While much has been made of the border defenses to the North, the constraint provided by this new information allows overflying Bhutan (though not Nepal). Bhutan has a very small army and measures its performance in Gross National Happiness. It has no air force and has a border with Indian that requires no passport. It is flexible with its border with China. These borders may be less closely watched than some others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... The Myanmar/India border crossing that would need to be prior to this may not be closely guarded either.
WSJ reported a while back that all the ping data were used to produce the arcs for the final ping. But it has not been reported before that the second ping was farther from the satellite than the first and the third farther than the second and so on to the seventh. That constrains the path early in the disappearance. Since Indonesia has confidence in its radar, this new information suggests that either their confidence is misplaced, the plane used evasion methods within the radar coverage that Indonesia may be able to discover, or the plane did not fly South.
Interestingly, you link says at the bottom: "All track. arcs and probability zones are symbolic only / not accurate." and since they can't possibly be consistent with the new information, apparently the new information is indeed news.
There seem to be some mathematically irreconcilable things happening here. It is time to test some of these assumptions. A similar plane needs to be flown over proposed routes and altitudes with the same systems shut down to see if the satellite pings are consistent with a GPS log and to see if there are gaps in radar coverage that can account for the plane not turning up in records from Indonesia or Thailand or Myanmar or Bangladesh.
Here is another link saying the same about all seven pings: http://www.themalaymailonline....
"Engineers at Inmarsat Plc, whose satellite picked up the pings, plotted seven positions for the Boeing Co 777-200ER on March 8, Chris McLaughlin, a company spokesman, said in an interview. The plane flew steadily away from the satellite over the equator while pinging, McLaughlin said. Malaysia needs to verify that information, Datuk Azharuddin Abdul Rahman, the chief of the nation’s civil aviation, said in Kuala Lumpur."
Yet the first ping should have been very near the last radar contact at 2:15 seen on your map. But that position appears to be farther from the satellite than the 5:11 circle. Could they be over correcting for system latency on the aircraft when plotting these circles? Maybe the system is faster when other things are turned off? Perhaps plotted circles need to be expanded out to the East?
Actually, another anti-maverick action was to remove the fist part on NASA's mission statement. You clearly don't get what maverick means. It does not mean contrarian or denier.
Sunlight is captured over pi*r^2 (the crossection of the Earth) but it is re-emitted over 4*pi*r^2, the surface area of the Earth, so there is a factor of four down. There is also a question of how well you can make use of the emission. The Carnot limit gives about 85% for concentrated solar power (T(Sun)-T(receiver))/T(Sun) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... The effective temperature of the Earth at the top of the atmosphere is about 250 K while the effective temperature of a space based passively cooled infrared telescope is about 30 K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... so the Carnot efficiency comes out about the same unless you consider just how hard it would be to get that kind of cooling. In TFA, they are on the ground and can't get too far below the ambient temperature so they at just a couple of Watts per meter.
Getting funding for a satellite that can measure the effects of aerosols on global energy balance has been difficult. So, it would seem that the mavericks in that field are those trying to advance it, not the naysayers who wave around unsubstantiated fear, uncertainty and doubt.
This article does not give a lot of details but it suggests to me that the gap between the arcs is not owing to the way the satellite works but rather from calculations based on trying to make sense of information from the earlier pings. So, the argument about getting from one arc to the next would not be helpful. http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
The new observations have a lot to do with testing the theory of inflation, but they are not really focused on the Big Bang. The Big Bang has the observed expansion of the universe, the age of the oldest globular clusters, the existence of the cosmic microwave background and the theory of primordial nucleosynthesis to support it. If you run the expansion backwards, you shrink to a point in finite (backwards) time. That the oldest globular clusters of stars are just a little younger than that, that the cosmic microwave background shows the universe was hot and uniform in the past, all gas and no stars, and that the ratio of primordial elements shows that it was even hotter further back in the past but that element formation was quenched by the cooling of the expansion, these things support the Big Bang theory You don't really need a smoking gun when the artillery has already laid down a barrage. These new observations take advantage of the pristine nature of the cosmic microwave background to test some ideas about what happened before the elements formed. But inflation theory is an elaboration of Big Bang theory, not really a proof.
There are three problems in cosmology that inflation solves: flatness: the universe is very close to its critical density, the horizon problem: the universe looks like it is in thermal equilibrium for no good reason, and absence of magnetic monopoles.
As a renewable energy solution, storage of this type seems like it is required, but, in fact, transmission can get us to 80% renewable without a big investment in storage. Thus, these batteries seem like what would be needed to get 100%. http://www.rmi.org/reinventing...
Electrification of transportation in the US can provide enough storage in used car batteries to provide half a day's worth of our average electricity consumption. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/20... Consequently, the concept of baseload generation becomes antiquated and even spinning reserve may be doomed.
More speculation: the coverage maps that I've found for the satellite company that was doing the pings don't have an obvious blind spot where the arcs end: http://www.inmarsat.com/?s=cov... so perhaps they are working from knowing which transmitting antenna sent the ping request if they happen to use more than one antenna to get full coverage. Ping on one antenna, get a response, then done, no response, try the other antenna....
If you draw radii from the arc ends (the lower Norther arc end and upper Southern arc end are what count, the other ends are set by flight range) to the satellite position, then those radii converge by construction. Presuming that if the plane were close to Sri Lanka and pinged it would give arcs that end at those radii, then it would be reasonable to ping when the plane is at the Southern end of the Northern arc, fly South for an hour, and then ping again giving the same set of arcs. But, if we presume that the arc ends are there because the ping would not be detected within the empty slice we've constructed, perhaps owing to satellite antenna configuration, then there should be a missing ping or two traveling South on a path that lies East of Sri Lanka because the arc ends would be more than an hour apart.
US investigators are interested in the Southern ping arc because radar installations along the Northern arc would be hard to evade though some mention is now made of traversing Myanmar on the Northern arc. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03... However, in the graphic, an envelope of 1 hour flight distance is shown for each arc. The envelopes for the North and South arcs don't overlap. In fact it looks like it would take three hours to get from one arc to the other. Drawing radii from the arc ends to the satellite position, it looks like you'd have to get to Sri Lanka before the arc ends are within an hour's travel distance. But, news reports indicate detection of hourly pings. If similar arcs are associated with the other pings, then there may never be time to jump from one arc to the other if they are never consistent with a position near Sri Lanka, so the Southern arc might be excluded on geometric grounds.
In the graphic, an envelope of 1 hour flight distance is shown for each arc. The envelopes for the North and South arcs don't overlap. In fact it looks like would take three hours to get from one arc to the other. Drawing radii from the arc ends to the satellite position, it looks like you'd have to get to Sri Lanka before the arc ends are within an hour's travel distance. But, news reports indicate detection of hourly pings. If similar arcs are associated with the other pings, then there may never be time to jump from one arc to the other if they are never consistent with a position near Sri Lanka, so the Southern arc might be excluded on geometric grounds.
No, I haven't. But with a civilian transponder set to an identification of a delayed flight, for example, a plane could get too close perhaps. Bin Laden did claim to posses nuclear weapons a while back. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11... So, actual contact with the deck might not needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Mynamar also claims poor radar equipment. http://www.irrawaddy.org/burma...
An Indian Air Marshal points out that there are gaps in Indian radar coverage near Bhutan. http://news.oneindia.in/india/...
While much has been made of the border defenses to the North, the constraint provided by this new information allows overflying Bhutan (though not Nepal). Bhutan has a very small army and measures its performance in Gross National Happiness. It has no air force and has a border with Indian that requires no passport. It is flexible with its border with China. These borders may be less closely watched than some others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... The Myanmar/India border crossing that would need to be prior to this may not be closely guarded either.
WSJ reported a while back that all the ping data were used to produce the arcs for the final ping. But it has not been reported before that the second ping was farther from the satellite than the first and the third farther than the second and so on to the seventh. That constrains the path early in the disappearance. Since Indonesia has confidence in its radar, this new information suggests that either their confidence is misplaced, the plane used evasion methods within the radar coverage that Indonesia may be able to discover, or the plane did not fly South.
Interestingly, you link says at the bottom: "All track. arcs and probability zones are symbolic only / not accurate." and since they can't possibly be consistent with the new information, apparently the new information is indeed news.
There seem to be some mathematically irreconcilable things happening here. It is time to test some of these assumptions. A similar plane needs to be flown over proposed routes and altitudes with the same systems shut down to see if the satellite pings are consistent with a GPS log and to see if there are gaps in radar coverage that can account for the plane not turning up in records from Indonesia or Thailand or Myanmar or Bangladesh.
Here is another link saying the same about all seven pings: http://www.themalaymailonline.... "Engineers at Inmarsat Plc, whose satellite picked up the pings, plotted seven positions for the Boeing Co 777-200ER on March 8, Chris McLaughlin, a company spokesman, said in an interview. The plane flew steadily away from the satellite over the equator while pinging, McLaughlin said. Malaysia needs to verify that information, Datuk Azharuddin Abdul Rahman, the chief of the nation’s civil aviation, said in Kuala Lumpur."
Yet the first ping should have been very near the last radar contact at 2:15 seen on your map. But that position appears to be farther from the satellite than the 5:11 circle. Could they be over correcting for system latency on the aircraft when plotting these circles? Maybe the system is faster when other things are turned off? Perhaps plotted circles need to be expanded out to the East?
The Indonesians have searched their military radar records and did not detect the plane. http://www.antaranews.com/en/n...
Actually, another anti-maverick action was to remove the fist part on NASA's mission statement. You clearly don't get what maverick means. It does not mean contrarian or denier.
Sunlight is captured over pi*r^2 (the crossection of the Earth) but it is re-emitted over 4*pi*r^2, the surface area of the Earth, so there is a factor of four down. There is also a question of how well you can make use of the emission. The Carnot limit gives about 85% for concentrated solar power (T(Sun)-T(receiver))/T(Sun) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... The effective temperature of the Earth at the top of the atmosphere is about 250 K while the effective temperature of a space based passively cooled infrared telescope is about 30 K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... so the Carnot efficiency comes out about the same unless you consider just how hard it would be to get that kind of cooling. In TFA, they are on the ground and can't get too far below the ambient temperature so they at just a couple of Watts per meter.
Getting funding for a satellite that can measure the effects of aerosols on global energy balance has been difficult. So, it would seem that the mavericks in that field are those trying to advance it, not the naysayers who wave around unsubstantiated fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Make the scientific literature available to all. The mavericks will emerge without any grant support.
This article does not give a lot of details but it suggests to me that the gap between the arcs is not owing to the way the satellite works but rather from calculations based on trying to make sense of information from the earlier pings. So, the argument about getting from one arc to the next would not be helpful. http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
The new observations have a lot to do with testing the theory of inflation, but they are not really focused on the Big Bang. The Big Bang has the observed expansion of the universe, the age of the oldest globular clusters, the existence of the cosmic microwave background and the theory of primordial nucleosynthesis to support it. If you run the expansion backwards, you shrink to a point in finite (backwards) time. That the oldest globular clusters of stars are just a little younger than that, that the cosmic microwave background shows the universe was hot and uniform in the past, all gas and no stars, and that the ratio of primordial elements shows that it was even hotter further back in the past but that element formation was quenched by the cooling of the expansion, these things support the Big Bang theory You don't really need a smoking gun when the artillery has already laid down a barrage. These new observations take advantage of the pristine nature of the cosmic microwave background to test some ideas about what happened before the elements formed. But inflation theory is an elaboration of Big Bang theory, not really a proof.
How stupid again.
There are three problems in cosmology that inflation solves: flatness: the universe is very close to its critical density, the horizon problem: the universe looks like it is in thermal equilibrium for no good reason, and absence of magnetic monopoles.
As a renewable energy solution, storage of this type seems like it is required, but, in fact, transmission can get us to 80% renewable without a big investment in storage. Thus, these batteries seem like what would be needed to get 100%. http://www.rmi.org/reinventing...
How stupid. Nuclear needs storage if it is to follow demand. Wind mills are cheaper than nuclear by a lot, so why urge the more expensive scenario?
Electrification of transportation in the US can provide enough storage in used car batteries to provide half a day's worth of our average electricity consumption. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/20... Consequently, the concept of baseload generation becomes antiquated and even spinning reserve may be doomed.
More speculation: the coverage maps that I've found for the satellite company that was doing the pings don't have an obvious blind spot where the arcs end: http://www.inmarsat.com/?s=cov... so perhaps they are working from knowing which transmitting antenna sent the ping request if they happen to use more than one antenna to get full coverage. Ping on one antenna, get a response, then done, no response, try the other antenna....
If you draw radii from the arc ends (the lower Norther arc end and upper Southern arc end are what count, the other ends are set by flight range) to the satellite position, then those radii converge by construction. Presuming that if the plane were close to Sri Lanka and pinged it would give arcs that end at those radii, then it would be reasonable to ping when the plane is at the Southern end of the Northern arc, fly South for an hour, and then ping again giving the same set of arcs. But, if we presume that the arc ends are there because the ping would not be detected within the empty slice we've constructed, perhaps owing to satellite antenna configuration, then there should be a missing ping or two traveling South on a path that lies East of Sri Lanka because the arc ends would be more than an hour apart.
US investigators are interested in the Southern ping arc because radar installations along the Northern arc would be hard to evade though some mention is now made of traversing Myanmar on the Northern arc. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03... However, in the graphic, an envelope of 1 hour flight distance is shown for each arc. The envelopes for the North and South arcs don't overlap. In fact it looks like it would take three hours to get from one arc to the other. Drawing radii from the arc ends to the satellite position, it looks like you'd have to get to Sri Lanka before the arc ends are within an hour's travel distance. But, news reports indicate detection of hourly pings. If similar arcs are associated with the other pings, then there may never be time to jump from one arc to the other if they are never consistent with a position near Sri Lanka, so the Southern arc might be excluded on geometric grounds.
In the graphic, an envelope of 1 hour flight distance is shown for each arc. The envelopes for the North and South arcs don't overlap. In fact it looks like would take three hours to get from one arc to the other. Drawing radii from the arc ends to the satellite position, it looks like you'd have to get to Sri Lanka before the arc ends are within an hour's travel distance. But, news reports indicate detection of hourly pings. If similar arcs are associated with the other pings, then there may never be time to jump from one arc to the other if they are never consistent with a position near Sri Lanka, so the Southern arc might be excluded on geometric grounds.
No, I haven't. But with a civilian transponder set to an identification of a delayed flight, for example, a plane could get too close perhaps. Bin Laden did claim to posses nuclear weapons a while back. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11... So, actual contact with the deck might not needed.
Straight through the heart of them, righteous up rights....