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.

 

air in space i just seen a bbc newsround report

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
Please see my previous post.


I have seen it but I do not see what could be considered as an answer to my request.




posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by backtoreality
Please see my previous post.


I have seen it but I do not see what could be considered as an answer to my request.

Then please look again more closely.

If you see that I was correct about the airplane inlet, then you will know that there is sufficient air at high altitudes, then the spacesuit issue, then air in space, then it's effects on light from distant stars.

As I said, it's all there in my previous (now 2 posts back) post.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
the earth is flat, aliens live inside me to teach me how to knit and there is no air in space... i cant beleive this thread is still going.


[edit on 11-8-2006 by bokinsmowl]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
If you see that I was correct about the airplane inlet, then you will know that there is sufficient air at high altitudes, then the spacesuit issue, then air in space, then it's effects on light from distant stars.

As I said, it's all there in my previous (now 2 posts back) post.


Even if you are correct about the air intake on airplanes, that does not mean that you are correct when you say that there is breathable air in space.

And even if you are correct when you say that there is breathable air in space, is that to much trouble to show the formula used to calculate the Luminosity of the stars?



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
If you see that I was correct about the airplane inlet, then you will know that there is sufficient air at high altitudes...


I'm going to post that image elsewhere and get some educated opinions on what it is. While I know a lot about flying, I really don't know too much about the construction of airliners, and offhand I can think of about a dozen purposes that that port could be for.

In the mean time, why don't you just go ahead and post your formula?

[edit on 8/11/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
I'm going to post that image elsewhere and get some educated opinions on what it is. While I know a lot about flying, I really don't know too much about the construction of airliners, and offhand I can think of about a dozen purposes that that port could be for.

Post elsewhere? But I thought that picture would speak loudest to you since you have a Cessna. What are the dozen purposes you can think of for the inlet?



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by backtoreality
If you see that I was correct about the airplane inlet, then you will know that there is sufficient air at high altitudes, then the spacesuit issue, then air in space, then it's effects on light from distant stars.

As I said, it's all there in my previous (now 2 posts back) post.


Even if you are correct about the air intake on airplanes, that does not mean that you are correct when you say that there is breathable air in space.

And even if you are correct when you say that there is breathable air in space, is that to much trouble to show the formula used to calculate the Luminosity of the stars?


I really do not understand. No one believed me about the airplanes. I prove them wrong. Now you seem to conceed your point about airplanes, but say I'm still wrong about air in space. By association, wouldn't there have to be air in space if airplanes at 40,000ft have breathable air??

It's no trouble at all to post that formula. I can recite it by memory.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
What are the dozen purposes you can think of for the inlet?


I'll tell you when you post your formula and answer directly the innumerable amount of questions you have yet to.


Originally posted by backtoreality
I really do not understand. No one believed me about the airplanes. I prove them wrong.


You posted an image of an airplane and said that that port proves you right. Very convincing.



It's no trouble at all to post that formula. I can recite it by memory.


Well then put up or shut up.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by backtoreality
What are the dozen purposes you can think of for the inlet?


I'll tell you when you post your formula and answer directly the innumerable amount of questions you have yet to.

That's fine, but just don't get upset next time if I am selective about which questions I answer.




Originally posted by backtoreality
I really do not understand. No one believed me about the airplanes. I prove them wrong.


You posted an image of an airplane and said that that port proves you right. Very convincing.
You didn't prove me wrong.





It's no trouble at all to post that formula. I can recite it by memory.


Well then put up or shut up.

Please do not abuse your EXPERT MASTER designation by getting involved with our heated one-on-one debate.
Thanks so much!



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
That's fine, but just don't get upset next time if I am selective about which questions I answer.


I don't answer one question. How many have you refused to answer?


Originally posted by backtoreality
You didn't prove me wrong.


I'm working on that. As I stated, I don't know the design of heavy aircraft, so that could be used for any number of things. I'm waiting to see what someone who actually knows what they're talking about says about it.




Please do not abuse your EXPERT MASTER designation by getting involved with our heated one-on-one debate.
Thanks so much!


No, really... Go ahead, post the formula that you so easily could because you know it from memory. Or, do as you have done and continue to avoid answering direct question. And I didn't know you controlled who says what to who on the forums. Interesting... And here I was, thinking we could all speak freely to one another.

EDIT TO ADD:

This isn't worth it. This one is obviously not going to budge. Let's all get back to reality and let him or her continue living life in thier own fantastical little world.

[edit on 8/11/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
I really do not understand. No one believed me about the airplanes. I prove them wrong. Now you seem to conceed your point about airplanes, but say I'm still wrong about air in space. By association, wouldn't there have to be air in space if airplanes at 40,000ft have breathable air??

It's no trouble at all to post that formula. I can recite it by memory.


I did not concede my point about the airplanes because I have no point to concede, I am not concerned about airplanes, only about the existence or not of breathable air in outer space, not at 40,000ft.

I know that it is getting late in Tokyo, but I would really appreciate if you could show the formula, I really like to deny ignorance, and the best way is to getter information at all possibilities.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
With all due respect, Mr. Whiskey, I value my life too much to reveal the name of the source. What I have done here already has put me in great jeopardy I believe, and I am not willing to push forward anymore than to state the facts.


And that's fine, I'm not asking you to name this person. I'm asking you to understand why I cannot accept that bit as proof of your statements.


Well, again with all due respect, imagine trying to teach a 1st grader about nuclear reactors...you can try, but why?


Again, I'm not asking you to "teach a 1st grader about nuclear reactors." To continue the metaphore, while I myself may count as a "1st grader" for purposes of your equations, there are people present who are "nuclear physicists" and should have no trouble. They have demonstrated their authority to me on this subject not by naming unknowable sources, but by giving me data that I can verify myself outside of the context of ATS.





Since, according to you, you're not willing to compromise his or her identity, there's really no way we can know who you're talking about unless we know you personally.

Oh. Um, I'm terribly sorry Mr. Whiskey but I don't date from the same team.


I think you're getting your English idioms confused.
To know someone personally != To know someone intimately != To know someone Biblically.

The first implies that I know you: your name, your occupation, that we've interacted in person. The second statement implies that I know more private details about you: favorite foods, religious preference, thoughts on mutual friends, and so on. The third is about sex and dating.


[EDIT: I provided all the proof you need in my previous post]


I assume in that picture you're referring to the little black rectangle on the bulge where the starboard wing comes out of the body of the plane, correct? If so, why are you getting upset that people want to get independant verification of the information you're providing?



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I haven't been able to be online much because of a computer crash, and I don't know when I'll be able to check the replies to this, but that's the ram air intake in the picture he posted. It's for the heating system on the plane to heat the air, since it's something like -40C where the planes fly.

Yes planes CAN fly at up to about 100,000 feet and still work. The act of moving forward shoves air down the intakes and provides the air for the engines to work, but MOST jet engines WILL NOT work nearly that high.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
backtoreality has become my newest, most favorite, ATS hero!!!


Hooray!!!



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
backtoreality...


How come older planes have a max altitude? How come they stall after they reach a certain height?

PV = nRT

as Temperature DECREASES, so does pressure, which means that at high altitudes, aircraft need to be pressurized. ETD



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
backtoreality has become my newest, most favorite, ATS hero!!!


Hooray!!!


Haha same, and for all the wrong reasons


Seriously though, why even bother wasting ur time arguing with this guy people?



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I truly wonder what John Lear thinka of this thread!

Has anyone asked him yet? Because im sure that one of the most accomplished pilots in the world, not to mention his interest in con's, will have good input into this thread!



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
There is no air in space!!!!!



If you believe that, then I have winning lottery ticket numbers I want to sell you.
Air in space around the solar system, ....sure.........Santa is real too.

mod edit - fixed all caps




[edit on 18-8-2006 by masqua]



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   
If there was air in space, then the planets would have fallen into the Sun long ago.

Wow, that was easy



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
This thread has really made me think about the subject.. If there's less air the higher you get, how come the oxygen masks only drop from the ceiling when the plane is going DOWN? And how come you need bottled air BELOW sea level, but don't need it to fly???



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join