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 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12  Next >
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?

I see you've tidied up the maps, but they still leave questions. 

I'm watching Cathay Pacific flight CX845 from JFK to Hong Kong.  Its an Airbus A350, reg B-LXL.  It headed almost due north, then slightly east over Baffin Bay, disappearing over western Greenland at around 75deg West, still heading NNE.  Its data readout showed it reached an latitude of over 89 deg north, at around 12.50 utc. 

I'm going to make a prediction that it reappears over norther Russia, at around 80 deg East, ie the directly opposite side of you're map, and heading predominantly south. 

Yo MetaTron. 

I think part of the problem is hinted at by your "disclaimer": I advocate a South Pole centered FE Map that spins once a day, wobbles once per year, is covered by a dome shaped atmosphere .........  (my bold). 

I'm sure that isn't what you mean.  I don't think you're actually suggesting that the map wobbles, but rather that the disc-Earth does.  But that's what you've written. 

I don't know how your French is, or whether you take an interest in art, but try googling "The Treachery of Images".  Link:

Its a painting by the French artist Rene Magritte, and shows an image of a smoker's pipe, with the caption "Ceci n'est  pas une pipe" (This is not a pipe".  The point of the painting is that the painting is not actually a pipe.  You can't stuff the painting with tobacco and smoke it; it is just an illustration of a pipe. 

Similarly with much of your argument (and you are by no means alone on this forum) you keep talking about (paraphrasing) "a hypothesised south-pole centered map".  This is putting the cart before the horse.  I think what you mean is "this is a map of a hypothesised south-pole centered Earth". 

The map is not the thing.

The Earth is the thing.

If the Earth is a globe, it has 3 dimensions and can be viewed from an infinite number of perspectives, and projected onto a 2-dimensional flat map (be it paper or a screen) in a number of ways, to produce many different maps.  But there is only one Earth. 

A flat-Earth on the other hand has only 2-dimensions can only be mapped one way. 

Although we can produce many maps, there can only be one Earth, and it is the Earth, not a map, who's shape that you need to specify and measure. 

I echo Stack's comments on the jetstreams (I'm a retired aircraft engineer), and what about west-bound traffic?  I'm currently (09.20 UTC, 9 Dec) watching an Air India 777, callsign AIC 127, on FR24.  He's going from Delhi to Chicago, and he's over Greenland.  Why would he do that, when the most direct route is obviously over Antarctica? 

And what is the relevance of a Great Circle, which you admit is a spherical concept, to flat navigation? 


Some more questions regarding your South Centred Map; 

Why do commercial California-Europe flights normally take the Great Circle route?  (and what is a "Great Circle"?)
Wouldn't it be much shorter flying over central Africa?
How did Flight 50 fly a single sector from SF to London and then need to refuel twice on the way back, on what appears to be a similar distance? 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is beyond the south pole?
« on: November 27, 2021, 05:37:47 PM »
Further to all the other references to Antarctic flights, Hi Fly have just this month landed the first Airbus A340 in Antarctica.  Operating from Cape Town, it was doing route-proving and initial setup of ground facilities for future (seasonal, obviously) operations, delivering support to the research stations and bringing tourists.  Report and video here:

No mention of US sponsored Antarctica Police or space-nazis. 

I used to fly aerobatics. I can tell you now that after taking extreme g's, you are shattered afterwards. Exhausted. And yet rather than Shatner saying "I'm broken and by the way, you knocked me out twice. Once on the way up and again on the way down" he is instead prattling on about the sky changing colour. You think he might mention the extreme forces on his body.

If Shatner held a 6-g pull, I want to see that footage. Not carefully curated 'experiences' of joy and wonderment on a 480p potato cam.
When you flew aerobatics you were presumably seated; like the guy in the centrifuge.  The Blue Origin passengers are supine.  There is a difference. 

]People can change. 4 years is a long time in politics. They're different now. You should hear them out.

Or, to paraphrase; "People can change.  20 years is a long time in Afghanistan.  They're different now.  You should hear them out". 

Pages: < Back  1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12  Next >