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 ... 12  Next >
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Apollo 17
« on: November 27, 2022, 05:03:47 PM »
I was privileged to be born in the 1950s.  I still remember my mum listening to the radio and telling me that there was a man in space (Yuri Gagarin), and I was old enough in the later 60s to witness, and understand the significance of, the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs culminating in the Lunar landings. 

In Earth orbit we have had Skylab, Mir, Shuttle, ISS, constellations of communications-, broadcasting- and navigational-satellites.  Beyond Earth's immediate locale, we have landed or flown-by all the major planets, some asteroids, and a comet.  Robotic probes are excavating material from some bodies for future return to Earth.  Half a dozen countries, of all political shadings, have soft-landed vehicles on alien bodies, and some of them are still driving around.  We've sent probes beyond the boundaries of the Solar system, and spaceborne telescopes are probing the furthest reaches of the universe.   

The prototype of a manned lunar probe is currently orbiting the moon; the first person-capable vehicle to do so in 50 years, and we stand on the threshold of permanent lunar settlements, and a manned probe to Mars.  Possibly, inshallah, in my lifetime. 

Against this backdrop, someone on another thread (who's name I can't even be arsed to look up again) is suggesting that space is boring.  Unbelievable.  Makes you wonder where we will be in another 50 years. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do you think about this map?
« on: November 27, 2022, 01:31:01 PM »
Looks like yesterday's Qantas QF1336 was a chartered sightseeing flight to Antarctica (Google it). 

Obviously Qantas aren't aware of the Forbidden Zone thingy, and the Global Space Force F-16s failed to shoot it down. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do you think about this map?
« on: November 26, 2022, 11:08:35 PM »

You are not allowed to sail or go past past the 60th parallel south. I believe it is to prevent us from getting too close to the firmament and discovering the true nature of the plane we live on.
Antarctica, interestingly enough, is the only 'continent' that has it's shape on the flag. It's almost like they want you to 'know' the shape of it - thereby further fooling us and hiding the truth.

What flag?

And what's with the "go past the 60th parallel south" thing.  What law is that?  What is the jurisdiction?  Who enforces it?  As I write this, Qantas Boeing 787 Dreamliner Registration VH-ZNB, operating as flight number QF1336, is on FR24 out of Melbourne and at 67deg South 165deg East.  Should we be telling the World Police? 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do you think about this map?
« on: November 26, 2022, 08:04:36 PM »
The map is pure fantasy.  It doesn't even show Essos, Westeros or Narnia. 

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Does the Sun appear larger in the morning?
« on: November 26, 2022, 07:55:57 PM »
Item 1:  Before we go any further; for Christ's sake be careful with your eyesight; you won't get a second chance.  Research how to safely look at the sun.

Now lets critique your science.  "3/8 inch", "between 1/8 and 1/4 inch".  What?  I thought even FE took it to be several miles across.  I assume you are measuring the apparent diameter at some distance from your eyes.  What distance?  How have you measured the range of your compass points from your eye?  Are you using the same distance for every observation? 

Sunglasses are totally inadequate for this task (see Item 1).  If you are looking through trees you are partially obscuring the thing you are attempting to measure.  Unless you are looking through something like welder's goggles you are only measuring the glare, not the sun. 

Finally, read Item 1 again. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum
« on: November 20, 2022, 05:31:42 PM »

Questions like.. if exhaust fumes do nothing compared to the internal action/reaction principle, then what happens if we move the exhaust of a jet in different directions?  Nothing really?  What if we turned the exhaust of  a rocket 180 degrees...  Would the rocket still move forward?  I'm compelled to give credit to the enormous wind power generated by these machines.

Harrier; it can deflect its exhaust nozzle downwards; plane goes up.
Airliners; ducts and vanes deflect the exhaust gas forwards; plane slows down. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum
« on: November 20, 2022, 01:08:21 PM »
If Jets and Rockets are propelled as a reaction to moving the mass of fuel at a high velocity in one direction rather than on the exhaust fumes pushing against air, then there should be some information which could confirm the answer

There is information; its called Newton's Third Law.  Google it.  Its plainly written in practically every book about physics.  You act on an object, and it exerts an identical force on you, but in the opposite direction.  Its skateboard-guy with a bowling ball. 

The exhaust fumes are not pushing on air.  Fuel itself is not moved backwards, it is the exhaust gas which moves; -

Rocket; the fuel/oxidiser in the tanks combine and burn to produce hot gas, which has a hugely greater volume so is directed out of the nozzle and is termed "exhaust".  The volume is increased, but the mass remains the same.  The mass is therefore accelerated, which is a force.  The force of accelerating the exhaust produces a reaction on the rocket, in the opposite direction. Whatever is outside the nozzle (air, vacuum, yogurt) doesn't matter.

Jet; The aircraft only carries fuel, not oxidiser.  It collects air through an intake.  The air serves 2 functions;
1. it contains oxygen, so supports combustion. 
2. It has mass. 
Fuel is combined with the air and burnt, which increases the volume and pressure of the gas.  The fuel doesn't contribute much to the mass, the exhaust gas is mainly air and combustion products like CO, CO2, water, but whilst the volume is much greater it still has the same mass.  The gas escapes through the jetpipe, and is termed "exhaust".  The mass is therefore accelerated, which is a force.  The force of accelerating the exhaust produces a reaction on the aircraft, in the opposite direction. Whatever is outside the nozzle (air, vacuum, yogurt) doesn't matter, but unfortunately the intake needs to be immersed in air, so the rest of the aircraft has the same limitation. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum
« on: November 19, 2022, 08:53:41 PM »
It doesn't push against anything.  There's no friction.  Its a reaction.  Read the book. 

"And stack, Newton made it clear that MASS is important in the action/reaction equation.  The greater the mass of one object compared to another, the less it will move".

Correct.  You're probably thinking "Gas?  That's not got a lot of mass".  Try to understand that this was the heaviest rocket that NASA has ever launched, and that around 90% of the Lift-Off Mass of a rocket is fuel and oxidiser.  And all that mass gets thrown out of the nozzle.  It burns, and it becomes gaseous, but when it flies out of the nozzle at supersonic speed it still has the same mass it had when it was a zillion gallons of liquid oxygen and hydrogen

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum
« on: November 18, 2022, 11:24:03 PM »
I believe it's probably a combination of both "gas pushing on gas" and "gas pushing on matter" like jets do.

Jets don't "push on" anything; they eject gas (which has mass) at high velocity in a particular direction, and the reactive force accelerates the engine in the opposite direction, just like Isaac Newton, Bob, Tumeni, SA10 and the jet engine books have been telling you.  And rockets work on exactly the same principal except that they don't have to collect the gas through an intake; they create it by a chemical reaction between fuel and oxidiser.  I'm a retired jet engine engineer.  it was my job. 

Your posts are littered with phrases like "I think", "it seems like" and "I believe".   With the greatest respect, rather than argue from ignorance, you really need to just take some time out to do some proper education about physics.  Don't even sweat the numbers and formulas, just get your head around the principals.  It really isn't difficult. 

Time travel is not possible.

Besides, if time travel were possible, people from the future would be here trolling us, making fun of how primitive we are. You know people in the future are going to be serious assholes.

Your posit, then, is that Time Travel is proven to be false due to the absence of trolls and assholes on the internet. 

I see. 

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: October 12, 2022, 07:26:59 AM »
As a former RAF nuclear bomber technician, yes, I've seen nuclear bombs.  They are pointy at one end, and have fins at the blunt end.  Fortunately, I've never seen a nuclear explosion, however. 

I've also seen conventional high explosive bombs.  They are also pointy at one end, fins, etc.  Unfortunately I've never seen one of those explode either, but have spoken to friends who have seen them explode.   

I've also seen air-to-air missiles.  They are kind of bomb-shaped (pointy, fins etc), but much, much thinner.  Fortunately, I HAVE seen missiles fire and explode. 

On the basis that I have witnessed the function of missiles, been assured of the function of conventional bombs, and personally seen nuclear bombs, I have every reason to believe that they will explode in a nuclear manner as described in the brochure, should we decide to smite our enemies in such a manner. 

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Automatic Logout while submitting a post
« on: August 03, 2022, 11:05:16 AM »
When I remember, after sweating over one of my long, rambling rants, I copy and paste the text to my clipboard before posting, just in case I've been logged out. 

Flat Earth Media / Re: NASA caught in the lie...
« on: August 03, 2022, 10:58:59 AM »
And?  Speaking as one of Satan's advocates on Earth I feel the need to respond. 

So NASA has a great big room with a large green-screen which they lease out to film production companies, bringing in income to offset their own costs.  Its something called utilisation of irreducible spare capacity; isn't that a good thing?  They also build space rockets that go into space.  You believe the green screen, but not the space rockets?  The only special effect demonstrated in the video are those made by the video producers themselves. 

"... which I can't talk about right now ...."  (repeated in post-production, so we appreciate the "significance").  Are you seriousl?  So he's doing dirty tricks for the "government", and he tells you that he can't talk about doing dirty tricks for the government?  You don't think it could be commercially-sensitive Hollywood stuff? 

OP hardly worth the effort really. 

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
« on: July 29, 2022, 08:10:45 AM »
Its complex = Humans haven't found a way to calculate it yet = It doesn't exist. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: HF Radio Signals, Propagation and DX.
« on: July 28, 2022, 07:42:36 PM »
According to my research (which I shall be publishing next year, or so), vertical zig-zagging between stratospheric nanoparticles above, and people's aluminium-foil hats below, could propagate the signal ad infinitum.  Yessiree. 

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Arctic Flights
« on: July 23, 2022, 05:59:43 PM »
Is it accessible to the public?  Of course it is, just the same as the centre of the Atlantic is accessible; you've just got to address the logistical issues of getting there. 

Its just a patch of (frozen) ocean outside of any country's territorial waters, so nobody has jurisdiction over it.  You will,of course, have to comply with the entry regulations of whichever country you decide to embark from. 

Don't forget your bear repellent. 

I'm hesitant to believe that no instruments take into account Earth's curvature.  We're talking many thousands of feet of drop per hour.   

Gravity, air pressure, etc I think are dwarfed by the effects of thousands of pounds of lift generated by these planes.

Kind of how a kite is not affected by gravity etc... At least on windy days.
I'm an aircraft engineer, and I just explained how it works.  But you think its not affected by gravity, like a kite. 

I see. 

I know pilots flying 14 hr flights and never nose the plane down to make up for some fake curvature.
Inane comments like this don't really advance the concept of Flat Earth, and the fact that you seem to "know pilots" compounds the apparent ignorance. 

Further to the maths and all that others have mentioned, pilots flying "14 hour flight" don't actually push, pull or even steer anything from shortly after take-off until approaching to land; its all done by the autopilot.  The Altitude Hold function of this is accomplished by inputs from an air-data computer (ADC) which, in turn, receives an input of ambient atmospheric pressure from sensors on the side of the fuselage.  All commercial flight above Flight Level 290 (approximately 29000 feet) has to be done by aircraft certified to something called Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (VRSM), which means that the aircraft's altimeters have to be calibrated to very high standards.  Aircraft operating in VRSM may only be separated from other traffic vertically (height) by only 1000 feet, so variations of more than 300 feet are illegal.  (Just think about that for a second; they are 8 miles above the earth, and keeping height +/- 100 yards, purely on air pressure).  So as the plane flies along it varies up or down by a couple of feet; if it descends, the pressure rises, ADC tells the autopilot, autopilot trims the nose up a little, and so on.  Just the same way the Course Hold function is monitoring the heading to the next waypoint; plane veers slightly left or right, autopilot sends appropriate inputs to the lateral control system.  Just the same way that your car's Cruise control is constantly measuring velocity and constantly tweaking the amount of gas put out by the fuel injection system. 

Even if the aircraft was being flown manually, the pilot would be constantly adjusting up, down, left, right for the same reason, but just not as efficiently.  If you think that the pilot could identify which bit of "push" is for curvature from which bit is due to turbulence, you are demonstrating that you just can't conceive how big the Earth is, and how small you are. 

So there is no "push" to accommodate curvature; its constantly pushing, pulling, turning to achieve the altitude and heading demanded by the pilot.  And, of course, it would do it exactly the same if the Earth was flat, or indeed a Paralloid Tetrahedron.  (Don't Google that, I just made it up).

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: July 18, 2022, 08:09:00 PM »
We just saw 238,000? miles with naked eye, beetchez
No you didn't.  You saw a VIDEO ffs.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What is the Gospel?
« on: July 17, 2022, 03:07:22 PM »
The method of obtaining evidence was already explained to you. The Bible says that you will go to hell if you do bad things. So go do some really bad things and then end your life in suicide and you can find out first hand whether it is true.
Okay, I see.  So you have no evidence of your God. Nice.  So what kind of person enslaves themselves to a thing that cannot be shown to exit?  Is that  a dupe?  Yeah, that is pretty much the definition of a dupe.

It's not "my" God, and nor have I "enslaved" myself to anything. You asked for evidence for the Bible that you could see for yourself and I have shown you that in a few actions you could get evidence. To get evidence for something you need to be willing to perform the experiment. It is not an experiment that other people can perform for you. The Bible makes a direct prediction on what will happen, and the only way to see if it will happen is to do it.  If you are unwilling to perform the experiment the fault lies with you for opting out on unscientific excuses like personal morality and fear.
Willing or not, we're all going to perform the experiment; the only optional criteria are the parameters we set. 

Of course, presenting your conclusions for peer-review is going to be the killer. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12  Next >