? 

Regarding the measurement between two points on Earth, the arbitrary nature of points-of-origin and what-not; why don't you nominate 2 points, around two thousand miles apart, and tell us the exact distance.  You get extra points for showing us your calculations. 

54
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE and artillery
« on: May 25, 2021, 07:28:08 PM »
Again, all you need for accuracy is to know the amount of "punch," each round has, the wind, and a simple quadratic equation which all work just fine on any FLAT x/y coordinate plane.

More RE sound and fury, signifying nothing.


I'm personally not a trained artilleryman so I couldn't give you an exhaustive list of "all you need for accuracy", but I would have thought that, in addition to muzzle velocity (punch?), then mass, size and drag-coefficient of the shell, as well as air density, would be in there somewhere.

"Punch," is inclusive of all the things you just mentioned.
[/quote]

So "punch", inherent to the shell as it leaves the factory, includes atmospheric air density on the day it is fired?  How do they do that? 

As jimster quite rightly says, "that is not the question", but I ask it again anyway to illustrate that, if your simplistic argument can't address the opposing values of "punch" ( the initial impetus given to the shell in the barrel), and the aerodynamic drag on the shell due to changeable atmospheric conditions over any-shape of Earth, how do you expect to persuade us of your flat/round insight? 

Or is it all wrapped up in the "simple quadratic equations" that you have yet to define? 

55
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE and artillery
« on: May 25, 2021, 12:29:11 PM »
Again, all you need for accuracy is to know the amount of "punch," each round has, the wind, and a simple quadratic equation which all work just fine on any FLAT x/y coordinate plane.

More RE sound and fury, signifying nothing.


I'm personally not a trained artilleryman so I couldn't give you an exhaustive list of "all you need for accuracy", but I would have thought that, in addition to muzzle velocity (punch?), then mass, size and drag-coefficient of the shell, as well as air density, would be in there somewhere. 

56
Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 25, 2021, 10:20:09 AM »
All more unfound claims from RE here.

All you need for any missile to be fired to any target is the right amount of fuel and a simple quadratic equation which works perfectly fine on any x/y coordinate surface.

In other words, FLAT.

End of story.


Source?  Or is this on your own experience. 

57

On cruise ship speeds:

From a 2021article: "The average speed of a cruise ship is 18 to 22 knots (20 to 25 miles per hour). The maximum speed of a cruise ship is around three knots faster than its average cruising speed."

From a CNN article on the Titanic: "At the time, the RMS Titanic was the largest passenger ship afloat. The ship's length was 882 feet, 9 inches, and it weighed 46,328 tons. Its top speed was 23 knots."


The difference in passenger ship speeds between the early 20th and 21st Centuries is completely non sequitur, and has no relevance to global distances. 

RMS Titanic and her rivals were the Boeing Dreamliners of their age.  Revenue was attracted by providing the fastest, the most frequent and (ironically) the safest port-to-port passage with the technology available. 

Modern cruise ships, on the other hand, are the RVs of the sea.  Customers want the onboard experience, and don't really care how long it takes between ports.  In fact, the longer the Companies can keep their clientele incarcerated, the more revenue they attract in sales of drink, commodities and gambling. 

One exception is the Queen Mary 2, which was actually built to a traditional liner specification, using modern technology, with the intention of seasonal trans-Atlantic crossings.  Consequently, its cruising and maximum speeds are around 20% better than its rivals, and the Titanic

58
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Islam and Flat Earth
« on: May 20, 2021, 02:50:02 PM »
Alaikum Salaam.

Fact is undeniable; belief is personal.  I respect fact, and I respect everyone's belief. 

Think on this; whatever one believes, the word of God has always been transcribed by man, including the Prophet (Peace be upon Him). 

The Word of God may be infallible, but can we believe the word of man?

59
Flat Earth Community / Re: i dont understand someone help please
« on: May 11, 2021, 08:13:23 PM »
Over several pages RonJ has patiently explained the function, use and need for the drift-nut in increasingly basic terms, and still Action80 doesn't seem to get it. 

How about this?  You can use the drift-nut, or you can work it out in your head, or you can use pencil and paper, or an I-phone.  What you can't do is ignore it.  One way or another, if you want to travel further than grandma's house, you need to compensate for something on your directional gyro. 

Its there, its real; now what do you suppose that something is? 

60
Glad I read the wiki.  Yes, the winds are strong, but the sources use terms like "consistent".  Yes, they blow East and West, but consistently so; East in polar regions, and west closer to the equator. 

The only use of the term "anomalous" that I could see is the subject heading and the wiki's opening premise. 

And the ocean current?  Not relevant to air-travel but really glad I know that now!  Apparently, the Southern Ocean current is the biggest movement of water on the planet because its just so huge but, and here's the interesting part; the surface current averages one knot! 

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8  Next >