There seems to be one way traffic here - SUPERMMM asks questions, gets an honest answer as far as the responders can. The answer then appears to be ignored when it is contrary to supermmm's fixation that this can all be worked out by simple physics and a few broad assumptions."
Which honest reasonable answers did I ignore? Facts please.
1. That the basic assumption of using an estimated height, speed and direction cannot be used without knowing the instantaneous attitude of the aircraft to calculate the track from a falling object - the error in the result will make the methodology invalid.
2. That you need HARD DATA of the initial conditions to do these calculations with any confidence, not guesses or estimates, and you DO NOT have it.
"He does not appear to have any basic aviation knowledge (difference between height and altitude? what a transponder does?) and yet persists in insisting that it is all a matter of "high school physics" - IT IS NOT."
I didn't pretend I know anything about aviation. That's the reason I am here. If you have problem with the analysis, presenting your opinion with arguement regarding the analysis, your calculation to prove that I am wrong, and your objective logical reasoning please.
It is not a high school physics, if you want high acuracy. All debris from New Baltimore and Indian Lake were light, simi light debris, not heavy debris, something like a bomb. For acuracy within the order of half mile, we are fine.
3. Yes I have a serious issue with the analysis it is based on flawed assumptions - see 1. and 2. above
"It has been said by most responders that the position of debris on the ground CANNOT be used to calculate the flight path with any accuracy, if the aircraft is being violently manouevered then it is just not possible at all. Is he accepting this advice? "
If the debris found on the ground are heavy debris, if they were in fact thousands of pounds cylinders rotating at a high speed, then you can not base them to find flight path, I agree. But for light debris, isolatedly located, seperated by miles, how could them not be the indication of a flight path?
Even if the airplane is violently manouevered, how far a piece of paper, a pilot mannual could go? Maybe with wind. If they are scattered in an isolated area, doesn't that mean the plane passed there and droped them?
4. You are the physics and trajectory expert - you tell me how far a piece of paper can travel and in which direction when dropped from an aircraft at 5000 - 7000 feet (1 mile or more in height) with unkown winds (wind is not the same direction or speed throughout the atmosphere). Also how long was the piece of paper on the ground? how far was it moved by wind after landing?
"We have asked supermmmm to demonstrate that this is untrue by giving two examples for him to calculate - both completely ignored. "
That's full of smoke. If you couldn't even argue with basic simple analysis at high school level, just find some irrelavent problems, why shouldn't I ignore them? If you have problem with the analysis, point out where is the problem and why, scientifically and numerically if possible, please.
5. It is not smoke it will be a demonstration that your methodology has some validity by proving it's applicability with known conditions. It is not for me to DISPROVE that your methodology and analysis is valid, it is for you to prove that it is, when others have already disproved it (see answers 1 and 2 above). This is your opportunity to show that this not a complete waste of time by demonstrating the applicability of your methodology.