Bad Idea A thread dedicated to brainy idiocy. Please help find examples. First Up. The Mystery Of Missing Flight MH370, Solved? https://www.yahoo.com/travel/mathematician-may-have-just-solved-the-mystery-of-121124580772.html Mathematician May Have Just Solved The Mystery Of Missing Flight MH370<edit> His computer models suggest that the flight entered a vertical dive over the Indian Ocean, entering the water cleanly and without breaking up. The simulated crash solves some of the mysteries surrounding MH370 such as the lack of debris and spilled oil on the surface. <edit> THE STRUCTURE WOULD NOT HOLD ON IMPACT. Even, Nose First, as sweet as a dive a diver could hope with minimal splash - - An Airliner would disintegrate, right there at the surface or near surface upon impact with that, surface. Wings coming off the fuselage and the whole thing just, torn apart. Debris escaping confinement would certainly be close enough to the surface to appear as expected. Life jackets, oil, Styrofoam, etc. Bad Idea. What can one expect from a Mathematician and Computer models. A Model is only as good as the bias of the designer. Just like so many Scientific Studies. Moi r > g No View attachment 35648
I have made mistakes in the past myself but this BAD IDEA is really a BAD CONCEPT AND IDEA!!! I mean....who in the WORLD would think that a Commercial Jetliner like a Boeing 777...a very large powerful and heavy aircraft....one of the most advanced Commercial Aircraft in the WORLD.....would hit the water nose first at a super hgh rate of speed.....AND THEN NOT BREAK UP???? I can see if the Pilot kept the Nose Raised and attempted a Water Landing that this might keep the 777 almost fully intact but not completely.......BUT AN IMPACT FROM A NOSE DIVE???? This is just stupid. AboveAlpha
Amen. Whoever came up with that crazy idea is certainly unaware of how aircraft are built. Every extra pound of structure in an airplane reduces its ability to do its job. There are rewards for figuring out how to make any plane lighter while remaining safe to fly - not how to make it be able to hit a wall of water at hundreds of miles per hour - which would be the result of such a dive.
Hey guys, YOU think we're smarter than a computer model (computer model woo-woo ) designed by a mathematician? An Asian mathematician too. Dr. Goong Chen of Texas A&M University. I mean are we an example of Anti Science? We disagree with a computer model. There is bad science. EPA Science. Pharmaceutical Safety and Effectiveness Science. Then there's the kind for "publicity". Like, "help, I need grant money". Glad we agree a perfect dive by a airliner would not allow a break up free event. Moi r > g View attachment 35651 Without an American on the team, They would have never found, "Insulin" It was right there in the Pancreas the whole time
There is one basic concept that rules results of Computer Models.....GARBAGE DATA IN....GARBAGE DATA OUT!!! AboveAlpha
?? Computer modeling is a tool. If my use of a backhoe results in a mistake does that imply that the results of another person's use of a backhoe is also a mistake?
Golly gee Mr. Wizard. Could Computer modeling be a tool of propagandist, and not "scientist" I hope someone remembers, "Mr. Wizard". Fifties TV.
The lack of a debris field and oil slick more likely would indicate that it belly landed and sank, but since we have no idea where it went down, we have no idea if there was a debris field and fuel slick or not
Water impact calculations can be complex...you'll need to take into account things like fluid dynamics and Reynolds numbers. His theory isn't saying there was no structural damage, he's saying a vertical or near vertical entry would not have produced significant bending leading to multiple structural failures and hence a large debris field.. The wings would still break off, the engines, etc...but in large enough pieces they would sink quickly. Same applies to the fuselage. The aircraft broke apart, but produced fewer parts and a smaller radius of aircraft debris.. Over time, every remnant of the aircraft would sink below the surface of what can be observed from the air. Common sense tells us, you would think something would remain...fuel, a floating part of the aircraft...human remains. Something would still be there....floating on the surface. A clue perhaps to the fate of the aircraft and souls aboard. It's a large ocean, and as big as a commercial jetliner is...it's feasible the ocean simply swallowed up any evidence; provided the impact produced a minimized debris field. It's feasible.
Did YOU know "Mr. Wizard"? I did. B & W TV as a kid. There was always a child with him who had to say, "Gee Mr. Wizard".... And if you want silly, what about that mathematician getting paid to produce a computer model of an intact plane descending into the ocean via a nose first entry. Moi r > g View attachment 35682
The water is hard when you hit it at speed. I once like an idiot jumped off a really high bridge, when I was young and bullet proof. It felt like hitting the ground. I will not jump off a 5 gallon bucket these days, from that experience long ago. LOL
You're getting way off track. I objected to using this particular modeling effort to impugn other modeling, such as that being done for various aspects of our environment. You can raise all the questions you want about this particular model. But, weaknesses you may find in this particular modeling effort don't invalidate other models. As for airplane crash investigation, it could well be useful to develop a model of what happens when an airplane hits water at various angles, speeds, etc.. We've had several such incidents.
Okay! Climate Change Models. Glad you brought it up. If ever there was the creation of politically motivated "objective" models, you found one. Models are only as good as the lack of bias by the design. However, some things may just be too complex with factors that aren't accounted for in the model design regardless of best & pure efforts. Example: Climate change models fall apart when volcanic activity blooms. Off the Pacific coast from Seattle to Baja California is "the blob" Yes they call it that. The blob is a mass of warm water not explained by El Nino. That warm water is still further south. What is creating the blob? My guess is geothermal activity. Another example of model failures are those relating to brain function. But, y'really would have had to follow brain science for a few decades to watch those models come and go. My problem with models, is they are just models and too many parrot them as gospel. Is that "fair"? Models may even retard the advancement of Science as those on the band wagon proceed in the wrong direction. Moi r > g
Our very best understanding of climate can not possibly be anything BUT a model. That's the term that gets used for any projection. Yet, now you impugn our knowledge of climate by CALLING it a model. Of course it's a model. What else IS there?
Hard Science. Objective Science. Unbiased Science Haven't we witnessed, "Political Science" for example. More and more. And that is Grant Money! You gotta believe, Marijuana is harmful and of no therapeutic value You gotta believe, Man Made Global Warming, even the volcanoes melting the Antarctic ice shelves. I miss, Real Science. Yes I do. Moi Daddy was an aerospace engineer (communications systems, Viking lander on Mars) Brother a Neuro Biology professor Moi? retired M.D. r > g No
The results of real science on subjects as climate are models. Saying you are interested in real science on natural processes such as climate, but not models makes no sense.
How about tree rings? We don't need no stinkin' models. Although I do like "The Day After Tomorrow" and appreciate the oceanic thermal conveyors. Some say the one running around Antarctica is vital to them all. Ice shelves melting. Diluting sea water and shutting down the conveyor. Now there is a model. Antarctica. Are YOU prepared for the Ice Age, an Age of Glaciation to follow? Consider how fast the end of the Medieval Climate Optimum and beginning of The Little Ice Age occurred. No tree rings needed. We have written accounts. All conveniently ignored so the models will work. Then again, a major volcano can blow and change climate dynamics just like <snap fingers> that. Moi I hate models the pieces stick to my fingers. r > g View attachment 35696
It took a while but, Iran comes through http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-is-developing-a-new-flying-boat-2015-7 Imagery acquired by DigitalGlobe from October 2014 shows Irans new flying boat. Its the countrys first new model since publicizing the Bavar-2 back in 2010. The Sovietskys tried it some decades back. They discovered salt water and jet engines are a bad mix. I'd like to think Putin sold Iran the plans with used care salesman promises Anyone see any bad ideas around? Moi r > g View attachment 36144
It's a Russian design sold to Iran....thing will work a few times then forget it as Moi said...Salt Water and Jet Engines....not a good mix. AboveAlpha
