You don't know much. System engineering integrates all the design functions of an airplane. Credentials matter to separate those who understand the science and methodology from those who don't. Gas physics, aerodynamics, thermodynamics, atmospheric science...they are all under my belt. You continue to have no credentials. You don't say how old you are, so you are probably lacking experience. Here I mention that I have dealt with the possibility of designing a "chemtrail," and you want to say I don't know anything?
My view of a "tiny area"? Have you ever seen the aircraft plant in Everett, Washington? Bold talk for someone who is nowhere close to the action. Has an aerial lab sampled anything? I doubt that any such activity would ever be approved by the FAA, as it would require violation of the flight separation requirements. No evidence. Are you sure you aren't sampling meteoric dust? About 14 tons deposit on Earth every day. Same composition as your malignant materials. We do have aircraft that "sniff" for radioactive isotopes to detect nuclear detonations...but I don't think they are being used for "chemtrail" detection.
I assume you are referring to the hoax footage about the ballast system on a developmental airplane? Somebody is playing you like a fiddle. I've already viewed these BS videos of hoax expose, and a complete ignorance of contrails. Evidently, you can't do better than that.
Cloud cover? Where do you live? As a native of Puget Sound, I think I am an expert on cloud cover. We have plenty of it. And nothing is harmed thereby. We have verdant growth that requires constant maintenance to keep from overwhelming houses and property. Contrails have no effect on the received sunlight, compared to normal weather.
And you can't even be concerned about the real chemtrails from rocket exhaust. I think it is quite funny that I have to be the one to inform you about that. I give you something real...but not part of your narrative. You don't want to touch it. So much for your aspirations to be a scientist.
Your academic background has little to do with atmospheric science. Mine was all about it, and gas physics, and disequilibrium chemistry. So, it actually proves something. This is not to disparage your career, which is commendable.
I have always used my eyes and ears to learn---including observing contrails for about 65 years. No cognitive dissonance. I have been learning all my life, including contrary positions in the fields of cosmology and geophysics.
What is to believe? I only saw a hoax video that purported to show chemtrail equipment in an airliner. I saw no sample effort---and I reiterate my doubt that any such thing took place, because it would have violated air traffic separation requirements. And what was the chain of custody? Nothing easier than to go through the motions and provide a doctored sample.
I got maybe 5 minutes into the video, but it really is BS. It points to aerial condensation phenomena and declares it to be sprayed trails, when they are simply natural phenomena that I have seen in flight myself. What they don't seem to understand is that the trail does not form if the condensation does not happen, and the condensation is contingent on air temperature and humidity conditions. If the air is dry enough, the vapor will not condense. You see this effect in the formation of lenticular clouds from air moving up over a mountain and down again. The condensation comes from combustion of hydrocarbons and the production of water vapor. It has nothing to do with whether the engine is piston, jet, or turbofan. It's as possible from a turbofan as from anything. The fuel is burned, and turns into carbon dioxide and water vapor.
"Global dimming" is nonsense. Did you notice that in all the photos of the contrails, they were brighter than the background sky? It simply isn't happening. I live where there are plenty of clouds and in my lifetime there hasn't been a change.
The opening figures quoted as saying contrails are somehow impossible are complete ignoramuses. Showing something and declaring it to be a chemtrail is not an argument from evidence; it is dogma. These people are leaping to conclusions, and I don't have 2 hours to waste listening to their confirmation bias and paranoid fantasies.
Earth is flat and space is fake? Now you have shown your colors. More impossible fantasy. As I have remarked elsewhere and previously, we have been circumnavigating the globe on the oceans since Magellan, and in the air since Lindbergh, and in space since Gagarin. You may be interested to know that we cannot survey land as though it were flat. At large enough distances, the grid fails to remain orthogonal. The survey grids need to be adjusted to compensate for the convexity of the spherical Earth. What you need is a good trip around the Earth in a space capsule---but if you have any observational smarts, a lengthy airplane trip would be sufficient. You do know we have research bases near the south pole? No wall of ice. Plenty of traffic into and out of Antarctica.
The difference between us is that I understand the problems of a flat vs. a spherical Earth and can spell them out. You don't understand them at all. Every flat-earther I've run across is incapable of spelling out a single critical truth that only could be true if the Earth were flat. Just long, boring videos dripping with ignorance and smugness. You are the one faced with cognitive dissonance. You have put your brain into a bag in order to deny the world that is all around us. At some point the bag will tear and you will see for yourself. And then you will realize what a fool you have been.
No, friend. I was presented with non-stop BS, which I knew to be BS from my own life of research and work. These are people who have no room in their heads for a true understanding. They point at vents on the trailing edges of pylons or wings and declare them to be chemtrail nozzles. Apparently they don't know about pressure venting of the fuel tanks, and the provisions for dumping fuel overboard in emergencies. When they don't even mention the most obvious explanations, I can't take them seriously. When they point to patchy contrail production and declare it is an injection system being switched on and off, it is clear they have no experience of patchy air resulting in sporadic shedding of transient clouds. I have seen this as an airline passenger. Seen... That's what I mean by using my eyes and ears. Actually seeing these phenomena, as well as understanding the atmospheric physics about them.
The shape of the Earth is not really open to argument. Several centuries of exploration on land, sea, air, and outer space has proven it to be a globe (circumnavigation). Mapping of the Earth surface is incompatible with being flat (it is convex). The contiguity of the surface precludes any edges. We are sending people into orbit for joyrides, now. This is far, far beyond any bull session hypothetical debate.
There are no flat earth proofs. I've run into what some people think are proofs, and all they amount to are questions or misunderstandings or ignorance about natural phenomena. There are no disproofs of the globular Earth, and it's not a scam. We see globular planets, moons, and suns. The Earth is no different. You are indulging in serious paranoid delusions, which is the first step into psychosis.
You don't know much. System engineering integrates all the design functions of an airplane. Credentials matter to separate those who understand the science and methodology from those who don't. Gas physics, aerodynamics, thermodynamics, atmospheric science...they are all under my belt. You continue to have no credentials. You don't say how old you are, so you are probably lacking experience. Here I mention that I have dealt with the possibility of designing a "chemtrail," and you want to say I don't know anything?
My view of a "tiny area"? Have you ever seen the aircraft plant in Everett, Washington? Bold talk for someone who is nowhere close to the action. Has an aerial lab sampled anything? I doubt that any such activity would ever be approved by the FAA, as it would require violation of the flight separation requirements. No evidence. Are you sure you aren't sampling meteoric dust? About 14 tons deposit on Earth every day. Same composition as your malignant materials. We do have aircraft that "sniff" for radioactive isotopes to detect nuclear detonations...but I don't think they are being used for "chemtrail" detection.
I assume you are referring to the hoax footage about the ballast system on a developmental airplane? Somebody is playing you like a fiddle. I've already viewed these BS videos of hoax expose, and a complete ignorance of contrails. Evidently, you can't do better than that.
Cloud cover? Where do you live? As a native of Puget Sound, I think I am an expert on cloud cover. We have plenty of it. And nothing is harmed thereby. We have verdant growth that requires constant maintenance to keep from overwhelming houses and property. Contrails have no effect on the received sunlight, compared to normal weather.
And you can't even be concerned about the real chemtrails from rocket exhaust. I think it is quite funny that I have to be the one to inform you about that. I give you something real...but not part of your narrative. You don't want to touch it. So much for your aspirations to be a scientist.
Your academic background has little to do with atmospheric science. Mine was all about it, and gas physics, and disequilibrium chemistry. So, it actually proves something. This is not to disparage your career, which is commendable.
I have always used my eyes and ears to learn---including observing contrails for about 65 years. No cognitive dissonance. I have been learning all my life, including contrary positions in the fields of cosmology and geophysics.
What is to believe? I only saw a hoax video that purported to show chemtrail equipment in an airliner. I saw no sample effort---and I reiterate my doubt that any such thing took place, because it would have violated air traffic separation requirements. And what was the chain of custody? Nothing easier than to go through the motions and provide a doctored sample.
I got maybe 5 minutes into the video, but it really is BS. It points to aerial condensation phenomena and declares it to be sprayed trails, when they are simply natural phenomena that I have seen in flight myself. What they don't seem to understand is that the trail does not form if the condensation does not happen, and the condensation is contingent on air temperature and humidity conditions. If the air is dry enough, the vapor will not condense. You see this effect in the formation of lenticular clouds from air moving up over a mountain and down again. The condensation comes from combustion of hydrocarbons and the production of water vapor. It has nothing to do with whether the engine is piston, jet, or turbofan. It's as possible from a turbofan as from anything. The fuel is burned, and turns into carbon dioxide and water vapor.
"Global dimming" is nonsense. Did you notice that in all the photos of the contrails, they were brighter than the background sky? It simply isn't happening. I live where there are plenty of clouds and in my lifetime there hasn't been a change.
The opening figures quoted as saying contrails are somehow impossible are complete ignoramuses. Showing something and declaring it to be a chemtrail is not an argument from evidence; it is dogma. These people are leaping to conclusions, and I don't have 2 hours to waste listening to their confirmation bias and paranoid fantasies.
Earth is flat and space is fake? Now you have shown your colors. More impossible fantasy. As I have remarked elsewhere and previously, we have been circumnavigating the globe on the oceans since Magellan, and in the air since Lindbergh, and in space since Gagarin. You may be interested to know that we cannot survey land as though it were flat. At large enough distances, the grid fails to remain orthogonal. The survey grids need to be adjusted to compensate for the convexity of the spherical Earth. What you need is a good trip around the Earth in a space capsule---but if you have any observational smarts, a lengthy airplane trip would be sufficient. You do know we have research bases near the south pole? No wall of ice. Plenty of traffic into and out of Antarctica.
The difference between us is that I understand the problems of a flat vs. a spherical Earth and can spell them out. You don't understand them at all. Every flat-earther I've run across is incapable of spelling out a single critical truth that only could be true if the Earth were flat. Just long, boring videos dripping with ignorance and smugness. You are the one faced with cognitive dissonance. You have put your brain into a bag in order to deny the world that is all around us. At some point the bag will tear and you will see for yourself. And then you will realize what a fool you have been.
No, friend. I was presented with non-stop BS, which I knew to be BS from my own life of research and work. These are people who have no room in their heads for a true understanding. They point at vents on the trailing edges of pylons or wings and declare them to be chemtrail nozzles. Apparently they don't know about pressure venting of the fuel tanks, and the provisions for dumping fuel overboard in emergencies. When they don't even mention the most obvious explanations, I can't take them seriously. When they point to patchy contrail production and declare it is an injection system being switched on and off, it is clear they have no experience of patchy air resulting in sporadic shedding of transient clouds. I have seen this as an airline passenger. Seen... That's what I mean by using my eyes and ears. Actually seeing these phenomena, as well as understanding the atmospheric physics about them.
The shape of the Earth is not really open to argument. Several centuries of exploration on land, sea, air, and outer space has proven it to be a globe (circumnavigation). Mapping of the Earth surface is incompatible with being flat (it is convex). The contiguity of the surface precludes any edges. We are sending people into orbit for joyrides, now. This is far, far beyond any bull session hypothetical debate.
There are no flat earth proofs. I've run into what some people think are proofs, and all they amount to are questions or misunderstandings or ignorance about natural phenomena. There are no disproofs of the globular Earth, and it's not a scam. We see globular planets, moons, and suns. The Earth is no different. You are indulging in serious paranoid delusions, which is the first step into psychosis.