...Curiosity killed the cat? From the wiki here]I was thinking about my appreciation of having learned that "satisfaction" brought the cat back. And I finally went to the Wikipedia link. I was surprised to find that curiosity has only been killing cats since about 1873. Prior to that it was "Care (defined as worry or sorrow) (that) killed the cat." And the cat couldn't come back from it because "care" (worry or sorrow) was sufficient to take all of its nine lives. This has nothing to do with MH 370, but while we await something coming from the ping data, it seemed an interesting filler. (Maybe I should alert CNN.) (I am easily amused sometimes.)"Curiosity killed the cat" is a metaphor used to warn of the dangers of unnecessary investigation or experimentation. A less frequently-seen rejoinder to "curiosity killed the cat" is "but, satisfaction brought it back"....
... Because the US, with it's vast resources (monetary, scientific and military) has the ability to develop the technologies and the political incentives to do that...Thanks for your thoughtful reply, but I tend not to believe that the US actually has developed such a powerful and extensive tracking capability across all of the oceans of the world, and, at the same time, has kept it completely secret. Yes, that's apparently what governments do best--exaggerate and beat their chests. Lois
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, but I tend not to believe that the US actually has developed such a powerful and extensive tracking capability across all of the oceans of the world, and, at the same time, has kept it completely secret.From this article here]
It is a lightweight satellite that is expected to improve Israel’s reconnaissance abilities by providing sharp images at any time of day, and in any weather condition, said Ofer Doron of Israel Aerospace Industries.And
The satellite has the capability to direct its imaging radar on a specific target, as opposed to other satellites that perform a general sweep of territory. “It has an incredible imaging capability…to give very precise photos," said Doron.Bold added by me. What is an imaging radar? From the wiki here]
An imaging radar is a kind of radar equipment which can be used for imaging. A typical radar technology includes emitting radio waves, receiving their reflection, and using this information to generate data. For an imaging radar, the returning waves are used to create an image. When the radio waves reflect off objects, this will make some changes in the radio waves and can provide data about the objects, including how far the waves traveled and what kind of objects they encountered. Using the acquired data, a computer can create a 3-D or 2-D image of the target. Imaging radar has several advantages. It can operate in the presence of obstacles that obscure the target, and can penetrate ground (sand), water, or walls.
Still, Kkwan, it is a gigantic leap from recognizing that really good tracking technologies exist, to this statement from the Guardian article that you referenced recently: “… the Americans have known exactly where the flight crashed ever since it fell out of the skies; to reveal that they do so would be to endanger covert military information and the operation of underwater sonic arrays…”.
Based on the assumption that the ping data they have gotten is actually from the MH 370 black box, I expect that searchers, if they are lucky, will find evidence of the plane by early May. If they are unlucky, but remain diligent, I expect they will find evidence by late May. But if the ping data is not the black box, I expect them to find evidence by … not in my lifetime.
Still, Kkwan, it is a gigantic leap from recognizing that really good tracking technologies exist, to this statement from the Guardian article that you referenced recently: "... the Americans have known exactly where the flight crashed ever since it fell out of the skies; to reveal that they do so would be to endanger covert military information and the operation of underwater sonic arrays...".Yes, that's giving the US government a lot more intelligence, power and credibility than they deserve. Conspiracy theorists love to imbue the US government with god-like powers. Then they can say it is controlling everything that's happening in the world. Science fiction. Lois
Still, Kkwan, it is a gigantic leap from recognizing that really good tracking technologies exist, to this statement from the Guardian article that you referenced recently: "... the Americans have known exactly where the flight crashed ever since it fell out of the skies; to reveal that they do so would be to endanger covert military information and the operation of underwater sonic arrays...".Yes, that's giving the US government a lot more intelligence, power and credibility than they deserve. Conspiracy theorists love to imbue the US government with god-like powers. Then they can say it is controlling everything that's happening in the world. Science fiction. Lois My thinking also. OTOH, I wonder about the odds of the searchers coming across what seems, now, to be the black box pings. Based on the limited data that they were purportedly going on, it would seem that they were awfully lucky. "Hail Mary's" don't usually work. But then, again, sometimes they do.
Still, Kkwan, it is a gigantic leap from recognizing that really good tracking technologies exist, to this statement from the Guardian article that you referenced recently: "... the Americans have known exactly where the flight crashed ever since it fell out of the skies; to reveal that they do so would be to endanger covert military information and the operation of underwater sonic arrays...".Yes, that's giving the US government a lot more intelligence, power and credibility than they deserve. Conspiracy theorists love to imbue the US government with god-like powers. Then they can say it is controlling everything that's happening in the world. Science fiction. Lois My thinking also. OTOH, I wonder about the odds of the searchers coming across what seems, now, to be the black box pings. Based on the limited data that they were purportedly going on, it would seem that they were awfully lucky. "Hail Mary's" don't usually work. But then, again, sometimes they do. Luck is always a factor. But it isn't always or only luck. A lot of thought went into where they were looking and listening. They weren't working in a vacuum with no information at all. Lois
On fuzzy maths, can data lie and cartoons?
From this article at slate.com here]
Are the pings from the black box of MH370?
But repeated searches by a robotic submarine have so far failed to find the source of the pings, which experts say could have come from marine animals or even from the searching ships themselves. Prime Minister Tony Abbott admitted that if wreckage wasn’t located within a week or two “we stop, we regroup, we reconsider."Inconsistencies and fudging?
Yet independent experts who have analyzed the report say that it is riddled with inconsistencies and that the data it presents to justify its conclusion appears to have been fudged.Impossible to confirm Immarsat's conclusion?
Unfortunately, it soon became clear that Inmarsat had presented its data in a way that made this goal impossible: “There simply isn't enough information in the report to reconstruct the original data," says Scott Morgan, the former commander of the US Air Force Rescue Coordination Center. “We don’t know what their assumptions are going into this."Cartoons and doubtful conclusion?
Another expert who tried to understand Inmarsat’s report was Mike Exner, CEO of the remote sensing company Radiometrics Inc. He mathematically processed the “Burst Frequency Offset" values on Page 2 of Annex 1 and was able to derive figures for relative velocity between the aircraft and the satellite. He found, however, that no matter how he tried, he could not get his values to match those implied by the possible routes shown on Page 3 of the annex. “They look like cartoons to me," says Exner.Bold added by me. Makes no sense?
Even more significantly, I haven’t found anybody who has independently analyzed the Inmarsat report and has been able to figure out what kind of northern route could yield the values shown on Page 2 of the annex. According to the March 25 report, Inmarsat teased out the small differences predicted to exist between the Doppler shift values between the northern and southern routes. This difference, presumably caused by the slight wobble in the satellite’s orbit that I mentioned above, should be tiny—according to Exner’s analysis, no more than a few percent of the total velocity value. And yet Page 2 of the annex shows a radically different set of values between the northern and southern routes. “Neither the northern or southern predicted routes make any sense," says Exner.Why is Immarsat so secretive of their data and methods in arriving at their "momentous conclusions"?
It would be nice if Inmarsat would throw open its spreadsheets and help resolve the issue right now, but that could be too much to expect. Inmarsat may be bound by confidentiality agreements with its customers, not to mention U.S. laws that restrict the release of information about sensitive technologies.Apparently, we have the surrealistic situation whereby after the needle is found, then and only then, will we know where the haystack is. Putting the cart before the horse? :lol:
Kkwan, I am patiently awaiting the hard evidence of something physical of the plane being found. If it is not, then a new question should arise and not easily be swept away: “What did make the ping data on which the current underwater search is based?” (I don’t consider it to be credible that it came “from marine animals or even from the searching ships themselves”, despite the claim that some unidentified “experts” said that.) But that question, I consider to be premature, until it is clear that it did not come from MH370.
Kkwan, I am patiently awaiting the hard evidence of something physical of the plane being found. If it is not, then a new question should arise and not easily be swept away: "What did make the ping data on which the current underwater search is based?" (I don't consider it to be credible that it came "from marine animals or even from the searching ships themselves", despite the claim that some unidentified "experts" said that.) But that question, I consider to be premature, until it is clear that it did not come from MH370.From this article here] Searching in the wrong place?
Searchers are reported to be considering they are looking for flight MH370 in the wrong place, as the hunt for the missing airliner continues to draw a blank.Back to square one?
Members of the International Investigation Team (IIT) based in Kuala Lumpur were thinking of starting from the beginning in the search for the plane.Wrong interpretation of the source of the pings?
The sounds could have come from sources other than the emergency beacons, the Washington Post quoted Peter Herzig, executive director of the Geomar Helmholtz Centre for Oceanographic Research in Germany, as saying.Why are there no floating debris?
Given that the force of an aircraft hitting the ocean was similar to a collision with concrete, at least some debris should have been left floating.There are so many such questions with no definite answers.
Really, Peter Herzig? Obviously if the plane is not there, the sounds did come from some other source. But aside from stating something so obvious, as an authority, it is totally irresponsible to say so, without specifying what other sources, other than the emergency beacons, that the sounds (that so closely resembled those on the plane would have made) could have come from. Please, Peter Herzig, say exactly, what those other sources could have been, and don't say marine animals. Peter Herzig, were the searchers so stupid that they were picking up sounds from their own ship? Peter Herzig, could someone have had a device that made those sounds for some surreptitious industrial research or military purposes, and just failed to inform the searchers? Peter Herzig, did someone deliberately deploy a pinger near that location in the Indian Ocean, so as to throw off the search? Please, Peter Herzig, elaborate.The sounds could have come from sources other than the emergency beacons, the Washington Post quoted Peter Herzig, executive director of the Geomar Helmholtz Centre for Oceanographic Research in Germany, as saying.
Really, Peter Herzig? Obviously if the plane is not there, the sounds did come from some other source. But aside from stating something so obvious, as an authority, it is totally irresponsible to say so, without specifying what other sources, other than the emergency beacons, that the sounds (that so closely resembled those on the plane would have made) could have come from. Please, Peter Herzig, say exactly, what those other sources could have been, and don't say marine animals. Peter Herzig, were the searchers so stupid that they were picking up sounds from their own ship? Peter Herzig, could someone have had a device that made those sounds for some surreptitious industrial research or military purposes, and just failed to inform the searchers? Peter Herzig, did someone deliberately deploy a pinger near that location in the Indian Ocean, so as to throw off the search? Please, Peter Herzig, elaborate.From this article here]
Speaking to Khaleej Times, Dr Peter M. Herzig, Executive Director, GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany explained why it could have been a false lead. “Other instruments used for marine research can also send out acoustic signals. Thus, it might also be possible that the signals that were captured by the ships came from other sources than the flight recorders of the aircraft." This might explain the “large distances" (time) between the signals that were mentioned in the media, he said. “Nevertheless, only the experts that have access to the data can determine whether or not this argument can be ruled out or not," said Dr Herzig, which could open another trove of questions into where the plane or its parts are located.Besides the black box, there is also the ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter). Why did it not send out any distress radio signal if the plane did indeed crashed in the south Indian ocean? From this wiki here]
Distress radio beacons, also known as emergency beacons, PLB (Personal Locator Beacon), ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) or EPIRB (Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacon), are tracking transmitters which aid in the detection and location of boats, aircraft, and people in distress. Strictly, they are radiobeacons that interface with worldwide offered service of Cospas-Sarsat, the international satellite system for search and rescue (SAR). When manually activated, or automatically activated upon immersion, such beacons send out a distress signal. The signals are monitored worldwide and the location of the distress is detected by non-geostationary satellites, and can be located by some combination of GPS trilateration and doppler triangulation.Bold added by me.
From this article here]So Herzig would have us believe that marine researchers left devices that would still be operating that mimic the pings of a downed airliner AND still haven't informed the searchers.Speaking to Khaleej Times, Dr Peter M. Herzig, Executive Director, GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany explained why it could have been a false lead. “Other instruments used for marine research can also send out acoustic signals... Thus, it might also be possible that the signals that were captured by the ships came from other sources than the flight recorders of the aircraft." This might explain the “large distances" (time) between the signals that were mentioned in the media, he said. “Nevertheless, only the experts that have access to the data can determine whether or not this argument can be ruled out or not," said Dr Herzig, which could open another trove of questions into where the plane or its parts are located..
Besides the black box, there is also the ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter). Why did it not send out any distress radio signal if the plane did indeed crashed in the south Indian ocean? From this wiki here]There are multiple possible causes for the emergency beacons may not registering. They could have submerged too quickly (it takes almost a minute for them to start operating and they don't send a beacon from underwater). They may have had dead batteries. The service to the satellite may not have been updated (Malaysia Airlines should tell us if that is the case). Although unlikely, the plane may have landed relatively gently, (thus no automatic crash beacon initiation) and then sank. The plane may have crashed so violently that the emergency beacons were rendered inoperable.Distress radio beacons, also known as emergency beacons, PLB (Personal Locator Beacon), ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) or EPIRB (Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacon), are tracking transmitters which aid in the detection and location of boats, aircraft, and people in distress. Strictly, they are radiobeacons that interface with worldwide offered service of Cospas-Sarsat, the international satellite system for search and rescue (SAR). When manually activated, or automatically activated upon immersion, such beacons send out a distress signal. The signals are monitored worldwide and the location of the distress is detected by non-geostationary satellites, and can be located by some combination of GPS trilateration and doppler triangulation.Bold added by me.
So Herzig would have us believe that marine researchers left devices that would still be operating that mimic the pings of a downed airliner AND still haven't informed the searchers.Not quite that. He implies that we cannot simply assume that the pings must be from the black box of MH370.
There are multiple possible causes for the emergency beacons may not registering. They could have submerged too quickly (it takes almost a minute for them to start operating and they don't send a beacon from underwater). They may have had dead batteries. The service to the satellite may not have been updated (Malaysia Airlines should tell us if that is the case). Although unlikely, the plane may have landed relatively gently, (thus no automatic crash beacon initiation) and then sank. The plane may have crashed so violently that the emergency beacons were rendered inoperable.Apparently, there are multiple ELTs (at least 2, possibly 4) in the Boeing 777-200ER which was delivered to MAS in 2002. So many ifs with no definite answer. :lol: OTOH, it is also possible that the plane could have landed safely on land somewhere, hence no signal from the ELTs. We cannot simply assume that it has crashed at all, without any physical evidence to support that assumption. All we know is that it has disappeared.
So Herzig would have us believe that marine researchers left devices that would still be operating that mimic the pings of a downed airliner AND still haven't informed the searchers.Not quite that. He implies that we cannot simply assume that the pings must be from the black box of MH370.
There are multiple possible causes for the emergency beacons may not registering. They could have submerged too quickly (it takes almost a minute for them to start operating and they don't send a beacon from underwater). They may have had dead batteries. The service to the satellite may not have been updated (Malaysia Airlines should tell us if that is the case). Although unlikely, the plane may have landed relatively gently, (thus no automatic crash beacon initiation) and then sank. The plane may have crashed so violently that the emergency beacons were rendered inoperable.Apparently, there are multiple ELTs (at least 2, possibly 4) in the Boeing 777-200ER which was delivered to MAS in 2002. So many ifs with no definite answer. :lol: OTOH, it is also possible that the plane could have landed safely on land somewhere, hence no signal from the ELTs. We cannot simply assume that it has crashed at all, without any physical evidence to support that assumption. All we know is that it has disappeared. Where do you think it is if it didn't crash into the ocean? Applying Occam's Razor means we should accept the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions until evidence is shown that it was something else.. So far, the hypothesis that it went into the ocean requires the fewest assumptions. Do you have a hypothesis that requires fewer assumptions than that? Lois
Where do you think it is if it didn't crash into the ocean? Applying Occam's Razor means we should accept the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions until evidence is shown that it was something else.. So far, the hypothesis that it went into the ocean requires the fewest assumptions. Do you have a hypothesis that requires fewer assumptions than that?From the wiki on Occam's razor]
In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are better testable and falsifiable.Bold added by me. Occam's razor must be used judiciously wrt the MH370 disappearance: 1. With no physical evidence that the plane has crashed, we cannot assume that it has crashed. 2. The Immarsat data and the pings do not inform us whether the plane has crashed at all. 3. Thus, we cannot test the theory that the plane has crashed, notwithstanding it's apparent simplicity. 4. As such, making the assumption that the plane has crashed is begging the question. We are saying, by assuming the plane has crashed, it must be so, which is circular reasoning. OTOH, (without any physical evidence of whether the plane has crashed or not) we can also propose the alternative theory that the plane has landed safely somewhere. That would account for why no debris were found after weeks of intensive searching in the purported area in the south Indian ocean and that there were no distress signals from the ELTs, notwithstanding the Immarsat data and the pings.
Where do you think it is if it didn't crash into the ocean? Applying Occam's Razor means we should accept the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions until evidence is shown that it was something else.. So far, the hypothesis that it went into the ocean requires the fewest assumptions. Do you have a hypothesis that requires fewer assumptions than that?From the wiki on Occam's razor]
In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are better testable and falsifiable.Bold added by me. Occam's razor must be used judiciously wrt the MH370 disappearance: 1. With no physical evidence that the plane has crashed, we cannot assume that it has crashed. 2. The Immarsat data and the pings do not inform us whether the plane has crashed at all. 3. Thus, we cannot test the theory that the plane has crashed, notwithstanding it's apparent simplicity. 4. As such, making the assumption that the plane has crashed is begging the question. We are saying, by assuming the plane has crashed, it must be so, which is circular reasoning. OTOH, (without any physical evidence of whether the plane has crashed or not) we can also propose the alternative theory that the plane has landed safely somewhere. That would account for why no debris were found after weeks of intensive searching in the purported area in the south Indian ocean and that there were no distress signals from the ELTs, notwithstanding the Immarsat data and the pings. No, it's not circular reasoning, it's using the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions. Until we have more information, that's the hypothesis to accept, at least temporarily. Using Occam's razor in this case is NOT using it as "an arbiter between published models." There is only idle speculation. There are no other rational hypotheses, which is what Occam's Razor was designed to address. With no further evidence, it is the most likely scenario. It does not address why it might have dropped into the ocean, only that given what we do know, it most likely did. Anything else would require additional assumptions. Lois
No, it's not circular reasoning, it's using the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions. Until we have more information, that's the hypothesis to accept, at least temporarily. Using Occam's razor in this case is NOT using it as "an arbiter between published models." There is only idle speculation. There are no other rational hypotheses, which is what Occam's Razor was designed to address. With no further evidence, it is the most likely scenario. It does not address why it might have dropped into the ocean, only that given what we do know, it most likely did. Anything else would require additional assumptions.Where is the evidence that the plane had crashed into the ocean? None as of now. Therefore, we cannot assume that it did. OTOH, this was not the case with Air France flight 447 in 2009. From the wiki here]
The twelve warning messages with the same time code indicate that the autopilot and auto-thrust system had disengaged, that the TCAS was in fault mode, and flight mode went from 'normal law' to 'alternate law.' The 02:10 transmission contained a set of coordinates which indicated that the aircraft was at 2°59′N 30°35′W / 2.98°N 30.59°W / 2.98; -30.59.And:
On 2 June at 15:20 (UTC), a Brazilian Air Force Embraer R-99A spotted wreckage and signs of oil, possibly jet fuel, strewn along a 5 km (3 mi) band 650 km (400 mi) north-east of Fernando de Noronha Island, near the Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago. The sighted wreckage included an aircraft seat, an orange buoy, a barrel, and "white pieces and electrical conductors".Also:
Early on 6 June 2009, five days after Flight 447 disappeared, two male bodies, the first to be recovered from the crashed aircraft, were brought on board the Caboclo along with a seat, a nylon backpack containing a computer and vaccination card and a leather briefcase containing a boarding pass for the Air France flight. The following day, 7 June, search crews recovered the Airbus's vertical stabilizer, the first major piece of wreckage to be discovered.Bold added by me. However, all that we know is that Mh370 disappeared, but we do not know anything more than that. That is not sufficient to assume it has crashed into the ocean. It is also possible that it has landed safely somewhere.
No, it's not circular reasoning, it's using the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions. Until we have more information, that's the hypothesis to accept, at least temporarily. Using Occam's razor in this case is NOT using it as "an arbiter between published models." There is only idle speculation. There are no other rational hypotheses, which is what Occam's Razor was designed to address. With no further evidence, it is the most likely scenario. It does not address why it might have dropped into the ocean, only that given what we do know, it most likely did. Anything else would require additional assumptions.Where is the evidence that the plane had crashed into the ocean? None as of now. Therefore, we cannot assume that it did. OTOH, this was not the case with Air France flight 447 in 2009. From the wiki here]
The twelve warning messages with the same time code indicate that the autopilot and auto-thrust system had disengaged, that the TCAS was in fault mode, and flight mode went from 'normal law' to 'alternate law.' The 02:10 transmission contained a set of coordinates which indicated that the aircraft was at 2°59′N 30°35′W / 2.98°N 30.59°W / 2.98; -30.59.And:
On 2 June at 15:20 (UTC), a Brazilian Air Force Embraer R-99A spotted wreckage and signs of oil, possibly jet fuel, strewn along a 5 km (3 mi) band 650 km (400 mi) north-east of Fernando de Noronha Island, near the Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago. The sighted wreckage included an aircraft seat, an orange buoy, a barrel, and "white pieces and electrical conductors".Also:
Early on 6 June 2009, five days after Flight 447 disappeared, two male bodies, the first to be recovered from the crashed aircraft, were brought on board the Caboclo along with a seat, a nylon backpack containing a computer and vaccination card and a leather briefcase containing a boarding pass for the Air France flight. The following day, 7 June, search crews recovered the Airbus's vertical stabilizer, the first major piece of wreckage to be discovered.Bold added by me. However, all that we know is that Mh370 disappeared, but we do not know anything more than that. That is not sufficient to assume it has crashed into the ocean. It is also possible that it has landed safely somewhere. Yes, perhaps on Mars. If it had landed on earth there would be some evidence of it by now. I will go so far as to say it is not possible to hide all traces of a plane of that size and 300 people. We know for a fact that planes drop into oceans. There has never been a case of a modern full size passenger jet with 300 people landing without a trace. Lois