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 ... 15 16 [17]
Yo Pete, genuine apologies if I've appeared to show disrespect to you or Tom; that was not my intention.  I thought I had caught the essence of FE's concept of Antarctica/Ice-Wall/South Pole, but obviously not. 

However, I suggest that you're now diverting the topic (again) onto diplomacy and the semantics of debating per se, rather than provide an answer question #24 of Matt's original post.   

Man of straw indeed. 

For an intelligent, educated man, some might regard Tom’s answer to #24 (beyond the Ice Wall) as either disingenuous or evasive.  The well publicized multi-national permanent research stations (if they exist, of course) could be part of a global conspiracy, but just a little research reveals that literally dozens of expeditions have explored Antarctica; some alone, some funded by governments, some funded privately.  Some have been televised, some resulted in books, and some are the subject of Guinness World Records.  Tom could refer to   
for a list. 
Some examples:

Roald Amundsen, explorer.  1911, Privately funded.  Tom doesn’t seem to know that Amundsen claimed to have been there. 

Capt Robert F Scott, Royal Naval officer and explorer.  1912, funded by the Royal Navy, Royal Society and the Royal Geographical Society. 

Michael Palin, actor, writer and Dead-Parrot Sketch demi-god.  1991, funded by the BBC, Prominent Television and Passepartout Productions.  Unlike Tom, you could read his book; Pole to Pole, 1992, BBC Books. Unlike Tom, you could also watch his TV series of the same name. 

David Attenborough, naturalist, broadcaster and National Treasure.  1993, with support from the National Geographic Society.  Quote:  “I am at the very centre of the great white continent, Antarctica. The South Pole is about half a mile away. For a thousand miles in all directions, there is nothing but ice. And, in the whole of this continent, which is about one-and-a-half times the size of the United States and larger than Europe, there is a year-round population of no more than 800 people. This is the loneliest and coldest place on Earth, the place that is most hostile to life. And yet, in one or two places, it is astonishingly rich”.   Unlike Tom, you could watch his TV series “Life in the Freezer”. 

The stock answer from FE, of course, is that it’s an uninhabitable wilderness behind an unassailable ice-wall (think Game of Thrones) guarded by an Illuminati-sponsored security force, and no-one has seen it. 

In the circumstances Matt, “unknown” is as good as you’ll get. 

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: April 24, 2020, 08:43:00 PM »
Lackey, JP Joule would be turning in his grave at how some people are misinterpreting his work and claiming his support for their own theories. 

I think everyone is happy with his "free-expansion into a vacuum" experiment.  In the demonstration normally presented, the gas is released from its containment on the left, along the x-axis, into the evacuated containment on the right, such that it then occupies both parts of the vessel.  The gas comes to rest.  The vessel is insulated.  The internal mass and energy and heat remain unchanged during the process.  No work.

Lets consider the first individual molecule of gas to make that journey.  When the gas is released, that molecule is accelerated through the aperture into vacuum.  It has velocity.  That velocity is the result of the pressure of all its fellow molecules pushing against it.  It is an action to the right, and at some point will produce a reaction to the left. 

The next molecule does the same thing; same action, same reaction.  But now there are 2 molecules in the right hand containment, and they ADDITIONALLY repel each other, so also accelerating along the y- and z-axes.  They are expanding freely in a vacuum.  But they still have their initial velocity to the right on the x-axis. 

Pretty soon, roughly half of the remaining molecules will join their colleagues on the journey.  The acceleration of each along the x-axis will be infinitesimally less than the first, because the right-hand containment is beginning to pressurise.  Each will accelerate to the right on the x-axis, an action, creating the need for a reaction.  They will also expand freely along the y- and z-axes.  But you have to remember that whatever acceleration they receive through free-expansion is ADDITIONAL to the velocity they had to the right initially. 

Meanwhile, our first molecule has hit the right-hand wall af the containment, and comes to rest.  By reducing its velocity to zero, it has accelerated to the LEFT on the x-axis.  This is an action to the left, and will produce a reaction to the right.  But just a minute, we left an action/reaction pair hanging a few paragraphs back, which is convenient because when we dial that in, then the algebraic equation for all the force applied to Molecule #1 is zero.  It started at rest and finished at rest.  No action.  No reaction.  No work.  Thank you JPJ. 

Now lets transfer the left-hand containment to the infinite majesty of space.  When released, our molecules accelerate to the right, an action.  Yes, the gas disperses freely in 3 dimensions into the vacuum but the individual molecules retain their velocity along the x-axis.  Although the gas is very, very, very dispersed, it hasn't ceased to exist, the molecules still have mass and velocity.  They got that velocity by being accelerated out of the containment; an action to the right, producing a reaction of the containment to the left.  And because they don't hit the wall of a right hand containment, so there is no second action/reaction pair, they keep going.  For ever. 

As does the containment, to the left.  For ever. 

Work done. 

OK Pete, "pay attention to the fact that a PhD is a research qualification, not a level of education". 

I see.  So is Batchelor of "I Was Taught This", better or worse than Doctor of "I Researched This Myself from Source Material". 


If the Bi-polar Model is Tom's preference (Post 30 March) we might finally be getting somewhere in developing common ground between the FE/RE Camps.  I know the FE's have some difficulties agreeing a definitive version, but lets consider the most commonly seen proposal (centered roughly on Africa);

1.  It shows continents in a relationship which many RE'ers would recognise. 
2.  It includes an Antarctic continent.  We know that exists because, as well as government agencies, Michael Palin has been there (Pole to Pole, Palin, BBC Books, 1992).  And no-one is going to accuse one-half-of-the-Dead-Parrot-Sketch of being a government patsy.  And yes, there was midnight sun, it was December. 
3.  It includes, by definition, a South Pole. 

An anomaly with the Bi-Polar where we struggle to bring the Roundies on-board is the relationship between the extreme East and West sides of the map.  The Eastern Pacific is shown at the extreme left (West) and the Western Pacific vice versa.  This is highlights a number of issues;

4.   Pacific Ocean currents, helpfully illustrated by Tom in a Post later the same day (on a Mercator Projection?).  Tom's illustration of the contra-rotating Northern and Southern Pacific currents/drifts seems incompatible with the bi-polar model. 
5.   Trans-Pacific travel.    A trans-pacific flight from Chile to Australia, for instance, would not seem feasible.  QED; see the recent Flat Earth Theory Topic "Are plane tickets real?".  Please read that thread before disputing it. 

What might be accepted by both camps:  Print a Bi-Polar map on an A3-sized sheet of thin latex.  Now s-t-r-e-t-c-h this around a basketball so that the left and right sides of the map meet on the "dark-side" of the Earth, sorry, basketball. 


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: March 21, 2020, 10:51:54 PM »
Also LATAM (Chilean State Airline) fly Santiago-Melbourne (7000 miles on a RE model) 3 times per week, Flight Numbers LA804/LA805.  Its not difficult to find.  Flight times Chile-bound last week were 12 hrs 7 min, 11 hrs 53 min and 12 hrs 10 min (FlightRadar24).  That gives airspeeds of around 580 mph, reasonable for a Boeing 787. 

No stops in LA, no stops at Area 51, just Santiago to Melbourne across the Arctic Circle.  Flight times Australia-bound around 520 mph (due to prevailing winds. 

And ETOPS aircraft have to remain 50 miles from land? Seriously?  Ask the population of Iceland.  The regulation is currently 4-hrs flying time at single engine cruise speed, which is madness from a safety point of view, but gives almost no restriction to routing.   

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 19, 2020, 07:54:14 PM »
Duncan the Know-Nothing time-served Licensed Aircraft Engineer again;

Are we considering the vacuum as a static state?  Because it may not be. 

With the rocket engine at rest in space then the combustion chamber, nozzle and environment are at zero pressure, and no gas is present; no flow, no thrust.  Once the motor fires, fuel and oxidiser combine in the combustion chamber and a chemical reaction converts them to (mainly) carbon dioxide and water.  As the chemical reaction is exothermic, this material is at high pressure and temperature in the form of a gas.  The gas attempts to equalise with environmental pressure (zero) by escaping through the nozzle.  Because the nozzle is a choke it restricts the flow. 

You understand a choke?  You inflate your car tyres from a compressed air cylinder.  Your tyre pressure is 2 bar, the cylinder air is 10 bar.  You pull the lever and does the tyre jump to 10? Does the compressor plummet to 2?  No, air flows across the choke (the tyre valve) creating a pressure drop and accelerating (hear the hiss?).  As more gas enters the tyre its pressure slowly rises.  As air is lost from the cylinder its pressure slowly falls.  At no point are the pressure in the cylinder and tyre equal, and the pressure in the tyre-valve is somewhere beteen 10 and 2. 

Our rocket exhaust gas similarly experiences a pressure drop and accelerates as it exits the nozzle; If the pressure in the chamber is x, nozzle presure is y and the environmental pressure is zero, then x>y>zero.  The nozzle pressure is greater than zero.  It is not a vacuum.   As the exhaust gas accelerates in one direction, blah blah, you and Newton know the rest of the story, and on we go to Destination Moon. 

If the exothermic reaction produced its gas in a free vacuum it would dissipate freely in all directions = no work. 

And once its LEFT our nozzle it does just that, but we don't care, because it did its work already in the nozzle. 

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 17, 2020, 11:21:58 PM »
Excuse me, I'm not a rocket engineer, so I'm not qualified to comment. 

I am, however, a Licensed Aircraft Engineer, in the categories of Turbine and Piston engine aeroplanes. 

Pure jets, turboprops, turbofans and reciprocating engines all convert the chemical energy of a fuel into heat to (either directly or indirectly) accelerate a mass of gas (air, or a mixture of air and combustion products) along a vector; normally rearwards.  This is an action. 

Newton's RE-action (not "pushing against the atmosphere") accelerates the engine along a vector opposite to the original action.  I know this because its my job.  Its how we engineers get you to Ibeza.  Or to Antarctica, if it existed.   "Doo doo doo doo" (Outer Limits music). 

Thanks Inquisitive; I agree with your corrections regarding terminology, and I didn't know that about the OS Maps Apps. 

Although my argument for the existence of GPS (or GNSS) might seem logical, I confess to still being on the fence.  Of course, if its NOT satellite based, the only people who would be in on the secret would be all ships captains, all airline pilots, all marine/aviation electronic engineers, all employees of GNSS equipment manufacturers, and all national so-called space program organisations (of all geo-political persuasions). 

And why do they always install an aircraft's GNSS antenna on the top of the fuselage? 

My first Post! Excuse me butting in;

I think 2 things have been overlooked here by both sides of the argument. 
1.  Consider the first word of the term "Commercially Available": it means you have to pay for it. 
2.  What is a GPS device. 

Looking at item 1, if I can use the analogy of old-school navigation using a paper map, then the first thing you obviously need is a map.  This means that someone has to survey the terrain and its features to an acceptable degree of precision for its intended purpose.  This might be by surveyors on the ground, aerial survey, or a mixture of both.  They then have to transfer this data onto its graphic format and organise its distribution to users.  They aren't going to give this hard-earned information away; they SELL it to the consumer.  For the sake of argument, lets call the map a database.  The second thing you need is to know where you currently are on the terrain/map.  Generally, this is a given, because we all know, depending on the journey we're making, "I'm at home", "I'm in Glasgow", or "I'm at Gatwick Airport".  Thirdly, we need a sense of direction; this might be as complex as a compass and Inertial Navigation, radio beacons, sail west at 10 knots for 6 hours, or just "walk to the church and turn left on the High Street".  Whatever, we need positional information about where we are and its relationship with where we want to be. 

Looking at Item 2; what is a GPS device?  Its got 2 parts, the first part is a receiver.  It doesn't transmit anything.  I gets free-to-receive signals from Global Positioning System satellites and by analysing differentials in the signals it determines where it is on a vast featureless ball.  This is its positional information.  It does this to a high degree of accuracy, but it has no idea that it is in Wigan.  That's where the second part comes in.  Remember our database?  We need to COMMERCIALLY buy, or rent, a database.  A true GPS device includes a software database which you paid for when you bought the GPS from Halfords or PC World or had it included in the car you bought from Honda, or the plane you bought from Cessna.  You either paid for it once at the shop, or you subscribe to an update service, but its stored in the GPS device.  Depending on need, you bought/subscribed one with your country's maps, continental maps, roads, seaways or whatever.  A SMARTPHONE is NOT a GPS device.  It EMULATES a GPS device by incorporating a GPS receiver, which (remember) does not transmit.  The PHONE transmits to a terrestrial phone-mast using your cellphone-data allowance, the network verifies your entitlement because of your (commercial) monthly data package, and sends you a map of where you currently are, from a terrestrial phone-mast.  Your phone does not carry around a database of the world, but they will RENT it to you as you need it.  If you drive into the middle of the ocean, or the desert, or probably a Welsh valley you will continue to receive a GPS signal but you will lose your phone signal, you will lose your rented maps, you will lose your emulated-GPS.  The phone's space-based GPS receiver is still working, but it no longer has a terrestrially-provided map to relate to. 

Pages: < Back  1 ... 15 16 [17]