Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Shift of Earth's Magnetic North Pole Impacts Tampa Airport

page: 40
171
<< 37  38  39    41 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What???:


AND the recent story of the kilogram becoming less massive...


Oh, THAT I gotta see!!!


Brief search....perhaps, once again, some blog or media person misunderstood, and overreacted:


"Brief search" and selective at that...
but seems that YOU are wrong


Royal Society meets to weigh up the shrinking kilogram


Scientists look at alternatives to the mass of platinum used as international standard measure, which has lost 50 micrograms


www.guardian.co.uk...

I don't think the Royal Society is some blog making misinterpretations



Face it Herr Whacker... your out of touch with reality




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I don't enjoy heated debates but I shall elaborate on why I posted that link and why I believe it is related.

it is a well known fact that electricity and magnetism are as far as scientists can tell, related in 99.99etc % of interactions between the 'two' forces. it is also known that planets, mass, can aquire atmosphere, and in certain cases a magnetic field, earth is one of such planets. not all our planets have a magnetic field. or at least a significant enough one to measure externally.

now, if the international standards mass measurment is off, and they can't explain it, it could be one of two things.

1. the measure they are using has lost/gained mass
2. the gravitational constant in the location of said testing has changed.

contrary to popular belief, the gravitational field is not homogenuius, as in, it is not equal around the planet, it differs. this is the simplest explaination I can think of, and I am astounded that the scientists haven't come to the same conclusion, or at least considered gravity.

ed: to make this clearer for those more inclined in the english department over the science one, if you take a rocket and fly to the moon, you will find that everything 'wheighs' less, even though the mass remains the same.
edit on 24-1-2011 by madscientistintraining because: clarity


ed2: I really hate revising my posts but something else has come to mind. the society in question has noted that the loss of mass is as let inexplicable, a simple "we scratched it, it flaked off some platinum and now it weights less" would probably be the first thing they thought of. at least we would hope.
edit on 24-1-2011 by madscientistintraining because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
www.guardian.co.uk...

I don't think the Royal Society is some blog making misinterpretations


True enough, although the article cites the rationale:


"Why should it [the current standard] be stable? It's a piece of platinum cast in London 130 years ago, full of holes, full of hydrogen," said Quinn. "What's on the surface, it's impossible to know. There are all sorts of surface layers of hydrocarbons."

Instead, experts want to link the kilogram to a fundamental unit of measurement in quantum physics, the Planck constant.


The point being that basing an insensible thing, like a standard of measurement, on a sensible thing, like a chunk of platinum, is not a good idea. ("Sensible" in that sentence meaning something that can be sensed.) A standard of weight is a mathematical proposition, not a material one, so it is far more reasonable to propose the weight standard be something mathematical as well.

It's a bit like the old system of measure, where an inch was the width of someone's thumb or an acre was how much land could be plowed up in a day by a typical ox, or whatever.

That something material could change in mass over a hundred years is not surprising. It would be more surprising, in fact, if it did not. That is the problem with basing a standard on a sensible object, and why it is suggesting that the basis (but not the result) of the standard definition be changed.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
the more I read about this the more I am confused. f=ma is the metric equation. if you include the gravitational constants and such you are no longer using kilograms, it is denoted as pound-mass. the whole idea of a fixed kilogram is flawed at the theoretical levels.

I also do not see how changing this equation to something along the lines of F = m.h[squared] would fix the problem here, especially since observation at the quantum level changes the result (as explained as best he could by richard feynman.)
edit on 24-1-2011 by madscientistintraining because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by madscientistintraining
the more I read about this the more I am confused. f=ma is the metric equation. if you include the gravitational constants and such you are no longer using kilograms, it is denoted as pound-mass. the whole idea of a fixed kilogram is flawed at the theoretical levels.

I also do not see how changing this equation to something along the lines of F = m.h[squared] would fix the problem here, especially since observation at the quantum level changes the result (as explained as best he could by richard feynman.)
edit on 24-1-2011 by madscientistintraining because: (no reason given)


I'm not sure where you are getting "f = ma" ("F = m a", actually) as being relevant, as this is the formula (Newton's Second Law) for showing the relationship of mass (literally, how much "stuff" is in something) to force (weight being the measurement of gravitational force for a given mass.)

Weight is calculated as "W = m g", where m is the mass, and g is the acceleration of gravity (on Earth, it varies, but is simplified to 9.80665 m/s2)

So, if my mass is 200kg, my "weight" is 1.96kN (kilo Newtons) (( 200 * 9.80665) / 1000)

The term weight is often (well, constantly, and I'm just as guilty) misapplied as mass, maybe that's where your confusion is coming in. But hopefully the above will show you the relationship of mass to gravity.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Here is an article for that some of you will enjoy. its total bollucks, but that wont stop some of you from getting excited about it.

www.whatdoesitmean.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
Here is an article for that some of you will enjoy. its total bollucks,


You DO realize it is against the T&C to post known hoaxes don't you? Skeptics like you are pathetic in your desperation to muddy the waters. Sorcha Faal...
you really are something


Try this link... much better


Magnetic Mayhem by Weatherwoman (video)
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by madscientistintraining
the more I read about this the more I am confused. f=ma



Well don't be confused...



F=a.A The equation is F = a.A, or force = acceleration Area

Pari Spolter Challenging Einstein and Newton "Gravitational Force of the Sun"

Grvitational Force of the Sun

Enjoy



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by firepilot
Here is an article for that some of you will enjoy. its total bollucks,


You DO realize it is against the T&C to post known hoaxes don't you? Skeptics like you are pathetic in your desperation to muddy the waters. Sorcha Faal...
you really are something


Try this link... much better


Magnetic Mayhem by Weatherwoman (video)
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Well do I think it is real? No, I do not. But I see lots of things posted around here that I find even sillier, and there are probably people here who would like that article..

I didnt post it to try to hoax anyone, I posted it to show some of the complete absurdity of the pole shift hysteria that some engage in.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
it seams I was more on the right track with the kilogram not being considered alongside gravity than f=ma being involved, I assumed a kg was weight not mass, apparently yet again I am wrong. and yet again I blame high school education for teaching us lies. seriously, the whole particle physics thing, the day you get past the school level a scientist somewhere will tell you "forget it, its not entirely accurate"

your damn right its not entirely accurate, nothing makes logical sense anymore. next time I go shopping i'll look for the pound-mass of my sugar instead of kg...

as you may be able to discern, I am annoyed that 'they' use different units for similar things and prescribe them to the public in their simple yet wrong terms like we don't get it.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Dinkle
One would think the paintings are for emergency purposes and aircraft without proper instrumentation.


I guess someone might think that, but they would be wrong. Most aircraft don't have instrumentation that tells you what runway you are ON. They do have instruments like a magnetic compass, RMI, or Directional Gyro that can tell if you are lined up in the same direction as the runway you are supposed to be on. The painted numbers are to tell what that direction is, to the nearest 10 degrees, and to identify the runway. For instance, Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson has 10 possible East-West Runways to use; 8L, 8R, 26L, 26R, 9L, 9R, 27L, 27R, 10 and 28. Here's a diagram. flightaware.com... Taking off from the wrong runway because you didn't look at the numbers on the end can be a real buzz-kill. See, www.ntsb.gov...
And a lot of airports have taxiways that run parallel to and are the same length as the runway. The taxiway doesn't have numbers painted on the end, and that is a clue when you are on short final that you are about to have a really bad day filling out FAA paperwork. And if you think airline pilots are too good or too well trained to make these mistakes, think again. They have landed at the wrong freaking airport before. Like Ryanair in Derry. www.timesonline.co.uk... . Or Delta airlines at Frankfort, KY, instead of Lexington. Or TWA in Colorado. www.flyertalk.com... . Google 'land wrong airport' and you will find 10 pages of such incidents.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
ON TOPIC QUESTION.

Nothwithstanding that TIA is changing their runway ID's, (explained perhaps since theirs was in close proximity to next rounded unit) does this mean that at some point going forward, EACH AND EVERY airport IN THE WORLD will need to do same?

Also, ( I'm a boater Jim, not a pilot) Just wondering when/if every buoy and marker designatd by same will need to be updated on nautical charts as well?

Thanks and sorry to interrupt your ping-pong insult tournament.




Not every one will. There are 491 seaplane bases in the US and it's really hard to get the paint (especially latex) to stick to the runways on them.
It's my understanding that buoys and channel markers are located and designated by lat/long. If so, that doesn't change since it's based on the true NP, and not the magnetic NP.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
The Planet is doing what it naturally does....

Why would anyone "stress" over that?

It happens!
It's natural!
It's required!

The Universe knows exactly what it's doing...

Getting "stressed" is just doing harm to oneself.
Have faith!
at least in The Universe.. if nothing else.


Everyone wants "change"..
but when it decides to come..
We freak out and get stressed?
Because "it might" bring about something we are not particularly "fond" of or don't want to experience?

It's freakin Nature for cryin out loud!
Embrace it!
It'll be easier on ya.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Hi everyone,

I just signed up at ATS, for particularly one question:

Why does only Tampa airport and another airport somewhere in the U.S. gets the coverage of them changing their runway numbers and such?
Aren't there MANY MORE airports around the globe who use the magnetic poles for navigation?

I find this mediacoverage highly suspicious, in that, there is an emphasizing on the changing of the magnetic poles and given one or two examples to give it credibility --- and that's it.

Ofcourse I know that ALL media is being manipulated in varying degreees in such a way to create an image for people to form in their minds, which benefits the architects of that image, but come on---- so obvious?

Maybe there is someone on this forum who has a little bit understanding of physics and/or geology that can explain to me why only Tampa and that other airport are changing their runway numbers. Is it their location? Latitude? Importance? or more importantly: why are the getting all the attention?

Hoping someone has a decent explanation, well thought through, instead of reacting on some vague media coverage...
edit on 1-2-2011 by randymh because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by randymh
Maybe there is someone on this forum who has a little bit understanding of physics and/or geology that can explain to me why only Tampa and that other airport are changing their runway numbers. Is it their location? Latitude? Importance? or more importantly: why are the getting all the attention?


It is all well documented in this thread, but I don't blame you for not wanting to wade through it all.

Here is the sequence of events...

4 billion BC (around tea time, or so
) -- Earth's magnetic poles begin to move around

Early 1900s -- Airplane runways are built, and are designated with the magnetic compass heading in order to help pilots navigate

Throughout the 1900s and 2000s -- as the pole moves, these magnetic compass headings become inaccurate, and runways are routinely redesignated

January, 2011 -- the Tampa airport publishes two mundane press releases regarding these changes

January, 2011 -- (speculative) It's a slow news day in the Tampa news market, and an intrepid journalist, looking for stories, comes across these press releases, and rings up the airport to ask why the runways are being closed. Upon hearing the reason, s/he figures it's interesting enough to merit a write up, because who knew that the poles moved?

January, 2011 -- A variety of people, unaware of the fact that the magnetic poles naturally move, and likely always have, start shouting that the sky is falling, that the magnetic poles are reversing, and that birds and fish are dying as a result.

January, 2011 -- Seemingly, all attempts to calmly explain the facts are ignored, because it's far more interesting to believe that the worst is happening. But eventually people move on, from boredom, most likely.

February, 2011 -- The poles are still moving, the journalist has gone on to other matters, the airport is likely done with its painting project, birds are no longer dying by the thousands (or maybe they are,) and life goes on. Oh, and you come in here to revive the concern. Just kidding


As for why Tampa changed their designations at this time, go get a globe (not a map) and look at the geometric angle that is formed when you draw a line from Tampa to the geographic North Pole (0 degrees latitude) and another line from Tampa to the magnetic pole (doesn't really matter where your globe happens to show it.) Now, leave the first line alone, and move the magnetic pole along it's current path. See how the angle changes? That's why.

It happens to other airports, there's just not always a geographically ignorant journalist around to sensationalize things.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by randymh
 


I am glad you signed up. Welcome!

I too feel something's up.
Here. Please listen to this. He explains it a LOT better than I can ever even pretend to.
Now, this is just another opinion but, he's a lot more versed in these subjects than most of us and to me...it makes perfect sense.
I caught this on C2C Sunday night.

Please........just give it 10 minutes of your time. I think you'll probably understand things a bit more.






posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Now, this is just another opinion but, he's a lot more versed in these subjects than most of us and to me...it makes perfect sense.


Seriously? This guy is your expert witness? I don't think that he was two minutes in before I started laughing as he claimed a) that the acceleration of the poles is a 21st Century phenomenon, which is it not and b) that the "early sunrise" in Greenland implied some sort of global event that was related to it.

Magnetic north has nothing, zero, zip, nada, to do with when the sun comes up. Sunrise is dependent on either local conditions, or a global cataclysm, such as a change in the Earth's declination, orbital position, or orbital velocity. Since no one else observed anything like those things anywhere else on Earth, we can assume that it is a local phenomenon. What? Who knows, who cares.

If your interest in the truth is so casual that you want to be lead by the terminally clueless, I guess that this guy's your man. Have at it.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Your opinion. Your taste. Your judgment. Your conclusion.

Does not mean you're right.

Every single person on this planet has adversaries
From the Pope to Bob Hope!
Doesn't matter they're not embraced, respected, appreciated or liked by all.

So again, your opinion is just that. One opinion in seven billion.

To me and a couple of million others? David Sereda registers sense.


edit on 1-2-2011 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
To me and a couple of million others? David Sereda registers sense.


What did he say that makes sense? You admit that you don't understand the concepts involved, so he can't be appealing to you on a rational level, and you've both evidence and people telling you that he's wrong. Explain to me why no one else on the same line on latitude had an early sunrise. Or the same line on longitude, for that matter. For them, the time wouldn't be the same, but the time difference would be.

How can one observation, in one place on Earth, possibly testify to a global event, when it is contrasted with numerous observations, all over the Earth, that say nothing changed?

I've asked you before, I'll ask you again, are you so blinded by wanting to see something that facts do not matter, credibility doesn't matter, and anything that agrees with you needs to be taken as the truth?

I have nothing to gain by trying to convince you of the truth, apart from wanting to generate a brighter "you". The Coast to Coast guys have advertising dollars to gain, and I'm sure the "professional photographer" David Sereda has a book or pictures or something to peddle. No, wait, I guess that he has Quantum Pendants



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Great question!
Can't answer it.

But perhaps maybe--- once I've figured out one sperm and one egg creates life then I can advance and try to figure out planet Earth and then....graduate to the Universe


But really, good question. And all guesses are welcomed! I just happen to like Sereda's guess.





new topics

top topics



 
171
<< 37  38  39    41 >>

log in

join