It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lets settle contrails vs nano dispersion

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

It was blatantly copied by a site called chemtrail forecasts, who posted the same pictures but had their own legend relating to chemtrails - oddly enough areas with high contrail likelihood were shown as having high chemtrail likelihood........

And for a while chemmies lapped it up...

But the site is now defunct - the person who posted it used it as an example of people believing whatever they chose to believe rather than doing any critical investigatoin!!




posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

If it is caused by atmospheric conditions then do we now have people able to forecast such conditions thereby predicting these lines in the sky?



Yes


(post by deadeyedick removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos





How apt. They do indeed, far more weight, in fact, than any aeroplane in existence could carry, but you don't even understand that point, do you? Be honest.


here is what you typed and you are calling it a question

I ask you again to phrase it in the form of a question I can understand



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick


here is what you typed and you are calling it a question

I ask you again to phrase it in the form of a question I can understand


You ask again? When did you ask the first time? You simply tried to guess an answer which was wrong, and I actually asked you to clarify a point, which you ignored, and now you're back-pedalling. .

I'm not interested in playing that game. The statement that the white lines in the sky carry more weight than any aeroplane in existence can carry is perfectly straightforward and means exactly what it says. I can't make it any simpler than that, so I'm sorry if it's beyond your comprehension.

The question was whether you understood why that is the case. You already answered that you don't. And that's OK, it's not a competition.
edit on 23-9-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos

this may explain it a bit easier:

If the white lines in the sky are made of ice crystals nucleated by aerosols in the air and produced by the engine, and the water ice that forms comes from the humidity in the air and a tiny bit from the engine, then we are talking about contrails. that is the definition of how they form.

If those trails are anything else, then the amount of material needed to make one trail that stretches across the sky is thousands of times heavier than the amount that one plane could carry. You can find the clarification/citation on that by looking for( ice budget).

It's more complicated than I understand as far as the math involved, but the basic idea is easy enough to grasp.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos
Yes I had to ask.
It really looks to me that we had a communication problem that we are over now.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: waynos
Yes I had to ask.
It really looks to me that we had a communication problem that we are over now.





Glad you are over it. Looks to me like you were/are playing silly games..but i could be wrong.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014
no games
we have covered much ground in this thread regardless of how we traveled

an attempt to make me seem more dumb than I am over a question that was never put in the form of a question and attempts for clarification on the original question were met by a judgment of my knowledge that was poorly formed.

All I am left with is the thought that water in the sky weighs more than implications of the contrail debate.

just poor communication on multiple accounts



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

mentalfloss.com...


First, figure out how dense the cloud is. Scientists have measured the water density of a typical cumulus cloud (the white, fluffy ones you see on a nice day) as 1/2 gram per cubic meter—about a small marble’s worth of water in a space you and a friend could comfortably sit in. The density will be greater for different types of clouds.

Next, figure out how big the cloud is. By measuring a cloud’s shadow when the sun is directly above it, you can get an idea of its width. LeMone does this by watching her odometer as she drives under a cloud. A typical cumulus, she says, is about a kilometer across, and usually roughly cubical—so a kilometer long and a kilometer tall, too. This gives you a cloud that’s one billion cubic meters in volume.

Do the math with the density and volume to determine the total water content of the cloud. In this case, it's 500,000,000 grams of water, or 1.1 million pounds. That’s a lot of weight to wrap your head around, so LeMone suggests putting it in more familiar terms, like elephants. That cloud weighs about as much as 100 elephants. If you’re a Democrat and you’re feeling partisan, she says, you could substitute 2500 donkeys. If you care more for dinosaurs than politics, you could also say the cloud weighs about as much as 33 apatosauruses.

If all those elephants or donkeys or dinosaurs were hanging out in the sky, they’d fall. So how does a several-hundred-ton cloud stay afloat? For one thing, the weight isn’t concentrated in a hundred elephant-sized particles or even a billion marble-sized ones. It’s distributed among trillions of really tiny water droplets spread out over a really big space. Some of these droplets are so small that you would need a million of them to make one raindrop, and gravity’s effect on them is pretty negligible.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kester

originally posted by: 2giveup
...no legal obligation by scientists or news to tell the truth.


...If you haven't flown, don't. It's an addictive and very harmful drug. Once a couple of jet flights have been taken the temptation to endlessly repeat the experience seems almost irresistible judging by the antisocial activities of the airborne addicts.


I want to know what airline they're flying! Every time I've flown, it's been because i was going somewhere far away and had to do it really fast. Aside from fulfilling that requirement, it's a miserable experience.

In my opinion, an addiction to flying on a commercial jet would be similar to an addiction to being punched in the kidneys. "It was just so uncomfortable, expensive and annoying, I just can't wait to do it again!"



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: deadeyedick

mentalfloss.com...


First, figure out how dense the cloud is. Scientists have measured the water density of a typical cumulus cloud (the white, fluffy ones you see on a nice day) as 1/2 gram per cubic meter—about a small marble’s worth of water in a space you and a friend could comfortably sit in. The density will be greater for different types of clouds.

Next, figure out how big the cloud is. By measuring a cloud’s shadow when the sun is directly above it, you can get an idea of its width. LeMone does this by watching her odometer as she drives under a cloud. A typical cumulus, she says, is about a kilometer across, and usually roughly cubical—so a kilometer long and a kilometer tall, too. This gives you a cloud that’s one billion cubic meters in volume.

Do the math with the density and volume to determine the total water content of the cloud. In this case, it's 500,000,000 grams of water, or 1.1 million pounds. That’s a lot of weight to wrap your head around, so LeMone suggests putting it in more familiar terms, like elephants. That cloud weighs about as much as 100 elephants. If you’re a Democrat and you’re feeling partisan, she says, you could substitute 2500 donkeys. If you care more for dinosaurs than politics, you could also say the cloud weighs about as much as 33 apatosauruses.

If all those elephants or donkeys or dinosaurs were hanging out in the sky, they’d fall. So how does a several-hundred-ton cloud stay afloat? For one thing, the weight isn’t concentrated in a hundred elephant-sized particles or even a billion marble-sized ones. It’s distributed among trillions of really tiny water droplets spread out over a really big space. Some of these droplets are so small that you would need a million of them to make one raindrop, and gravity’s effect on them is pretty negligible.


I feel like I am in the twilight zone.
I am looking at an answer to a question that was never asked by the member in the first place
my very first response to the statement meant to be a question is that the water in the air can weighs more than a plane
am I missing something here or is this similar to what you just posted?

I think that in order to keep answering the question it would first have to be asked and not just eluded to.

either way I am looking at a trail behind a plane right now and the conspirator side says to put on a gas mask and the rational side says it is just heat being displaced.

edit on 23-9-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: deadeyedick

mentalfloss.com...


First, figure out how dense the cloud is. Scientists have measured the water density of a typical cumulus cloud (the white, fluffy ones you see on a nice day) as 1/2 gram per cubic meter—about a small marble’s worth of water in a space you and a friend could comfortably sit in. The density will be greater for different types of clouds.

Next, figure out how big the cloud is. By measuring a cloud’s shadow when the sun is directly above it, you can get an idea of its width. LeMone does this by watching her odometer as she drives under a cloud. A typical cumulus, she says, is about a kilometer across, and usually roughly cubical—so a kilometer long and a kilometer tall, too. This gives you a cloud that’s one billion cubic meters in volume.

Do the math with the density and volume to determine the total water content of the cloud. In this case, it's 500,000,000 grams of water, or 1.1 million pounds. That’s a lot of weight to wrap your head around, so LeMone suggests putting it in more familiar terms, like elephants. That cloud weighs about as much as 100 elephants. If you’re a Democrat and you’re feeling partisan, she says, you could substitute 2500 donkeys. If you care more for dinosaurs than politics, you could also say the cloud weighs about as much as 33 apatosauruses.

If all those elephants or donkeys or dinosaurs were hanging out in the sky, they’d fall. So how does a several-hundred-ton cloud stay afloat? For one thing, the weight isn’t concentrated in a hundred elephant-sized particles or even a billion marble-sized ones. It’s distributed among trillions of really tiny water droplets spread out over a really big space. Some of these droplets are so small that you would need a million of them to make one raindrop, and gravity’s effect on them is pretty negligible.


I feel like I am in the twilight zone.
I am looking at an answer to a question that was never asked by the member in the first place
my very first response to the statement meant to be a question is that the water in the air can weighs more than a plane
am I missing something here or is this similar to what you just posted?

I think that in order to keep answering the question it would first have to be asked and not just eluded to.

either way I am looking at a trail behind a plane right now and the conspirator side says to put on a gas mask and the rational side says it is just heat being displaced.


I apologize for offering an answer to the question you appeared to have. If you don't want to know, please feel free to ignore any and all pertinent information provided. (most chemtrail believers do anyway)

In reference to you watching a trail being made, if you actually did have more than a passing thought on the subject, you could download an app to your smart phone (flight aware) and determine what plane is making that trail, and where it's coming from and going. While that may not conclusively prove anything, knowing that it's a commercial plane with passengers and luggage, you are free to ask that redundant question of "why an airline that is subservient to it's shareholders, waste huge amounts of profit to carry thousands of tones of chemical instead of more freight?"

flightaware.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: 3danimator2014


an attempt to make me seem more dumb than I am over a question that was never put in the form of a question and attempts for clarification on the original question were met by a judgment of my knowledge that was poorly formed.



Ah, so you're NOT over it then. And it absolutely wasn't that. I've experienced this spiralling semantic obfuscation many times in my attempts to debate on here. It really doesn't faze me anymore. I actually find it tedious because THE POINT gets completely lost in interminable 'you sad/I said' pointlessness, which of course is often the aim.


All I am left with is the thought that water in the sky weighs more than implications of the contrail debate.


Sorry, but again, that is meaningless. What on earth does "implications of the contrail debate" mean and how does it relate to weight?


just poor communication on multiple accounts



From you, certainly. I wish it wasn't so, we might then actually get somewhere. Honestly fella, if at some point you meant to say "no, I don't understand why white lines in the sky are heavier than any plane can carry, could you explain that point please" you should have just said so, and saved everyone this tedious exchange.
edit on 23-9-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

still no question formed

at this point I am still wondering what the question was that you never asked that was supposed to stump me.

you made an attempt to try to compare the weight of something but never clairified beyond that yet you are convinced I can not answer this unformed question.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude
More cool references
thnx
I has no phone but checkin out the link



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

OK. in a form a two year old could understand.

I did NOT ask you a question about contrail weight, AT ALL.

I made a statement about such, and the question was whether you understood it.

You don't, WE GET IT.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: waynos

still no question formed




I suggest you read that post again. There is a very clear question in it.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

This symbol (?) denotes a question. The trick is to look where it is positioned. If it appears at the end of the sentence, you are being asked a question. If it doesn't, you aren't.

Got that?

(See how this works?)

There's another one.




posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: network dude
More cool references
thnx
I has no phone but checkin out the link



www.ebay.com...

Just trying to be helpful.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join