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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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.
