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 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 12  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy
« on: April 01, 2021, 05:47:14 PM »
At this point, they won't feel weightless any more - they weigh precisely the same as they do on the ground, or indeed sat on an airliner in level, unaccellerating flight.

This is also untrue.  Their mass will be the same but not their weight.  If a parachutist were to take a scale with them and put it under their feet while they are at terminal velocity the scale would not measure the same weight as it does on the ground.  It's no different than a scale in water.  Wind resistance acts the same way as water's buoyant force.

Sorry WTF, but Bob is spot on. 

Your analogy with floating in the water is different; you, and the water you displace, have identical mass so are accelerated by gravity at the same rate.  Neither can move vertically, of course, because the body of water is supported by the seabed, bottom of the pool, or whatever. 

When the parachutist leaves contact with the aircraft, he is instantaneously weightless, but immediately begins accelerating vertically.  As his vertical speed increases, he becomes subject to the upward force of aerodynamic drag, which is related to his size, his drag-coefficient (his shape), air density, and his velocity-squared.  He continues accelerating, and his weight continues increasing, until the aerodynamic drag equals the force of gravity; terminal velocity. 

Float in a pool and you perceive no force acting on you.  Compare this with sticking your arm out the window of a moving car.  Feel the difference?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy
« on: March 31, 2021, 08:03:28 AM »
So the Shuttle used to orbit the planet, and there was no deception?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy
« on: March 30, 2021, 10:38:12 PM »
Do what? So the astronauts and space tourists who have been to the ISS just think they're orbiting a globe earth when they aren't really?
Something along those lines, yes.

Now we're getting somewhere. 

So the (lets say) Space Shuttle crew ascend in the lift to board the Shuttle, which they have just seen from the launch pad.  They are familiar with the look, sound and smell of the craft from their many training sessions, and they've probably personalised it for the flight (packet of mints in the seat pocket, that kind of thing) so they've not been somehow diverted into some kind of simulator.  They can see the ground and the sky through the windshield and windows.  It launches, they feel the acceleration.  As it climbs, it pitches over onto its back and they can see the ground and ocean falling away.  The flight crew are test pilots, so they correlate the flight instrument displays with what their senses are telling them about acceleration, speed, altitude and attitude; they will smell a rat if things don't correlate.  The sky darkens, ground based features and clouds grow smaller.  Engines stop and they experience weightlessness; for several days.  As they orbit, the planet rotates beneath them, and within a few orbits they have observed the entirety of Earth from pole to pole.  At the end of the mission they decelerate, re-enter, transition to airborne flight and land. 

At exactly what point, and how, dose the deception occur?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 27, 2021, 02:23:32 PM »
NASA announced this morning that a "possibility" of the Earth being struck by the asteroid Apophis in 2068 has now been dismissed following a most recent analysis of its current position and orbit:

In fact, they predict that there is no possibility of this particular asteroid hitting Earth for at least 100 years.  That's a relief. 

Would it be Tom's position that he concurs, on the basis that there is no previous evidence of this asteroid striking Earth?  How would FE predict an unprecedented event? 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?
« on: March 23, 2021, 02:55:56 PM »
Or indeed using a video sequence, which you have just done to demonstrate the hologram on our 2D screens. 

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth
« on: March 22, 2021, 11:28:59 PM »
Does your research involve field trips, interviewing witnesses and so forth?  Or is it mainly google/YouTube based?

I do not conduct interviews, no.  I do, of course, study the anecdotes collected by other researchers.

I don't go on field trips with the express purpose of seeing ufos (though I frequently look up!).  In general, there is no reason to - they are too ephemeral (and are clandestine surveillance craft, besides).

So, mainly the internet then.  That's fine.  Lots of good stuff on the internet. 

Imagine, if you will, that Earth sends Mike Tyson, Kim Jong Un and Uma Thurman as emissaries to the home of the Grays (I know, its weird, but stay with me.  Its a McGuffin).  The average Gray-in-the-street is likely to think they represent 3 different species.  He/she has never visited Earth, as that kind of travel is the province (as on Earth) of a technically qualified and trained elite.  He/she obviously recognises the overall anthropoid form, but individual features of the visitors are diverse; dark/light skin, differences in overall stature, hair, sexual features and, of course, differing eye colour and shape.  Three different races.  Probably at least one of them scary (Uma Thurman would be my guess). 

The TV show Star Trek appeared in the 1960's and was in many ways groundbreaking in its depiction of the unified nations and races of Earth collaborating as part of a Confederation.  The famous prime-time-first interracial kiss, and so forth.  The stories developed, spinoffs appeared and by the mid 90's the Star Trek canon introduced us to the concept of a black character from the planet Vulcan, in the shape of Ensign Tuvok.  Familiar Vulcan brain, Vulcan ears, but now he's black.  Quite why Vulcan humanoids would have evolved in a parallel way to those on Earth I don't think was fully explained, but it did at least serve to increase the diversity in roles available to ethnic actors, and, as art follows society, illustrated the broadening acceptance of diversity in the population. 

I'm personally unconvinced by the prospect of Grays in reality but my point is, as a cultural icon in the collective consciousness, should Jack's 90's "Gray" just be seen as an ethnic variation of the same old "alien" species. 

And don't forget that none of the popular images are the product of witnesses or scientists, they are all drawn by graphic artists. 

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth
« on: March 22, 2021, 12:18:20 AM »
Does your research involve field trips, interviewing witnesses and so forth?  Or is it mainly google/YouTube based?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: March 21, 2021, 02:14:08 PM »
I tripped on the stairs last week.  I'm 67.  Just thought I'd put it out there. 

"I am Spartacus"!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?
« on: March 01, 2021, 12:15:11 AM »

You need to learn how flights work. Airliners use filed flight plans and radar communication with air traffic control. The filed flight plans are based off of years of historic data collection. Nothing here proves the shape of the earth.

We seem to have an oxymoron here; flight plans are based off years of historic data collection (i.e. the distance and vector relationships between all the world's airports), but this tells us nothing about the shape of the world?  Some would argue that this tells us everything about its shape. 

And maybe we need to look again at the role of Air Traffic Control.  The safe navigation of an aircraft is entirely the responsibility of its captain.  He (she) decides the destination and is responsible for ensuring sufficient fuel and adequate means of navigation.  He is assisted in safely making the journey by ATC. 

In this last week, a Boeing of Icelandair carried a group of scientists between Munich and the Norwegian blue-ice Troll airstrip in Antarctica, and return.  It's unlikely that Icelandair has done this before, but they did it by knowing the relative positions of Munich and Troll.  And don't expect much intervention from ATC, as much of the South Atlantic is beyond the range of VHF radio and radar. 

Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: February 19, 2021, 12:22:46 AM » 

The Company quotes a distance of 4352 km from Sydney (East coast) to Perth (West coast) via Adelaide on its Indian Pacific rail service.  One imagines that they know how much track they laid. 

I don't know if locomotives have odometers, but they definitely have speedometers and clocks, and have some resistance to anomalous winds. 

And as for which Flat Map is to be debunked, I think we should wait for nominations from the many that are available.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: February 02, 2021, 02:40:39 PM »
Like I said you say you can see the world like this:

You have optical powers shared by no other humans. Extraordinary.

That's what the polar projection assumes, yes.

You can see points over 180 degrees around you. If you can't see such a space vertically because your upper brow is in the way all you need to do is rotate your head. Vertical FOV is fairly high as well.

The argument was that a wide field of view must necessarily produces distortion. Since we can see a very high field of view with human vision, this argument about FOV and distortion is incorrect.

Any lens with a vocal length less than infinity produces a distorted image, and the human eye is a false comparison.  From the moment we open our eyes, our heads start writing software to convert the distorted retinal image into something representing reality, and we can't unlearn that anymore than we can un-learn breathing or pooping. 

And although we may have visual perception over something like 180 degrees, our acuity measures less than 10 degrees.  Hold a newspaper at arms length to your side; you can tell that something is there, but you'll need to turn you head a few degrees to identify it as a newspaper, and look directly at it to read the headline.  I

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vendée Globe
« on: December 15, 2020, 07:42:51 PM »
The formula for speed is Speed = Distance / Time

If the distance is in question, then the speed is also in question.

The situation is fluids traveling within fluids. The winds and water are in motion. On board airplane airspeed indicators are similarly unreliable, and are not used for navigation. The local area of the airplane might be in motion faster than a larger area around that airplane, which might itself be in motion.

This is a joke, right?  Apart from their vital use at the lower end of the range, around stalling speed, this is the main reason for having an airspeed indicator.  I don't know when or where you did your own pilot training, but when I was taking lessons (in 1973) the first piece of kit I had buy was something called a "computer", which was a type of circular sliderule, where you would factor in your airspeed, intended course, and wind velocity and it worked out the heading you needed to steer.  En route, similar inputs would tell you how far you had travelled.  This is why commercial aircraft and large military aircraft carried navigators.  The windspeeds are forecast by meteorological agencies, and verified by shore stations and weather balloons. 

The advent of more advanced terrestrial navaids in the 50s, and GPS in the 90s has reduced dependence on dead reckoning, and consequently reduced crewing requirements, but its still a vital part of crew training.  Its also how Amy Johnson, Jim Molinson, Alan Cobham and thousands of other civilian pioneers and military pilots managed to find their way around the South Pacific in the 30s and 40s.

And I'd be very surprised if the Vendee sailors aren't comparing at least 3 different forms of navigation. 

(Incidentally, leading boat currently has a windspeed of 23 kts, to the rear of the peloton its around 8 kts.  Scary stuff). 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: December 14, 2020, 10:18:40 AM »

You criticize the debate yet you yourself have contributed nothing. Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?

I can't explain rocket theory to you with any more eloquence than the other correspondents. 

And at least half of a debate consists of listening.  And understanding. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: December 13, 2020, 09:48:52 PM »
I got to say I'm a bit disappointed.  What could be an interesting thread on the relative arguments FE/RE, has degenerated over the last few pages and weeks into a futile attempt to help a correspondent understand basic (generally unchallenged?) physics regarding Newton's Laws and the nature of vacuum. 

More disappointing is that there are a couple of heavy-hitters on the FE side who's understanding of these concepts is respected, but who's input has so far been confined to debating the timeline of Tweets about an album cover and the personal integrity of a retired member of the Canadian Space Agency.   

Any contribution on gas law and Newtonian physics Gents?

...the Earth is not stationary but travelling upwards at by now immense speed, since it is claimed Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms-2. Apparently everything else we see - sun, moon and stars - is also accelerating at the same rate with the Earth. This is called Universal Acceleration and is this site’s explanation of what the rest of the world calls gravity.
If everything is accelerating at the same speed and direction then this 'acceleration' would not be discernible, just like when you are traveling in an airplane at 400 mph along with the plates, napkins, and chairs.  There is no sense of motion, thus there would be no 'force' and you would still have to explain gravity.    BTW, 'up' would have no meaning. 

You may be confusing "acceleration" and "velocity".  Humans have no means of detecting velocity (although we sometimes think we can, from clues such as perception of relative movement, engine noise, wind on our face etc).  We can, however detect acceleration, using our sense of feeling, sense of self and our inner-ear thingies.  When the aeroplane, passengers, chairs and napkins are all travelling at 400 mph then, yes, there is no perception of velocity.  When the First Officer bounces the thing onto the runway, however, that is an acceleration of the aeroplane, and all the passengers, chairs and plates feel it. 

The FE concept is that UA is accelerating the Earth, and celestial objects at 9.8 m/s/s but not (for some reason) people, animals, buildings, chairs and napkins.  So the FE concept of what we Globies call gravity, is that everything on the planet is being pushed up by the earth and that is the effect we feel as gravity. 

And as Longtitube said, don't think that everyone who posts on this site is a Flattie; its a forum. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: December 05, 2020, 05:25:37 PM »
It was a file image to illustrate the type of damage caused by micrometeorites.  It was taken in 1984 and published by NASA in 2006.  Remedy Drive subsequently used the image for their album artwork.  I don't know if they had the copyright holders permission. 

And the force applied by the ISS atmosphere to the approx 2mm hole and its subsequent "duct tape & a gob of epoxy" is about 50 grammes.  You do the math. 

NASA is apparently pouring millions of dollars into fooling you; please try and give them some credit. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 29, 2020, 06:13:46 PM »

You can't apply simple pressure vessel mechanics to vacuum chambers that we have no experience of on earth. If there is very little difference between them, then how come we haven't recreated these vacuums? In the 50-60 years of space travel, how come an astronaut didn't think of bringing a sample of this vacuum back to earth for analysis?

For all the money spent on the space program, they really have done a poor job answering lots of basic questions...  ::)

So, bring back a sample of ...... Nothing?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 26, 2020, 08:40:49 AM »
@ Mark,

Can we just look at that vacuum thing.  You seem to think that at 0psi (perfect vacuum) something suddenly happens.  I think you have some grasp of it when you say, correctly, its not a "binary thing", but lets go a bit further. 

Vacuum has no temperature, and doesn't have any kind of "negative" pressure.  Its not inherently hazardous to inorganic things, its just a state of zero psi.  Is doesn't support life (as we understand it) because all terrestrial life requires an oxygen-rich environment and, if any gas exists, obviously there is no vacuum. 

Most terrestrial life thrives at a pressure of around 15 psi.  Start climbing mountains and you'll find alpine goats or whatever that are happy with lower pressures.  Humans can operate with reasonable ease at 10,000 feet.  Get to the top of Mount Everest (around 29,000 feet) and you are reaching the limit of human physical and mental capacity but trained and acclimatised mountaineers can survive.  The pressure up there is is around 5 psi. 

Go snorkelling, dive down around 12 feet and you are operating at 20 psi.  Dive a little further, to the bottom of the challenger deep and, whilst humans would struggle, creatures are existing at a pressure of around 8 tons per square inch, a thousand times sea level pressure. 

The point I am trying to make is that, in the big picture, at 15 psi,we are already operating at a pressure a thousand times closer to a vacuum than on some parts of the earth.  Its not a big deal. 

And as for the abiity of a vacuum to rip things to pieces?  Its just a matter of pressure differential.  15 psi.  The differential of the air in your car tyres is at least double that.  You can test the physical integrity of a space suit or spacecraft in a vacuum just by pressurising it to 15psi above ambient pressure in a workshop. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 19, 2020, 08:04:06 AM »

What other kind of 'proof' is required?

There is only one way to determine the shape of the earth (or any physical objects) with certainty -  rigorous and repeated measurement of the earth. Sailors are busy doing other things, as I am sure you are well aware.

Of the current correspondents on this thread I think RonJ is probably the closest to a subject-matter expert and he may like to comment on my post, but can I suggest that bridge officers on a merchant ship have actually got nothing better to do than measure the size of the earth, rigorously and repeatedly? 

Pre- and post-GPS in the 20th/21st centuries they have been sailing both hemispheres using global charts, navigating by radio aids, astronomical sightings, physical landmarks, depth soundings, inertial navigation, and dead reckoning, on waters with known currents and in conditions of known and predicted windspeed.  They know the theoretical distance from Point A to Point B and, travelling at a planned speed, they generally get to Point B on schedule. 

And are you suggesting that, for instance, the crew of a scheduled flight from New Zealand to Chile don't know the distance of the intended journey?  How much fuel are they supposed to carry?  When should they expect to arrive? 

If you've travelled at a known speed for a known time, you've measured the distance. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inquiries about Flat Earth theory of the firmament.
« on: November 06, 2020, 10:00:31 AM »


We do know, and importantly - can validate/verify, the layers of the air above us - to a certain altitude where hydrogen balloons stop rising.

And why would a hydrogen (or, more usually helium) balloon stop rising?  Has it hit the dome?  This could be verified by telemetry. 

A gas balloon rises because the overall density of the envelope and payload is less than that of the supporting atmosphere.  I think you agree that the density of the supporting atmosphere reduces with altitude; high altitude balloons are designed to expand with reducing atmospheric pressure, further reducing their density, and permitting continued ascent until the limits of construction and size are reached.  In other words, there aren't enough atmospheric air molecules-per-cubic-metre to support further ascent. 

And what does this tell us?  With increasing altitude, density of air (the number of molecules per cubic metre) reduces at a measurable and predictable rate.  And if the density of something keeps decreasing at a predictable rate it eventually becomes, what?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 12  Next >