[math-fun] Finding missing Malaysia370 plane using trigonometry.
CNN's idiotic news on the missing Malaysia370 plane said a satellite ping timing deduced that at 8:11pm, the plane had to be on a certain circle drawn on the globe. What CNN did NOT say was, if we ASSUME the plane flew on a straight path (i.e. geodesic great circle) at its most-efficient miles/gallon speed (which of course it would because the plotters were not idiotic) starting from a known place S at a known time T (both of which we pretty much know) then we can DEDUCE EXACTLY WHERE on that circle, the plane was a 8:11pm. You follow? There are two circles, one from the satellite, the other centered at S and of radius V*T where V is the 777's most efficient speed. The intersection of BOTH these circles is: two points. Find those two points, and you'll know where the plane was at 8:11 and you'll also know (under our straightness assumption) which direction it was going. Follow that direction out and intersect with all suitable landing strips, and you've found it. PS. Could anybody relay this message to, like, the appropriate government or whoever bodies? I tried to send it to them myself, but my experience whenever I try to contact the press or government about anything ever, is they always ignore me either forever or at least for weeks. I see no reason this should be any different.
We know exactly where the plane is, but cannot divulge that information in order to avoid revealing our technology. -- Gene
________________________________ From: Warren D Smith <warren.wds@gmail.com> To: math-fun@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 7:11 PM Subject: [math-fun] Finding missing Malaysia370 plane using trigonometry.
CNN's idiotic news on the missing Malaysia370 plane said a satellite ping timing deduced that at 8:11pm, the plane had to be on a certain circle drawn on the globe. What CNN did NOT say was, if we ASSUME the plane flew on a straight path (i.e. geodesic great circle) at its most-efficient miles/gallon speed (which of course it would because the plotters were not idiotic) starting from a known place S at a known time T (both of which we pretty much know) then we can DEDUCE EXACTLY WHERE on that circle, the plane was a 8:11pm. You follow? There are two circles, one from the satellite, the other centered at S and of radius V*T where V is the 777's most efficient speed. The intersection of BOTH these circles is: two points. Find those two points, and you'll know where the plane was at 8:11 and you'll also know (under our straightness assumption) which direction it was going. Follow that direction out and intersect with all suitable landing strips, and you've found it.
PS. Could anybody relay this message to, like, the appropriate government or whoever bodies? I tried to send it to them myself, but my experience whenever I try to contact the press or government about anything ever, is they always ignore me either forever or at least for weeks. I see no reason this should be any different.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Arrgh, below is the same except with corrections: CNN's idiotic news on the missing Malaysia370 plane said a satellite ping timing deduced that at 8:11pm, the plane had to be on a certain circle drawn on the globe. What CNN did NOT say was, if we ASSUME the plane flew on a straight path (i.e. geodesic great circle) at its most-efficient miles/gallon speed (which of course it would because the plotters were not idiotic) starting from a known place S at a known time T (both of which we pretty much know) then we can DEDUCE EXACTLY WHERE on that circle, the plane was a 8:11pm. You follow? There are two circles, one from the satellite, the other centered at S and of radius=V*(8.11pm-T) where V is the 777's most efficient speed. The intersection of BOTH these circles is: two points. Find those two points, and you'll know where the plane was at 8:11 and you'll also know (under our straightness assumption) which direction it was going. Follow that direction out and intersect with all suitable landing strips, and you've found it. PS. Could anybody relay this message to, like, the appropriate government or whoever bodies? I tried to send it to them myself, but my experience whenever I try to contact the press or government about anything ever, is they always ignore me either forever or at least for weeks. I see no reason this should be any different. -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)
Warren D Smith: "CNN's idiotic news on the missing Malaysia370 plane said a satellite ping timing deduced that at 8:11pm, the plane had to be on a certain circle drawn on the globe..." CNN has been infuriating to watch since someone decided that the plane did indeed make a left turn and flew west. The underlying assumption is that the westward-flying plane tracked by military radar was MH370. If someone actually proved that to be the case, they neglected to share it (as far as I am aware) with the general public. However, once that became an accepted fact, the subsequent pings showed that the plane was in the air for six to seven hours, as opposed to (say) on the surface of the ocean somewhere in the South China Sea. The circle was abridged as two arcs, a northerly one and a southerly one. The missing arc between them was in the South China Sea. Presumably it was excluded because why would they fly back to where they came from! Even after it was explained that the arcs represented possible locations at that point in time (8:11 AM, local time 9 March), CNN commentators kept referring to each arc as a "path" (as in flight path), spinning their wild conjectures. I'm on record saying (on Google+) that "I am putting some faith in Mike McKay, the New Zealand oil rig worker who claimed to have seen, off southeast Vietnam, a plane burning in the sky." If I'm wrong, so be it. But in my mind this is still a plausible (if not likely) possibility.
I hadn’t even heard of McKay until reading your e-mail, Hans, but then found it easily on Gawker. I wonder: Is it reasonable that if McKay saw it, he would be the only one to write CNN about it? Also: I found the apparently confirmed e-mail itself here: < http://gawker.com/oil-rig-worker-says-he-saw-flight-370-crash-in-flames-1542... > (scroll down). It says the flames went out in the sky. In fact he says that after 10-15 seconds, “the flames went out — still at high altitude”. My guess: he saw a shiny object in the sky, like a weather balloon, that was reflecting the sun, until it didn’t. Is it believable that a plane burning in the sky could stop burning before it fell? —Dan P.S. I also found CNN to be infuriating with its interviewing a random mix of actual experts and people who obviously have no expertise on the subject of analyzing what may have happened to a missing plane, and/or can’t speak one coherent sentence, as well as CNN’s almost never separating what is known from what is conjecture or what is likely. On Mar 15, 2014, at 8:23 PM, Hans Havermann <gladhobo@teksavvy.com> wrote: . . .
CNN has been infuriating to watch since someone decided that the plane did indeed make a left turn and flew west. The underlying assumption is that the westward-flying plane tracked by military radar was MH370. If someone actually proved that to be the case, they neglected to share it (as far as I am aware) with the general public. However, once that became an accepted fact, the subsequent pings showed that the plane was in the air for six to seven hours, as opposed to (say) on the surface of the ocean somewhere in the South China Sea. The circle was abridged as two arcs, a northerly one and a southerly one. The missing arc between them was in the South China Sea. Presumably it was excluded because why would they fly back to where they came from! Even after it was explained that the arcs represented possible locations at that point in time (8:11 AM, local time 9 March), CNN commentators kept referring to each arc as a "path" (as in flight path), spinning their wild conjectures. I'm on record saying (on Google+) that "I am putting some faith in Mike McKay, the New Zealand oil rig worker who claimed to have seen, off southeast Vietnam, a plane burning in the sky." If I'm wrong, so be it. But in my mind this is still a plausible (if not likely) possibility.
participants (4)
-
Dan Asimov -
Eugene Salamin -
Hans Havermann -
Warren D Smith