Expert prognosis for the planet

[Unplugem]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I feel like we have another QAnon troll who thinks they are enlightened in their conspiracy theories, but provide zero evidence or have about as much credibility for their conspiracy theories as flat earthers do who think they too are enlightened and the rest are ignorant. You can't see the parallel, or are you too a flat earther?

To what end is this control for? Maybe religion is failing, so they need something new to control people from destroying society? Is that what you think? Clearly, you can't or don't want to spell it out here. Who is trying to control you? Why? What would that do for them? You haven't really said how EVs lead to control either. You're mostly talking nonsense.

Every pilot uses this source to study in order to receive an aviation license. Check the Flight Dynamics Summary; it is the gold standard for facts that pilots rely on when operating an aircraft. This is where facts mean everything and there is no room for fairytales and fantasy. You don't have to read far; on the first page, check section 1.1.2. I look forward to your findings on this matter.
http://www.aerostudents.com/courses/...ullVersion.pdf

[Subsonic]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Every pilot uses this source to study in order to receive an aviation license. Check the Flight Dynamics Summary; it is the gold standard for facts that pilots rely on when operating an aircraft. This is where facts mean everything and there is no room for fairytales and fantasy. You don't have to read far; on the first page, check section 1.1.2. I look forward to your findings on this matter.
http://www.aerostudents.com/courses/...ullVersion.pdf

It's quite clear that you did not read very far. Do you know why a scientific paper, in order to create or explain a useful model would seek to simplify things? Did you read the NASA paper on a linear model? did you or even read just below the summary to the introduction on why such a model is needed? Do you have a better way to explain the linear model or would you prefer to expand on the linear model taking the smaller variables into account? Such a model would not suit the purpose of the paper, as set out in the introduction, but I'll leave the maths to you. I look forward to your paper on the topic.

I have fallen into this thread because I'm genuinely curious to find the answer to this question. Why don't flerfs ask more questions instead of leaping to extraordinary claims? The answers to your questions are really not that far away.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Here is a document from the liars at NASA, themselves.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...ain_H-1391.pdf
Check the "summary" on pg. 1 of the document, check the "concluding remarks" on pg. 30 of the document, and check the "abstract" on pg. 102 of this document. I look forward to your response to these findings.

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Every pilot uses this source to study in order to receive an aviation license. Check the Flight Dynamics Summary; it is the gold standard for facts that pilots rely on when operating an aircraft. This is where facts mean everything and there is no room for fairytales and fantasy. You don't have to read far; on the first page, check section 1.1.2. I look forward to your findings on this matter.
http://www.aerostudents.com/courses/...ullVersion.pdf

for a good long minute and a half.

Ok, so you clearly don't have a lot of math in your background.
Approximating the earth as flat eliminates the need to account for a constant, miniscule downward rotation of an aircraft. In fact the section you pointed out begins with:

In this summary, we want to describe the flight dynamics with equations. This is, however, very difficult. To simplify it a bit, we have to make some simplifying assumptions. We assume that . . .

Literally these guys are acknowledging that their mathematical approximation of a flat ground does not actually reflect the shape of the planet.

Fun fact, all aerodynamics is just approximations. In reality gasses are just an absurdly large number of tiny bouncy balls flying through space running into each other. Nobody has the computing power to track every atom as it tumbles through existence, so we make due with what we got. Up until CFD, that was test a bunch of stuff in a wind tunnel or on an aircraft and figure out the equations that connect the dots. Now with CFD, we can break complex shapes down into tiny simple shapes (cubes, triangles, and trapezoids) and iterate through the N-S equations a million times to get to the solution.

Anyway, I would recommend looking up stuff on how mega bridges/structures are surveyed and engineered. When you start talking about structures that are miles long and need to match up within a mm or so, the curvature of the earth matters. Second fun fact, the earth is not a sphere, but a geoid. It's actually a bit pear-shaped and lumpy. Not visibly so, but enough to throw off stuff like that if you aren't careful.

[NoHaveMSG]

How are you guys doing on your cards??

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

How are you guys doing on your cards??

you missed your free spot.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by soundman98

you missed your free spot.

I like saving it for last.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

So, you do think they used a human Jenga tower?... Wow you "science" boys sure are deep thinkers...
Last time I saw someone try that, it was on that staged "America's Got Talent" show; I think they managed to get ~30 ft. off the stage, before the weight of the people, alone, caused the whole thing to come crashing down. Try lifting 80+ ton blocks with this "human crane," I'm sure that will have a constructive result... Science!!! The theories are so well thought out, you would think NASA cooked them up.

so are things like physics and mechanical advantage like ropes, pulley's, and scaffolding a more modern innovation? perhaps these 'others' that control us are the one's that gifted us such things?

i'm still trying to understand why these powers seek to control everything. and if they're in so much control, why is gary, indiana such a sh!thole?



it's very rare that irace and i are on the same page. the fact that we're in agreement in this thread is starting to scare me!

[soundman98]

what's the "one world government" one?

i recognize most of the rest.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by soundman98

what's the "one world government" one?

i recognize most of the rest.

Remember when I was telling y'all about that car ride with the conspiracy nut? It's the part where there's 13 satanic families that are trying to bring about the apocalypse. Or something like that.

[weederr33]

Originally Posted by Subsonic

It's quite clear that you did not read very far. Do you know why a scientific paper, in order to create or explain a useful model would seek to simplify things? Did you read the NASA paper on a linear model? did you or even read just below the summary to the introduction on why such a model is needed? Do you have a better way to explain the linear model or would you prefer to expand on the linear model taking the smaller variables into account? Such a model would not suit the purpose of the paper, as set out in the introduction, but I'll leave the maths to you. I look forward to your paper on the topic.

I have fallen into this thread because I'm genuinely curious to find the answer to this question. Why don't flerfs ask more questions instead of leaping to extraordinary claims? The answers to your questions are really not that far away.

Do you even know what an airfoil is or what angle of attack is? Maybe what vectors are?

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by weederr33

Do you even know what an airfoil is or what angle of attack is? Maybe what vectors are?

I feel like you quoted the wrong person lol.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Remember when I was telling y'all about that car ride with the conspiracy nut? It's the part where there's 13 satanic families that are trying to bring about the apocalypse. Or something like that.

i try googling this sort of thing, but it always leads to a different result. for instance, i see some stuff about the theory, and the supporters, but nothing about what you're saying about families bringing about anything.

it's just interesting how many different ideas there are around the same concept, but somehow all of them are correct to everyone.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Can you see the wires pinging in the light?
The entire cast of the "Friends" TV show know. Jim Carrey knows. Jay Leno knows. They are all Freemasons and they are all in on it. They all love to mock you.

You clearly believe anything you see that supports your world view without doing any of your own fact checking and research. That is footage from the movie First Man (2018) with Ryan Gosling depicting Neil Armstrong and from other films. Watch the movie and making of the movie, and compare the video and movie for yourself. The video just distorted the image to make it look old. There is a reason the Comments section of the YouTube video is turned off.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/st...-landing-fake/

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Unplugem

Here is a document from the liars at NASA, themselves.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...ain_H-1391.pdf
Check the "summary" on pg. 1 of the document, check the "concluding remarks" on pg. 30 of the document, and check the "abstract" on pg. 102 of this document. I look forward to your response to these findings.

So you are a flat earther. That explains a lot.

This report derives and defines a set of linearized system matrices for a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, nonrotating earth.

Once again, you clearly are inept at understand what you are reading, especially in the context for which you find it. What they are doing is simplifying the system. A stationary atmosphere? Clearly there is no such thing as an atmosphere with a wind speed at all altitudes of zero, but they set that to zero to focus on certain variables in their equations and eliminate others. An object flying around the globe/earth at a given altitudes behaves the same as an object flying over a flat surface.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...rotating-earth