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: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 19, 2022, 06:09:28 AM »
@Gonzo: although the numbers may vary, I think 'RE and FE are in broad agreement that eastbound transatlantic traffic gets a benefit from wind in terms of speed, range and fuel-burn.  Tom's contention, however, is that traffic from Europe to North America also consistently gets a benefit from easterly winds.  Any comment?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Britain's Pedo Prince
« on: January 17, 2022, 10:04:58 PM »
All of the British royals are pedos.
All of the American Royal Family would be pedos.  The British Royal Family are paedos. 

What you are talking about is the difference between True Airspeed (TAS) and Indicated Airspeed (IAS).  IAS is what is shown on the pilot's Airspeed Indicator, and is important for the aerodynamic handling of the aircraft, but at high altitude it is significantly lower than the TAS.  If you like, IAS is the number of cookies per second, but is less than the actual speed.  TAS is used for navigation, and is the maximum speed quoted by the manufacturer. 

What this means in practice is that the aircraft is faster at altitude, as you suggest, but this is already the limiting speed quoted by the manufacturer.  If the limiting TAS is, say 500 knots, the pilot might reach this speed when he sees only around 300 kts on the Airspeed Indicator. 

Its not that the aircraft is exceeding this limiting speed at high altitude (low air density), its just that the pilot is actually seeing a lower figure for IAS.  The minimum air density (in other words is maximum altitude) is specified, again, by the manufacturer. 

It is quite categorical.  The aircraft will not travel through the air, at any density which it is certified, faster than the manufacturer says. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 10:05:16 AM »
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.

(my bold); Why do you invent these things?  That, sir, is complete fabrication, and obvious to anyone who flies or watches a flight-tracking service. 

Currently; ETH552, UAE9249, PLM999, MPH6161 for example; all travelling Europe-North America, and all mixed in with West-East traffic. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 08:11:12 AM »
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.

The only reliable distance measurement method is an odometer, and people haven't measured large portions of the earth with it.
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.

And, by the way, what research brought you to the conclusion that there are now no 17000 mph winds around the Arctic?  A few posts back you seemed convinced. 

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.

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.
And a Happy New Year to you too.

It's not a million pounds of thust.  It's  million Newtons.  Please read your chart.  And 200 million pounds, Newtons or mega-watts can only push the plane through cookies as fast as Boeing, Airbus, Stack and others have already told you, the aircraft has a structural limit. 

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.

(Sigh).  This doesn't get any easier. 

That chart isn't the thrust-to-weight ratios of the aeroplanes, its just the thrust to weight ratios of the engines.  The engines of a 747 don't go anywhere without the rest of the 747 attached to them.  All 400 tons of 747.  I'll let you re-do the maths if you think it has any merit.   

And I see what you're trying to say with the cookies, but we already discussed this.  Go back a couple of posts, and where I wrote "air density", read that as "cookie density".  Does that make any sense? 

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts
« on: December 31, 2021, 04:57:38 PM »
Soooooo, where are we. 

Its New Years Eve and, if the good Meterologist-Captain-Doctor's second tile is to be believed, the UK was predicted to have temperatures today higher than Spain. 

From METARs at 16.30 utc; London City Airport = 15 C.  Malaga Airport = 14 C.  (and definitely unseasonably warm in NW England). 

Gotta say the Climate Change and Covid things have muddied the waters somewhat, so I don't honestly know where this leaves the Weather Guys' evil master-plan for world domination. 

Of course, that still leaves his first tile out in the cold (pun intended), but as the 96% scoring CPL-holder neglected to specify a timeframe more accurate than "next week", I guess we'll just have to watch the skies.  And wait. 

edit; this news just in .....

It's the increase of airspeed which gives the aircraft lift in thin air.

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.
I don't think you're really following this. 

The plane takes off, climbs, and then cruises through average-joe atmosphere at an airspeed of (let's say) 600mph.  It enters your hypothesised super-jetstream which has a speed of (let's say) 17000mph; its ground speed is now 17600mph but its airspeed (the one that affects aerodynamics) is still only 600mph, so there is no change to lift or drag. 

And NASA is describing a jet, or rocket, engine.  The "bowling ball" is the exhaust gas. 

A rocket engine burns its self-contained fuel/oxidiser and accelerates the exhaust gas to phenomenal speeds (perhaps more like skateboard guy firing a baseball with a grenade launcher).  Airliners do not have rocket engines. 

A jet engine gathers atmospheric air and uses a compression/combustion process to accelerate it to lower speeds than a rocket, but in comparatively huge quantities (hence a bowling ball in our comparison) to achieve the same thing.  It needs to gather sufficient air, which is why airliner engines have such a huge frontal diameter, but they can still only operate in air which has sufficient density. 

My only theory right now is that the planes can reach these high speeds because the air is thin enough to negate drag.  But it's enough air to feed the engines, maintain lift and because jets or similarly rockets use newtows third law of conservation of momentum they sort of produce there own thrust without needing a thick medium.

Planes from New York to Hong Kong that travel near the north pole fly eastern routes over Alaska and western routes over Greenland which rules out the strong wind theory. 

MetaTron, you really need to study and get your head around conventional physics, rather than just thinking up stuff. 

Aerodynamic Drag is a function of Drag Coefficient, Surface Area, Velocity-squared and Air Density

Aerodynamic Lift is a function of Lift Coefficient, Surface Area, Velocity-squared and Air Density

Do you see the similarity?  Lift and drag are equally dependant upon air density.  Reduced air-density ("thinner air") reduces drag but reduces lift in equal measure.  You can't lose the drag and keep the lift.  Its physics. 

And how exactly do they  "...sort of produce there own thrust without needing a thick medium"? 

And this is seriously your only theory?  You don't want to give any more thought to the sphere-thing? 

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts
« on: December 30, 2021, 08:10:16 PM »
No one is disputing that predicting the upshot of chaos is a difficult one to call.  I don't make predictions (and I never will), but its quite likely that our ability to do so is unlikely to improve significantly, whatever science we throw at it. 

To claim that it is a complete sham, however, is disingenuous.  For some of us the consequence of failure means just leaving home inappropriate attired and equipped, but for many customers of the meteorological services its a matter of life or death, and sometimes even profit and loss. 

Thork's OP however, juxtaposing 2 conflicting prediction of what is happening "next week" is a farce.  Yes, its the UK, so its cold one day and warm the next. 

Of course, part of the problem is that however many dollars, how much technology and expertise we throw at a question, some of the population can only understand the answer if its provided on a hand-held as a 125x125 pixel tile from a pay-per-click tabloid site.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts
« on: December 29, 2021, 12:52:00 PM »
Both agencies, and others, are actually forecasting a mild New Years Eve, and lower temperatures the following week. 

Congratulations, you have exposed something quite sensational. 

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: December 20, 2021, 03:37:48 PM »

If the rag-tag group of underdogs called "Flat Earth Truthers" haven't managed to create a great Flat Earth map YET -- maybe they have families, day jobs, and other obligations, and can't dedicate their whole life to this hobby -- that isn't a dealbreaker.

Lots of us have families and obligations.  Until I retired recently I had a day-job, and occasional night jobs, for 50 years. 

The majority of people of all viewpoints work, they have computers, they have hobbies and they travel on vacation. 

On your computer?  Follow a flight- or shipping-tracking site.  Look at where they are going, and the routes they are taking.  See how fast the aircraft are travelling, and correlate that with the claimed distance. 

Taking a flight on holiday?  How far is it claimed to be by the Round-Earth media and NASA?  The cruising speeds of airliners are well known.  What route are they claiming to take?  Look out the window and verify it yourself.  Time the flight. 

Claiming that FE'ers have no facility for research is an utter cop-out. 

There may be something in this, but the moon looks surprised by the suggestion. 

The ISS has an identical drag coefficient to that of a Sainsburys carrier bag.  It can only achieve 17,000 mph because it operates in a vacuum.  Current airliners are limited by aerodynamics and size/power ratio to subsonic airspeeds. 

Amongst all your research and speculation about south centred discs, domes, hypersonic winds and a Boeing/Airbus/NASA/Commercial-pilot conspiracy, have you seriously considered the freakish possibility that the Earth is actually just a sphere, and that CX845 (and countless others) simply fly over the top? 

Instead of just thinking-up stuff, PLEASE spend a day watching FR24, particularly the relationship of indicated speeds/time/distance.  Come back to us when you have some evidence of speeds significantly in excess of 600 mph. 

So your best shot is that it tracked almost due-north to western Greenland (about 1 o'clock on your map) at around 500 knots, whizzed around the Earth to the Komsomolets Islands (around 6 o'clock on your map) at 17000 mph, and then continued south to Hong Kong, again, at around 500 knots.  Have you any evidence whatever that an Airbus A350, or any commercial airliner, has this capability?  Apart from your surmised sojourn into hyperspace it was travelling almost entirely north-south, which you have previously argued is perpendicular to the jetstreams, and therefore best avoided.

Lol, it's a good point.  I haven't looked into the Airliners capabilities yet but by way of gravity if you're wondering why the passengers weren't floating perhaps it's because they were closer to earth then the space station is.   And an airliner travelling close to 600 miles per hour going north over Canada is also new to me, lol.

If this is seriously news to you, you could do worse than to take a day out of your schedule to sit and watch a tracking site like FlightRadar24; watch the routes they actually take, the speeds that they travel, maybe pick a long-haul trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flight and follow it from start to finish.  Did you really not know that planes flew north of Canada? 

And no; I wasn't actually puzzled by the ability of passengers to remain in their seats. 

So your best shot is that it tracked almost due-north to western Greenland (about 1 o'clock on your map) at around 500 knots, whizzed around the Earth to the Komsomolets Islands (around 6 o'clock on your map) at 17000 mph, and then continued south to Hong Kong, again, at around 500 knots.  Have you any evidence whatever that an Airbus A350, or any commercial airliner, has this capability?  Apart from your surmised sojourn into hyperspace it was travelling almost entirely north-south, which you have previously argued is perpendicular to the jetstreams, and therefore best avoided. 

Yup, pretty close to a great circle. 

Of course, we await the south-centred disc-world explanation. 

13.25 utc, and there it is. 

103 deg East, heading 167 deg, just north of the Komsomolets Islands. 

So that's North of Greenland to North of Russia in under an hour.  Jetstreams?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >