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 - MetaTron

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13  Next >
1
This is a great response...  I don't have an answer.    ::) :o ;D

2

It's not a million pounds of thust.  It's  million Newtons.  Please read your chart.  And 200 million pounds, Newtons or mega-watts can only push the plane through cookies as fast as Boeing, Airbus, Stack and others have already told you, the aircraft has a structural limit.

You need to look at my cookie chart again.  In 10 seconds both airplanes encounter 10 molecules of air.  In other words they both experienced the same amount of air resistance in the same amount of time except plane 2 travels much faster.  So if the structural limit is ten cookies of air molecules every 10 seconds then in both scenarios it's possible for the planes to be flying at different speeds and within the limits of the aircraft.

3
And, by the way, what research brought you to the conclusion that there are now no 17000 mph winds around the Arctic?  A few posts back you seemed convinced.

When I noticed on Flight Radar that Cathay Pacific flew flights both East AND West on there way from JFK to Hong Kong it suggests there's no one directional wind preventing travel in a certain direction.  And both flight routes travel along 88n latitude so there's no room for two streams of air.

Generally winds play a bigger factor as you head south into thicker atmospheres.

4
Duncin one of the first things you say in your earlier post was that my hypothetical plane travels a few hundreds miles an hour before hitting a 17,000mph jet stream at which point it goes 17,600mph.

That is opposite of what Ive been trying to say in my last three posts and the reason I made the Cookie chart to begin with!  Again, there's no wind near the poles (that I'm referring to anyway)!  I'm only speaking of aero and engine capacity. 

And thank you for correcting me on the second chart.  I'd just say that once you get a 747 going having a million pounds of thrust will still get you places fast.   

And stack, calling everybody a liar when you confront something you don't understand is not useful.  I plan on looking more into the instruments aviators use to calculate speed etc, but for now I'm going to bed and I wish you guys a happy New year.

5
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. 



https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust

6
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. 

7
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. 
.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 22, 2021, 06:48:20 AM »
I don't know.  It's a little complicated and I haven't worked out the details yet. 

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 22, 2021, 01:21:31 AM »
I explained the mechanics of star trails in the thread "stars above the night sky".  I haven't worked out the details yet, but you can't say that's because everything is wrong..

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 21, 2021, 09:52:21 PM »
I don't mind looking into new ideas.  I have faith that ultimately I might be able to find a level of knowledge that does explain alot.  Perhaps I need to brush up more on RE ideas (and Wiki ideas) to learn more.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 21, 2021, 01:49:42 AM »
I don't know, I'm still considering it..

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 21, 2021, 01:04:09 AM »
Look at the first image.  You'll maybe notice or 'interpret' this photo as a glimpse into a flat Earth.  When you look at the daylight section notice how spherical it appears compared to the nighttime side which looks  almost like a bowl.  Look specifically at the termination line b/w night and day.. It looks like a shell is ending before you fall into a deeper and recessed Earth.   

I think the atmosphere is reflecting the light which makes it look spherical.  During night the Infrared image almost pierce's through the atmosphere (especially in the absence of light) and reveals a different perspective on Earth.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 21, 2021, 12:07:25 AM »
Stake it's a real image, but even NOAA admits they composite some of its features.... But no, I wasn't saying its fake.  I was talking about their short clips of moving clouds and such. 

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 20, 2021, 11:44:24 PM »
22k miles sounds like it would be high enough so I'll keep considering it.  Otherwise the animations look very cool, very fluid.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 20, 2021, 11:14:42 PM »
Oh, sorry 😋.  I think we can use physics, it's just the layout of things FErs question (as I can tell).

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 20, 2021, 10:52:35 PM »
When MetaTron says the satellite is not high enough to see the entire earth, is that due to not being able to see over the horizon?

No it's like having your face to close to the clock numbers so you can only see part of the clock at once unless you spin around

Would love to hear how satellites work on FE. Geostationary satellites have to be stationary, directly over the equator. What holds them up?

I can understand they float in a vacuum but I'm more curious what holds them in orbit around the sun 🌞

Two questions for MetaTron: Does RET explain this? Does FET have an explanation?

Yes and it's a work in progress.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 20, 2021, 10:45:43 PM »
Drand did you read my disclaimer?  I personally advocate that Gravity is more a function of Magnetism.  And taking spacecraft around the edge may not be that easy.  If the atmosphere is too thin beyond Central Earth we may not move well.

18
I'm thinking the mechanism that propels these air and space craft are high powered winds near the atmospheres edge or shell. 

The one thing Airbus CX845 and the ISS have in common is that within a dome they both travel near the edge.  The ISS taking a higher and more narrow circular path and the airliner a lower and wider one.

Winds are produced by changes in air pressure and temperature and you may get alot of that near the edge of space per se.  But these are just "guesses" into something that I need to look into and don't fully understand yet.

19
Stack, I don't want to speculate.  All I know is there are mechanisms in the atmosphere which accelerate vehicles like the International Space Station to incredible speeds and keep things calm enough to live and conduct science experiments on. 

20
This was helpful....  Thanks Kangaroo...  Its quit the show in the upper atmosphere.

Duncan, I know of course planes go across Canada, I just didn't know it could go close to "max" speed going perpendicular to jet streams as you pointed out. 

And Stack, I'm still looking into all of this.  Right now, I'm kind of amused that at 17,000 miles an hour it takes an Airliner about 2.5 hours to circle this map and it takes the ISS about 1.5 hours to circle the equator.   The similarity must raise an eyebrow?  These kinds of speeds aren't unprecedented.




Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13  Next >