126 replies to this topic

[sepulchrave]

keithisco, on 03 October 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

Sepulchrave, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my position on this (no sarcasm at all, I really appreciate different approaches).

From my original posit (though I admit I did not explain very clearly); the magnet can be rotated in any plane either perpendicular to, or at any angular deviation  plane from the Sun or the Earth's magnetic fileds. In  no case is it possible to measure any reduction in strength of the magnets own field.

I agree that energy is not lost or even measurably being expended, by a permanent magnet - but I do not accept that a potential source of replenishment of energy expended,  is actually from the Earth, because of the above statements that would suggest a negative (or positive) resultant in the magnet's field strength should affect the strength of the field and be measurable.

I see. I would say that unless the strength of the Sun's or Earth's magnetic fields approaches the critical field strength necessary to break the magnet's internal ordering, then the magnet's own field should not be modified by rotation in the Sun's or Earth's magnetic fields.

This does not, of course, change the fact that work must be done on the magnet to rotate in the external field. This energy would come from whatever device was used to rotate the magnet.

In fact, technically ``magnetic fields cannot do work''. See here for some technical details, or the wiki for an overview. The fundamental origin of force exerted by a magnetic field is the Lorentz force which is perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field and therefore the magnetic field cannot do work. Forces between two magnets are complicated to calculate, and are largely based on the curvature of the composite magnetic field, in addition to the field strength.

I would say that you can consider a magnetic field to be doing work in some situations (like two magnets attracted together), and certainly the natural equilibrium of two magnets is an arrangement that minimizes field curvature. Just remember that the strength of a magnetic field at a given point is only one part of the ability of that field to exert a force.

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 03 October 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

Why do all fundamental particles of a given type have identical masses, if these particles are radiating gravitational energy?

Because they are radiating due to their structure-energy. Identical structures will radiate identical structures.

sepulchrave, on 03 October 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

The lifetime of a proton is at least 10²⁹ years, doesn't this mean that the radiant gravitational energy is negligible?

Not relative to human beings, no. Relative to the total amount of structure-energy within a proton, yes.

sepulchrave, on 03 October 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

Why have all measurements of gravity to-date suggested that it is not a radiation field?

Can you give specific examples please.

sepulchrave, on 03 October 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

How is exotic dark matter formed from gravitationally-driven collisions with baryonic matter? What quantum numbers define exotic dark matter?
How does gravitationally-driven collapse circumvent conservation of quarks? Why have high-energy collider experiments not detected any loss (or gain) in the number of quarks?

The modelling of supernova isn't possible with mainstream physics. My model will solve these issues in the near future.

sepulchrave, on 03 October 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

There are many research groups actively looking for evidence of gravitational waves but thus far have not been able to detect anomalous variations in gravity in excess of ~10^-19%, and yet you feel this does not count as evidence against your theory..[.. and in orbit around the planet.]

Firstly, the spacecraft earth-flyby phenomena *is* detection of an extra gravity force! The *supergravity field* is in a very narrow band which moves around! There's a superb account of the flat sea being seen with a channel 4 feet deep and 20 feet wide, as if a bulldozer had dug a channel into the sea itself! It stretched in a straight line either way as far as they could see. When they entered it they were thrown forward and the man hurt his wrists from the force of the jolt. I have an explanation that the *shape* of the earth-tide is responsible for the difference in movement of the field with moon phase. A steeper earth-tide in the Neap cycle would give a wider span of influence of the supergravity field, making it more *likely* to trigger an incident. I'll scan some explanations just a.s.a.p.

This also shows that the force acts on all baryonic matter, without the special preference for iron which I had earlier speculated on. Here're the numbers that you wanted Sep. The evidence is clear as a bell once you've read the eye-witness testimonies.

keithisco: The gas release explanation is pure speculation without *any* direct evidence that I'm aware of.

***Latest Developments:***
(i) No lateral movement is necessary to explain all the phenomena. Only one main case in 'Without A Trace' need be called a FAKE to make all the evidence fit.
(ii) Watches that 'lost 10 minutes' were stopped due to the supergravity force simply binding the delicate machinery of the timepieces together. No 'time' gain or loss happened in reality.
(iii) A supergravity field is more dangerous to ships because once entered they will suddenly roll alarmingly whilst a plane will suddenly descend and roll but the pilot has time to recover and correct his attitude if lucky enough.

Edited by SunnyBlues, 04 October 2012 - 11:00 AM.

[ozman]

this stuff hurts my head, magnets free energy scalar field moons exotic matter. im too overloaded.  just keep it simple people all that invisible 96% dark matter and dark energy are part of the higher reality realms which angels god the soul and all that spiritual matters exist.  trust me even though i dont have scientific proof, i did in fact astral project before and im 100% there are higher invisible realities super imposed over us.  english aint my first language so i hope i made sense to you.

btw, i believe humans are like a lion who cant see the zebra in tall grass because the lion is colorblind.  humans and their technologies are blind to the higher realities and energys around them but yet humans can detect some things like dark energy and dark matter which the humans cant directly observe.

and i want to add that both christians muslims and some other religions have heard of the 7 heavens above us.  i have a strong feeling that the 7 heavens god refers to are 7 realities dimenaions etc. in the Quran God(Allah) refers to himself as the Lord Of The Worlds.  which hints to me the term Worlds could be speaking about higher dimensions and not other planets.

Edited by ozman, 04 October 2012 - 11:35 AM.

[RingFenceTheCity]

Sepulchrave, here's some more useful data from Gian J. Quasar 'Into The Bermuda Triangle', "more than 1000 disappearances in the last 25 years."

(i) Boeing 737 at 29,000ft hits jolt and another 10 secs later causing the plane to drop 600 feet.
(ii) United Airlines at 33,000ft, 2 pulses 8 secs apart. Maximum extra force was calculated to be 1.6g.
(iii) Satellite "glitches" can be detected at an apparent latitude much lower than the given surface-based triangle configuration.

The depth of the source of the additional force can therefore be calculated with the aircraft data. The 4ft by 20ft depression in the sea given earlier can be compared to 1.6g. The exact latitude of the source can also be calculated with precise upper and lower lattitude limits for satellite 'glitches'.

Edited by SunnyBlues, 05 October 2012 - 09:27 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 05 October 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

Sepulchrave, here's some more useful data from Gian J. Quasar 'Into The Bermuda Triangle', "more than 1000 disappearances in the last 25 years."

(i) Boeing 737 at 29,000ft hits jolt and another 10 secs later causing the plane to drop 600 feet.
(ii) United Airlines at 33,000ft, 2 pulses 8 secs apart. Maximum extra force was calculated to be 1.6g..

Aircraft, like the Boeing 737, are mostly made of aluminum - not iron. Aluminum, like most metals, is a face-centred cubic.

How does your anomalous gravity, which you have claimed only affects iron, pull down an aluminum aircraft?

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 05 October 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

Aircraft, like the Boeing 737, are mostly made of aluminum - not iron. Aluminum, like most metals, is a face-centred cubic.

How does your anomalous gravity, which you have claimed only affects iron, pull down an aluminum aircraft?

You're disappointing me now Sep. I said previously that the new evidence I've just read from the two books which detail Bermuda Triangle incidents point to a general gravity force model. The *WATER* in the sea was depressed by FOUR FEET!!

I've done the math myself anyway, and come to the startling conclusion, namely, that the source appears to be in the order of just 3km down in the crust.

The passenger aircraft CAT (Clear Air Turbulence) is the phrase the industry uses to describe these events.

Attached Files

•  Bermuda Triangle Calc.jpg   17.01K   4 downloads

Edited by SunnyBlues, 06 October 2012 - 10:10 AM.

[sepulchrave]

Sorry SunnyBlues, I somehow missed this post.

SunnyBlues, on 04 October 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Can you give specific examples please.

Umm... every single prediction of orbital motion since Newton?

A radiation field that is attractive would have to somehow transmit negative momentum, which I suppose might not be impossible but would be pretty weird.

SunnyBlues, on 04 October 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

The modelling of supernova isn't possible with mainstream physics. My model will solve these issues in the near future.

What do supernovae have to do with it? I was talking about accelerator experiments.

SunnyBlues, on 04 October 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Firstly, the spacecraft earth-flyby phenomena *is* detection of an extra gravity force!

No it is NOT. Until you have a quantitative model which can accurately calculate the anomalous energy gain, you are merely speculating. There are plenty of other speculative answers to the fly-by phenomena, yours is only one.

SunnyBlues, on 06 October 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

You're disappointing me now Sep. I said previously that the new evidence I've just read from the two books which detail Bermuda Triangle incidents point to a general gravity force model. The *WATER* in the sea was depressed by FOUR FEET!!

I apologize again. You change your theory so rapidly, I have trouble keeping up.

A local increased gravitational field would not depress water. It is true that an increased field could compress water a little bit, but any depression formed would be immediately filled by the adjacent water flowing in to the hole.

In fact, since the surface of the ocean is an equipotential surface (ignoring waves, for the moment), assuming the anomalous field lasted for a few minutes the local surface of the ocean would be higher than the surrounding.

Since you are now suggesting that the anomalous gravity affects everything, I must return to one of my original questions: Why haven't we noticed the effects of this anomalous gravity on land? If it is due to the proximity of the moon, surely it can occur over land as well as over ocean. If gravity is suddenly increasing to 1.6g, why aren't buildings falling over? Or for that matter, people collapsing?

[RingFenceTheCity]

Sep, you really need to read the Bermuda triangle books to have any credibility as an authority on the subject.

Everyone else: (i) I've come to the simple conclusion that the supergravity anomaly creates 'electronic fog' which is reported very often in incident cases. The extra gravity area creates a dense black fog of descending water vapour and airborne particles which becomes electrically charged. This is the secondary phenomenon when encountered by aircraft or ship. These 'electronic fogs' can then be in areas where the field is absent, creating additional confusion in analysis of events.

(ii) The most likely explanation is that an exotic comet hit the Earth at a shallow angle, creating the Bahamas' Tongue Of The Ocean and buried itself deep in the crust below Bimini atoll. The smaller circle reaching from Bimini to the Florida coast is the most likely true area of affect of the supergravity field itself. Perhaps further a field and perhaps there are more exotic comets buried elsewhere in the so-called Triangle. The evidence is very accessible imo.

(iii) Gravity Probe B can now be seen to be an illusionary confirmation of Einstein's space-time theory. In reality, all the probe has done is measure the extra force from exotic comets. It merely proves that Newton's theory isn't correct, *not* that Einstein's *is*.

(iv) I've re-done the depth calculation and come to the figure of 83km below the surface. (https://www.aapg.org...torical0812.cfm)

Edited by SunnyBlues, 08 October 2012 - 10:02 AM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 08 October 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

Sep, you really need to read the Bermuda triangle books to have any credibility as an authority on the subject.

See, that is what I find so confusing.

When we started this discussion, your theory was that a particular Sun-Moon alignment caused an anomalous perturbation of the Earth's gravity (from your hypothesized exotic matter at the centre of the Earth or Moon or both).

In fact, over the last year or so you have repeatedly made claims that a wide variety of astronomical objects have exotic matter halos at their cores, and that the presence of these halos - coupled with an almost entirely unphysical model of gravity - explained basically every astronomical phenomena not currently explained by contemporary physics.

However now, in the space of only a few pages, you have entirely revised your theory to focus only on exotic matter that is local to the Bermuda triangle.

So I agree completely that I am not a credible authority on the Bermuda triangle.

I was labouring under the misconception that you were attempting to present evidence for a revised model of gravity, a subject that - as a practicing physicist - I believe I am a credible authority on.

-----------
Going back to the subject of the fly-by anomaly, the Rosetta spacecraft gained anomalous velocity of 1.8 mm/s during its flyby, but passed nowhere near the Bermuda triangle.

I unfortunately cannot find an explicit image of the NEAR fly-by (with the largest anomalous velocity gain of 13.46 mm/s), but the instructions for viewing the spacecraft during the flyby from the US all tell the observer to look northwest. Since the Bermuda triangle is east of Florida, it also seems that NEAR did not pass over the Bermuda triangle either.

Thoughts?

[RingFenceTheCity]

Yes, I've come to amazing conclusion that exotic matter comets exist on the seafloor and appear to have been deposited by strong ice age currents onto island underwater banks. The ballpark calculation of depth should have been 84 *feet* and not kilometers! Careful analysis of the data indicates that an extra gravity source exists just north of Bimini island at around 800ft, one near Florida Key West and another south west of Bermuda at least. There's probably more from the Pacific currents too which have been washed up in the South China Sea and Dragon Sea. The question will soon be: "Who's waters is that exotic comet actually in?".

Quote

"On average, however, four aircraft and about twenty yachts vanish each year."
"The pattern was the same -mostly over the Bahamas; it continued; from 1984 to 1994 thiry-two [aircraft] vanished."

Sep, do you concede that the Gravity Probe B can now be seen to be an illusionary confirmation of Einstein's space-time theory. In reality, all the probe has done is measure the extra force from exotic comets. It merely proves that Newton's theory isn't correct, *not* that Einstein's *is*.

Edit: I just found some more interesting data Turbulence injuries

Edited by SunnyBlues, 09 October 2012 - 11:46 AM.

[keithisco]

SunnyBlues, on 09 October 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

Yes, I've come to amazing conclusion that exotic matter comets exist on the seafloor and appear to have been deposited by strong ice age currents onto island underwater banks. The ballpark calculation of depth should have been 84 *feet* and not kilometers! Careful analysis of the data indicates that an extra gravity source exists just north of Bimini island at around 800ft, one near Florida Key West and another south west of Bermuda at least. There's probably more from the Pacific currents too which have been washed up in the South China Sea and Dragon Sea. The question will soon be: "Who's waters is that exotic comet actually in?".



Sep, do you concede that the Gravity Probe B can now be seen to be an illusionary confirmation of Einstein's space-time theory. In reality, all the probe has done is measure the extra force from exotic comets. It merely proves that Newton's theory isn't correct, *not* that Einstein's *is*.

Edit: I just found some more interesting data Turbulence injuries

Unfortunately SunnyBlues, nothing you have offered constitutes "proof" of any such thing.

It gets really tedious reading your posts in relation to "Exotic Matter", without any "science" in terms of density and provenance to support it. Also, I have not seen your "Math" to support your conjecture.

What exactly is this "Exotic matter"? If we are to take you seriously then you should be able to calculate the density and mass from the effects it causes (not exactly Rocket Science), and that would give you a starting point for determining its Nature.

Equally tedious is your constant reference to an undersea "Comet"!! Please look up the definition of a comet and explain why Your comet is so different...Please also publish (post) your math for calculation of depth... before I lose the will to live!!!

Edited by keithisco, 09 October 2012 - 03:29 PM.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 09 October 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

Sep, do you concede that the Gravity Probe B can now be seen to be an illusionary confirmation of Einstein's space-time theory. In reality, all the probe has done is measure the extra force from exotic comets. It merely proves that Newton's theory isn't correct, *not* that Einstein's *is*.

Absolutely not. The data from Gravity Probe B provides a very impressive validation of General Relativity.

A comet buzzing by the probe would produce a transient force on the gyroscopes. The data for the gyroscopic drift is here (see Figure 2); it is pretty smooth over the 1.5 year period. There are some sharp spikes, but they are small compared to the scale of the gradual drift.

I second keithisco's plea, by the way. The main motivation for your theory has been constant (basically your claim is that ``everybody is completely wrong except me''), but the specifics of your theory change so dramatically and so randomly (exotic matter is in the core of the Sun - no wait, the Moon - no wait, the Earth - no wait, it is 84 feet below the sea in then Bermuda triangle), it would be nice if you could at least summarize the main points.

For example, earlier in this thread you were obsessing over the spacecraft flyby anomaly, and now you are obsessing over the Bermuda triangle. Since, as I've shown above, at least 2 of the 3 spacecraft that experienced anomalous positive-energy gains never went near the Bermuda triangle, can I assume you are no longer attempting to explain the flyby anomaly?

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 09 October 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

A comet buzzing by the probe..

No! No! No! I'm saying the exotic comets have already impacted the earth and have re-emerged on the seafloor and been moved in strong ice age ocean currents and deposited on shallow island banks. If you don't read my posts with consideration then please don't bother to read them at all! There is therefore a number of smaller exotic comets in our oceans and also the Great Lakes from ice age glacial giant rivers which also deposited exotic comets.

P.S. You're *not* a practictioner of FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS such as FQXi, of which I'm a participating member. All your queries are easily countered, but you are increasingly too ignorant to appreciate the situation. I have been in discussion with serious physicists and Professors of Physics. They have the professionalism to understand where I'm coming from. You don't.

[RingFenceTheCity]

Here's more evidence:

Quote

In the cruise at FL280 en-route Bahrain to London Gatwick Airport, light Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) was encountered and the commander activated the Seat Belt sign. In accordance withnormal company procedures, the cabin staff checked that all the passengers were strapped in and reported this fact to the commander. He allowed the cabin service to continue but warned the cabin crew to be alert for any increase in turbulence.

About five minutes later, severe CAT was suddenly encountered. The aircraft climbed rapidly andthe commander disengaged the autopilot to manually control the airspeed. During the subsequent manoeuvres, the aircraft altitude varied between FL283 and FL278. Within the passenger cabin, the cabin crew and trolleys were thrown about. Following the incident, doctors amongst the passengers on board treated the injured personnel and confirmed that none required immediate hospitalisation. With this knowledge, and with no indication of any damage to the aircraft, the commander continued to his planned destination for an uneventful landing.

There had been no CAT forecast for the area in which the turbulence was experienced. Additionally, the aircraft radar had not indicated any significant weather on the aircraft route although thunderstorm flashes had been observed some 50 miles away.

Post flight analysis indicated that the aircraft had been subjected to a maximum of plus 2.08g and a minimum of minus 0.24g over a period of two seconds. A Phase 1 Severe Turbulence check on G-MONR confirmed that there was no damage.

Quote

On 18 July 2003, a passenger flight, HDA060, was enroute from Kota Kinabalu to Hong Kong along Route M754 within the Manila FIR cruising at Flight Level (FL) 410. Prompted by weather returns displayed on the weather radar, the flight crew requested permission from Air Traffic Control (ATC) in Manila to deviate right of track to avoid weather. Soon after commencement of the track deviation, the aircraft encountered severe turbulence. At the time of the occurrence, the Fasten Seat Belt Signs (FSBS) were selected ON and all passengers were seated with their seat belts fastened. However, as the cabin crew were serving meals along the aisles and galley areas they were not strapped in. Based on the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) data, during the turbulence encounter, the cruising level varied between FL 408 and FL 416. The aircraft experienced a rapid sequence of jolts that resulted in various degrees of injuries to all twelve cabin crew members. Of the 236 passengers on board, three sustained minor injuries.

The accident occurred within the Manila Flight Information Region (FIR) where a tropical depression had just moved to an area over the sea to the west of the Philippines, moving on a track of west-northwest and was forecast to intensify over water. At the time of the accident, the aircraft was deviating 6 NM to the right of Route M754 northbound at a position approximately 160 NM to the west-northwest of the centre of the tropical depression.

After the accident, the aircraft was promptly accorded priority landing at Hong Kong. It subsequently landed safely at Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA).

As the occurrence resulted in serious injuries, in the form of bone fractures, to persons on board, it was classified as an aircraft accident. The Chief Inspector of Accidents therefore ordered an Inspector’s Investigation be carried out in accordance with the Hong Kong Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations 1983.

The investigation concluded that the aircraft inadvertently flew into an area of turbulent weather caused by strong convective activity associated with the tropical depression. Based on the evidence as to the way in which the weather radar was operated, it was highly probable that the flight crew were not presented with the optimum weather radar picture that would have enabled a full appreciation of the intensity and extent of the weather in the vicinity of the aircraft. As a result, the deviation around weather was not initiated early enough, nor was the deviation large enough to avoid the weather.

Quote

The aircraft was on a flight from London to Harare and was approaching the airway reporting point KINDU, situated over central Africa, at FL370. Some intermittent light turbulence had been encountered approximately one hour earlier whilst navigating around isolated storm activity, associated with the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone, but the aircraft had since experienced smooth flying conditions.

The captain (the commander) was in a crew bunk on his rest break whilst two first officers remained on the flight deck. Although it was dark, the operating pilots could see that they were clear of cloud due to the stars visible to them in the night's sky. Also, they were both monitoring the weather radar which showed no sign of weather activity affecting their route. With the flying conditions smooth and no indications of turbulence ahead, the seat belt signs had been off for some time. As it was night the lights in the cabin had been dimmed with most passengers attempting to get some sleep. Some of the cabin crew, particularly those in the rear galley, were however starting to prepare trolleys for the forthcoming breakfast service.

Suddenly, the aircraft experienced a small positive 'g' movement followed by a slight shake of the airframe. The passenger seatbelt signs were immediately switched on from the flight deck at which point the aircraft suffered a severe downward movement with associated negative 'g'. The operating pilots guarded the thrust levers and speedbrake in order to control the airspeed, however this remained constant throughout. The disturbance quickly stopped and the aircraft resumed its normal flight path, the flight conditions becoming smooth again. The seat belts signs were left on and over the next hour small amounts of clear air turbulence were experienced, although none were as severe as the initial encounter.

Quote

The incident occurred on a scheduled flight from Brisbane, Australia to Singapore. The aircraft was in level flight at FL390, in the vicinity of airway intersection SABIL, when severe turbulence was experienced. In the passenger cabin a meal service was being carried out. Turbulence was not anticipated and the seat belt signs were off. The turbulence was of short duration, lasting for 15 seconds, but there were a number of injuries. The aircraft commander decided to continue the flight to Singapore and made a request for medical services to meet the aircraft on arrival. The aircraft landed at Singapore 44 minutes later. An engineering inspection was carried out after landing and revealed no damage to the aircraft.

Quote

Turbulence injury, Boeing 757-223, June 5, 2005. During cruise descent the airplane encountered convectively induced turbulence (CIT) and two flight attendants were injured. One of the injured flight attendants was located in the aft galley preparing for landing when the airplane encountered the turbulence. The flight attendant stated that she heard the captain say "prepare for landing" and "all of [a] sudden I got lifted off the ground and slammed into the 4R door." This flight attendant suffered a fractured ankle. The other injured flight attendant was located near the aft lavatories preparing for landing when the airplane encountered the turbulence. The flight attendant stated that the airplane "hit some type of severe turbulence without warning" and that she was "thrown to the floor." This flight attendant suffered minor injuries to her shoulder, hip, foot, and lower back. Data from the airplane's Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) was extracted and indicated that the airplane experienced vertical accelerations that were consistent with a CIT event. During the approximately 4 second CIT encounter, the maximum and minimum vertical accelerations were about 1.9g and 0.5g, respectively.

Quote

Turbulence injury, Boeing 737-700, April 29, 2005. Several minutes later, the flight encountered a thin layer of haze. Upon exiting the layer of haze, the flight crew noticed "an unusual cloud formation" directly ahead. The captain initiated a right turn as the flight encountered "two abrupt bumps and a gain in air speed." The captain added that the encounter lasted about 15-20 seconds, which was light to moderate turbulence. Following the turbulence upset, the captain was notified by a cabin crew member that a flight attendant sustained a leg injury in the aft galley, and would need medical attention upon arrival at STL.

There's plenty more examples. These were just at the top of the list!

Edited by SunnyBlues, 10 October 2012 - 11:49 AM.

[keithisco]

Firstly: Tha data from gravity Probe II is seriously flawed, which proves nothing more than a need to address the testability of what they were looking for.

Clear Air Turbulence is a well recorded phenomena, but one I strongly suspect that you, SunnyBlues, do not understand. There is no mystery here, it is not as predictable as you would like to suggest, and a flight from Bahrein to UK would go nowhere near the Bermuda Triangle. But, I forget, your imaginary Exotic Comets (for which you have offered no mathematical evidence) seem to appear everywhere that CAT occurs.

You know what? CAT occurs more frequently over a continental land mass than it does over the sea!!

Argue with me or MID or Waspie, if you really want to be shown up as a fool. We are all Aerospace Engineers, some of us with a provenance in Air Crash Investigation that span decades!!!

Second thoughts.. dont, this is so far off - topic that you need to start a new thread... then your theory can be shown to be the House of Cards that it really is...

Edited by keithisco, 10 October 2012 - 07:28 PM.