Flight Times???

But it would detect anomalies, such as 400mph jets of air.

Not necessarily.

You're really telling me a simple device such as an anemometer couldn't pick up 400mph streams of air?  Seriously?

You're really telling me a simple device such as an anemometer couldn't pick up 400mph streams of air?  Seriously?

Not in the circumstances you're describing. All the anemometer would measure is the craft's air speed.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 07, 2010, 05:48:16 PM

You're really telling me a simple device such as an anemometer couldn't pick up 400mph streams of air?  Seriously?

Not in the circumstances you're describing. All the anemometer would measure is the craft's air speed.

...what!?  What makes you think an anemometer couldn't detect a 400mph jet stream?

...what!?  What makes you think an anemometer couldn't detect a 400mph jet stream?

The fact that it would be attached to the aircraft, so if the aircraft is moving with the jet stream, it wouldn't pick up on it.

It would certainly detect a 400mph current upon entering/exiting the jet stream.

It would certainly detect a 400mph current upon entering/exiting the jet stream.

Only if there is a discrete boundary between the jet stream and the stationary air outside it.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 07, 2010, 05:23:39 PM

I guess that was a leap, but such wind-speed devices do exist... it's called an anemometer.  Obviously, no passenger could just stick one on the plane, meaning one could only take data from the anemometers used by the pilots.  And since if you read the data given from pilots, you would find they're normal (to RET); no headwinds, speeds over 800mph, etc.  You seemed to imply (IMO) that, because passengers couldn't take measurements themselves, pilots would lie about airspeed to cover up for the fact that fligth times just don't work on a flat Earth.

An anemometer would measure air speed, not ground speed.

But in conjunction with the radio beacons it gives a very good idea of the ground speed. By navigating from beacon to beacon, the pilots make known trip legs on known time lapses, so they have precise data to find out whether airspeed was the usual 50 nm or less, or if they were on a 400 nm super jet stream.

And now more than ever, they use GPS as a second navigational system, which gives them direct and very accurate ground speed readings.

You always end up in the same situation: pilots have to be in the Conspiracy or every "FE model" is unbelievably wrong.

But in conjunction with the radio beacons it gives a very good idea of the ground speed. By navigating from beacon to beacon, the pilots make known trip legs on known time lapses, so they have precise data to find out whether airspeed was the usual 50 nm or less, or if they were on a 400 nm super jet stream.

And now more than ever, they use GPS as a second navigational system, which gives them direct and very accurate ground speed readings.

You always end up in the same situation: pilots have to be in the Conspiracy or every "FE model" is unbelievably wrong.

I wasn't aware airspeed could be measured in nanometres.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 07, 2010, 06:47:44 PM

It would certainly detect a 400mph current upon entering/exiting the jet stream.

Only if there is a discrete boundary between the jet stream and the stationary air outside it.

Which is pretty much the definition of a jet stream.

Which is pretty much the definition of a jet stream.

I find it hard to believe that a stream of nitrogen molecules can move at 179 m s^-1 past stationary nitrogen molecules without creating some kind of turbulence.

Quote from: markjo on June 07, 2010, 07:44:09 PM

Which is pretty much the definition of a jet stream.

I find it hard to believe that a stream of nitrogen molecules can move at 179 m s^-1 past stationary nitrogen molecules without creating some kind of turbulence.

Yet you seem to ready enough to believe that airliners can pass through this turbulence without the passengers noticing.

Yet you seem to ready enough to believe that airliners can pass through this turbulence without the passengers noticing.

I have been on many flights, and noticed turbulence on most of them.

Quote from: markjo on June 07, 2010, 08:30:28 PM

Yet you seem to ready enough to believe that airliners can pass through this turbulence without the passengers noticing.

I have been on many flights, and noticed turbulence on most of them.

Trollsifal. Always showing your true colors. A pedant of the highest degree, at least you are consistent in your lunacy.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 07, 2010, 07:38:08 AM

Are you suggesting that all pilots are part of the Conspiracy and are therefore lying about the distances/speed achieved by the plane?  That'd be ridiculous.

What part of my post gave you that idea?

This part:

Quote from: Parsifal on June 06, 2010, 05:29:57 PM

Quote from: Sliver on June 06, 2010, 05:12:30 PM

So aside from the "birds are pushing the planes" and the "super high velocity jet streams", Are there any real explanations for flight times south of the equator?

I think it's more likely that birds are pulling the planes. The airline companies have realised they can save fuel by tethering birds to the aircraft while in mid-flight and allowing the pilots to switch off the engines.

The pilots would have to be in on something in order to switch off their engines in mid-air.

Also:

Quote from: Parsifal on June 06, 2010, 05:40:32 PM

Quote from: Sliver on June 06, 2010, 05:39:36 PM

Assuming your are being serious, given the size of these birds, there would have to be hundreds of them, someone would have noticed by now.

I should imagine the pilots have. The passengers tend to look out to the side, rather than the front.

And then there is the idea that the jetstreams you also claim to believe in (until pressed for evidence) traveling in different directions at different altitudes. Wouldnt the pilots notice this? Even if the equipment on the plane is manipulated, should the pilot not have some idea of how much time it takes the plane to reach its supposed altitude? Unless the streams are right on top of each other,close enough so the time difference isn't big enough to note, in which case you would have to pass through one to get to the other and the speed difference would shred the plane. Unless I'm wrong, which I admit I could be, I'm no scientist after all. If this is the case can you provide evidence that I am with verifiable or peer reviewed evidence?

I would really love to believe that you actually think these absurd notions are true. It would do my heart good to know that, even if I were to suffer extensive brain damage, there will always be someone stupider than me in the world.

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 07, 2010, 09:02:41 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 07, 2010, 08:32:21 AM

Quote from: spanner34.5 on June 07, 2010, 08:29:55 AM

I have flown all over England, some of France. I have never used a GPS.

There is nothing in the standard equipment in a light aircraft to give an indication of groundspeed.

Best guess is to use the aeronautical chart and a stopwatch.

That's great. A GPS unit can be brought on.

Would not do me a great deal of good, I don't know how to use one. As they may be interfered with, by the conspiracy, I have no desire to learn.

Just out of curiosity, are you instrument rated?

UK IMC.

Give it up, Parsifal.  You know there's no explanation for flight times, unless you'd like to try something other than magic birds or 400mph jet streams.