1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Oceans & Clouds

« on: November 26, 2018, 06:01:43 PM »

Yup, you can't just say that gravity can hold down millions of tons of water so it should be able to work on clouds. It comes down to how much stuff (mass) there is at any given point (per unit volume). The density of water is 997 kg/m^3. The density of a cloud will vary but you won't see it much over 20 grams/m^3. So it's a lot easier for other forces to work against the gravity.

Edit: Sorry, I made a mistake. The average moisture content of a cubic meter of air is generally 20 grams or less. As you reach 100 percent humidity water starts condensing out to form a cloud and will eventually fall as raindrops. So on average, the density of a cloud is much less than the water content of the air around that cloud.

2

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Chemtrails

« on: November 25, 2018, 12:02:13 AM »

Chemtrails have been proven time and time again. It's stupid to deny it, but that is the effect of nano particulate spraying, stupidity...and it's working very well we see.

https://www.frequencyfoundation.com/2018/11/23/nano-aluminum-creates-chronic-parasite-infections-in-population/

So I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseum but if you make claims like that you're going to need to back them up. The article you linked had nothing to with aircraft, vapor trails, or cloud formation. 20% of it seemed to be trying to push an Airdog purifier, 50% was quoting an MD that has no experience in atmospheric sciences at all and offers no studies proving his point, and the last 30% was going over a study exploring the connections between aluminium and autism that had a sample size of five and still didn't in any way connect it to aviation practices.

It's pretty simple. Those things coming out behind aircraft are plain old clouds. There's nothing malicious about them. The only difference between them and other clouds is that instead of using ambient dust to form, they use the water and soot coming from the engine exhaust.

3

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Chemtrails

« on: November 24, 2018, 06:46:36 PM »

I didn't start this thread. I was providing an answer. No where in my post did I ask a question.

The wingtip vortices are still areas of low pressure that cause cloud formation. Regardless, what you see in high g fighter manuevers (and sometimes on commercial flights during take off and landing during moist conditions) are caused by transient low pressure. It doesn't have anything to do with with what supposedly looks like clouds coming out of the engines.

Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing that the government or whoever is throwing a bunch chemicals into a jet engine. There's no ill will or conspiracy going on anywhere in this.  But soot is an acknowledged product of combustion and when thrown into the upper atmosphere, they'll produce normal every day clouds. If I were to somehow up a window up there and toss out a bunch of dust, you'd end up with the same effect.

4

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Chemtrails

« on: November 24, 2018, 02:48:43 PM »

Also, A more recent study investigating the effects of newer alternative fuels on the formation of contrails.

https://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10081/151_read-25658/#/gallery/20878

5

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Chemtrails

« on: November 24, 2018, 02:42:50 PM »

No don't think fossil fuel contamination.  Think heat contamination.  On a cold day you can see your breath.  Cars that are just started often have white smoke coming from their exhaust pipes.  It's all the same thing.  Air at high altitude is cold.  Jet engines have a hot exhaust.  It's the hot exhaust mixing with the cold air that causes  the water vapor in the air to condense and produces a cloud formation behind the aircraft.  There isn't much soot from the exhaust of a jet engine, most of it is just hot air.  You can also see vapor formed on the top of the wings of a fighter jet if the jet is pulling a lot of Gs in a maneuver.  There is a low pressure area on top of the wing and it's below the vapor pressure of the air so you see a bit of a cloud for an instant.

Just a point of clarification, hot air being introduced to a cold environment doesn't result in cloud formation. Hot, moist air equalizing with a colder environment produces clouds. It's the warm, moist air in your breath cooling down to it's dewpoint that produces a cloud. The humidity of the environment doesn't have much to do with it. If I wave a blowtorch around on a cold day it won't cause any clouds even if the temp/dewpoint spread is less than a degree. I think that was what you're saying but I wanted to clarify. I probably wouldn't call it heat contamination either since it depends on the characteristics of the hot air mass. Now a jet engine is kind of like your breath example. The combustion process does produce some water, but it's not enough to form all the clouds you see in a contrail.

With regards to wingtip clouds and the like, that's a different phenomenon. If a jet engine produced the same kind of conditions as a wing at high angle of attack then you should be able to see contrails more consistently at high altitudes.

And with soot, we are working to producing less of with different alternative fuels but I've seen firsthand what happens if you don't wash an aircraft for a week or two. The tail's black as a chalkboard.

Also, this is an older study but it's a good read regarding the effects of aircraft soot on cloud formation.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001GL014115

 

6

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Chemtrails

« on: November 24, 2018, 03:59:42 AM »

Soo, technically those contrails are caused by something that comes of of the engines. Soot. Generally that high up, there can be a decent amount of humidity in the air but one thing it lacks is fine particulate matter. See water will form droplets much easier when it has something to attach to and in the lower atmosphere there's usually plenty of dust to go around. Up high, not so much. However, jet engines burn a lot of fossil fuels and the exhaust it produces contains plenty of those small particules.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: August 12, 2018, 02:12:51 AM »

Just saying you can't say they don't teach it now if you're quoting a manual from 1991. Most accurate you could be would be to say they didn't teach it in 1991. I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped using it by 1993. Now, unsurprisingly, we seem to be stuck on guns again. Would anyone like to try and take a stab at 80% of the applications Coriolis effect is used for and try to come up with a good Flat Earth weather model that doesn't need Coriolis?

Let me put the latest long distance record shot in perspective for y0u. It was almost 4000 yards (2 miles) with a 50 cal. It got doped probably at least 40 inches left with no wind just using spin drift. The round was airborne for almost 10 seconds. The sniper aimed his weapon high the height of a 60 story building for drop. You catch that? 600 feet above the target. And you want me to believe his spotter said hold dead on cuzz the earth is going to rotate 10 inches and wind will make up the other 30.

Sorry they most likely lobbed em in for some time to dope it close and got LUCKY !

This is all very interesting. I don't profess to be an expert in long distance shooting, and in fact I didn't even bring this up in my original post. I'll let someone else handle the shooting questions since the farthest I shot was 100 yards. This is probably one of the fringe applications of utilizing the Coriolis Force but everyone always brings it up because it's usually the closest to home for them. My question for you is do you have an answer for my weather questions.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: August 12, 2018, 12:25:07 AM »

Just saying you can't say they don't teach it now if you're quoting a manual from 1991. Most accurate you could be would be to say they didn't teach it in 1991. I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped using it by 1993. Now, unsurprisingly, we seem to be stuck on guns again. Would anyone like to try and take a stab at 80% of the applications Coriolis effect is used for and try to come up with a good Flat Earth weather model that doesn't need Coriolis?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: August 11, 2018, 11:55:12 PM »

Winds come from the 4 corners of the flat earth. When lives are at stake you would think that The US Marine Corp Sniper training would say, hey ! When you're trying to kill a bad guy at a mile and a half because your brothers are pinned down you should probably aim 2-3 inches this or that away depending on where the hell on earth you are to kill el subject ! Two-3 inches will translate into another county in long range shooting. Sorry fakers, doesn't exist, isn't taught, enjoy more bullsheet.

Here's a sniper manual.

 https://archive.org/details/milmanual-fmfm-1-3b-sniping-u.s.-marine-corps

That manual is from 1991. Also, 2-3 inches is the bullet's drift, not the muzzle correction.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: August 11, 2018, 10:54:28 PM »

Without even getting into the claim of celestial gravitation (presumably we should be able to measure a stronger force in the plane of the Milk Way since there's so many close stars than outside of the plane?) that still doesn't account for mesoscale events like hurricanes. In order to account for that, you would need tiny pockets of celestial gravity rotating and moving with the hurricane.

Edited for Grammar

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: August 11, 2018, 06:54:33 PM »

This has been a fun discussion about the effects of Coriolis on man-made objects. My two cent's regarding flying is you'll never see effects of Coriolis on the aircraft. They're there, because it affects all matter of motion not physically connected to the Earth, but it's going to be orders of magnitudes smaller than other inputs you'll need to make. Any kind of crosswind, for example, will require course corrections that would mask whatever kind of deviation Coriolis would cause.

But moving the discussion on a bit, I would still like a Flat Earth answer to what is presumably Coriolis' effect on the weather. Even if we invoke some Celestial tugging like I've seen in other threads, that only accounts for the largest scales of weather. If we zoom in a bit to the mesoscale, we still see the effects of Coriolis. The most obvious example, of course, are hurricanes. Hurricanes are, simplistically, areas of extremely low pressure. Having already established that atmosphere tends to achieve equilibrium, what we would see is a wind pattern where all vectors are pointing radially inward. This is not what we see in real life though. Coriolis adds another force that pull all wind vectors to the right. Without the Coriolis effect there would be no rotation, no eye wall, and no hurricane.

The one argument I've seen is that gears can spin in opposite directions? Which is fine in the sense that allows for opposite wind circulations on the global scale but hurricanes don't exist on the boundary of global wind patterns. In fact, they have a hard time existing closer than ten degrees north or south of the equator precisely because the effects of Coriolis are so small. They are created well away from the "gear interface" which would cause opposite rotation.

And regardless, we see these effects in sub-tropical cyclones as well, and those are nowhere near the opposing gears of the equator.

12

Flat Earth Theory / The Coriolis Effect

« on: August 09, 2018, 03:36:26 AM »

Hello!

My question is obviously about the Coriolis effect. Namely, what causes it in a Flat Earth model. I've seen the wiki, I've read some previous threads and it seems like there's no Coriolis Effect per se, it's just how the winds move? If that's a misrepresentation please let me know.

If that's true, that begs the question what causes wind movement. In a RE model, large scale wind patterns are driven entirely by heating. What's the mechanism in FE?