Cringe thread?
I would not claim to know how to do it either, but the engineers that design aircraft, etc do know!
Here we go again! That's one of the stupidest RE arguments, yet one of the most common. . .
"Well, I know
I sure don't get it, so it must not be possible. . ."
But can't you at least TRY to reach the truth?!
One of the stupidest FE arguments, yet one of the most common. "I don't get it ==> It's not true. / You don't get it ==> You're lazy and/or stupid." Based on the logical fallacy of a double standard. If you have enough understanding of a concept to demonstrate that the loose ends don't meet up, then go ahead and argue against it.
Until then, everybody who doesn't know much about it is to some extent ignorant and nothing gets disproven, but the engineers keep successfully applying their knowledge and constantly proving it. So because they understand it they can keep generating more evidence while not even participating in the discussion, and you've still got nothing to say about it.
What is more likely: that they were deceived by the instruments or that they really reached the altitude they thought was impossible?
Those instruments apply fundamental physics, so if you're going to deny those instruments, you'd better be prepared to disprove. . . you know. . . everything? Whereas reaching an altitude higher than what they thought they could is plausible. Rounding down for safety and simplicity in intermediate calculations (not saying that's what they did), environmental conditions, etc. Do you or I know what happened there? No. But I and everybody else knows those instruments are extremely reliable.
See, the same goes for the story you just told. If airplanes exist, they are too complicated for anyone to understand exactly how they work (each part). Even if an engineer says that they couldn't explain how could the instruments show that they are higher than possible, that doesn't mean that the RE is the most probable explanation.
Thrust/drag/lift/gravity, each part can be considered individually, let the engineers fuss about the big picture and individual parts for optimization. If anybody knows all that, chances are an industrial espionage suit is following, or they just have an airplane and know it works.
Wing: contour forces air to pass faster over the wing than under, reducing dynamic pressure and causing pressure below to lift the wings, when it is forced forward.
Elevators and rudders: same thing except you can turn it to change the orientation of the plane with the "lift" generated.
Ramjets: when forced through the air, the air is pressurized and mixed with fuel. Once ignited it stays lit for the same reasons a Bunsen burner does, and this pressure increase from the burning jet fuel generates thrust.
It doesn't really take much to understand an airplane if you try.
And I really shouldn't even be attempting to prove that ISS doesn't exist. The burden on proof is definitely on you. Don't take it as an attack, take it as a fact.
Yes. I should have to prove that an artificial observable object in the sky exists. Get a telescope, look up where it should be at, go outside, and
look at it. Done? No conspiracy stuff? You can see it for yourself?
all, as a FE-er, I am not allowed to believe in submarines until I see enough evidence of them.
Implying the Allies
pretended to almost lose WWI in the Atlantic and that anti-submarine convoy tactics remain in use purely to preserve the Conspiracy.
Sorry, I know that post ended with "let's get back to GPS" but this hurt too much to just pass this up. I'll get to GPS now.