### 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 >
1
##### 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.

2
##### 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.

3
##### 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

4
##### 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.

5
##### Science & Alternative Science / Re: Why time travel into the future is possible but time travel to the past isnt
« on: November 03, 2022, 02:17:15 PM »
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.

6
##### 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.

7
##### 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.

8
##### 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.

9
##### 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.

10
##### 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.

11
##### 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.

12
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« on: July 22, 2022, 03:30:18 PM »
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.

13
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton
« on: July 22, 2022, 12:24:10 PM »
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).

14
##### 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.

15
##### 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.

16
##### Technology & Information / Re: Speeding will be harder...
« on: July 15, 2022, 08:08:30 AM »
Speed is just what you get used to.  Back in the 70's in the UK, there was an absolute limit of 50 mph due to some fuel crisis shenanigans; 50 on main roads, 50 on dual carriageways, 50 on motorways.  For about a year.  It took like an age to get anywhere, but people got used to it.

When the limit was eventually scrapped, to the 60/70 mph the UK has now, driving at 65 seemed absolute madness for the first 20 minutes, but you get used to it.  Take the limit to 80, or 90, and the average speed of traffic may increase as people get accustomed.  And seriously; when was the last time you actually saw a motorway collision caused by excessive speed?  Compared with lack of attention on slower roads.

And getting back to the OP, yes it would be a safe option if the tech can handle it.  My car has auto-wipers and it would be nice if they only ever wiped a wet screen, and every time; but they don't.  Hate to think that the same level of tech is going to suddenly drop my speed by 10/20 mph.

17
##### Science & Alternative Science / Re: Size of the Sun
« on: May 19, 2022, 06:23:34 AM »
Not sure what you point is, Tom, but at 1.4 to 50 ppb the Moon is "made of Helium-3" like the surface of Earth is made of gold.

18
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: May 04, 2022, 07:27:41 AM »
By the late 1960s, the Soviet Union was promoting the benefits of Marxist-Leninist society in technology, sport and culture in its own territory, and in the promotion of satellite states (no pun intended) across Europe, Asia and the Americas.  The whole world marvelled at the sound of Sputnik's ping, applauded it Bolshoi, and cheered its superhuman athletes.  Is it even conceivable that they had no aspiration to put Soviet feet-on-the-ground on the biggest object in the night sky?

19
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: May 03, 2022, 08:05:43 AM »
As a wise Captain will one day say:

Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship (enter name of starship). Its (enter planned duration) mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before!

Still don't get it?  Space is just the frontier, its a vacuum, its nothing. The finish line is the new worlds, lives and civilizations.  And we aren't there yet.

And life must be a riot in the Bishop-household btw;