20 października 2010 roku zamieścił Pan interesujący tekst "Socjotechnika i kobieta zgwałcona – jak wyjść z pułapki". W materiale tym stwierdził Pan, że strategia agresji, stosowana przez partię rządzącą jest skuteczna, bowiem "agresja wpędza w bierność". Obiecał Pan również drugą część, czyli właśnie informację "jak wyjść z pułapki". I co? I nic.
"Kto by w tej Rzeczypospolitej jeno sprawiedliwość; nie miłosierdzie miał w sercu, ten by, zamiast serca, topór w piersiach nosić musiał. O winę tu łatwiej niż gdzie indziej; ale też i poprawa nigdzie tak rychło nie następuje!"
w The Plain Dealer ochoczo hasa Profesor Artymowicz:
-------------------
Dear Mr. Mangels,
First, let me thank you for your article, which tries to objectively describe the controversy. My name is Pawel Artymowicz. I am a full tenured professor of Physics and Astrophysics at the University of Toronto. I have 25 years of
experience in numerical hydrodynamics (aerodynamics). I am also an FAA-certified pilot, with experience in the design, maintenance and operation of experimantal aircraft . I am one of the main critics of the opinions you presented, ordered by a totally politicized parliamentary group led by A. Macierewicz, essentially a one-party caucus. I am in no way trying to attack the persons you mention personally. However, as a Physicist and as an Aviator,
I strongly object to the quality of their work and the baseless allegations they perpetuate. The proposed assassination scenarios while a priori conceivable, contradict both the physical and the aviation knowledge.
To begin with, these are pseudo-scientific works at best, as prof. Binineda for the ninth month in a row refuses to publish the input file to his LS-Dyna calculations, thus violating the most basic scientific tenets of openness and verifiability. Carl Sagan once echoed the thoughts expressed earlier by Laplace by saying: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is not a shred of physical or computational evidence of such a caliber in prof. Binienda's
works. As a matter of fact, the calculations are secret and only the animations showing unphysical results are being shown over and over again. The numerical calculation of the wing-birch collision is incorrect; as dr Szuladzinski himself noticed the timber is magically disappearing if subject to a given strain in LS-Dyna, which is the main reason why you see the tree trunk melt and disappear in the collision zone. The non-conservation of mass, momentum and energy underlying such a calculation invalidate it, and explain why the results are at such odds with the data on the
ground. The photographed tree has 3 ft-long splinters instead of a flat knife-like cut across the trunk in animations; the location and direction of the top of the birch is also totally different than in the animation, in fact it leans against the lower trunk+roots and the top points toward the north, none of which is reproduced by the calculation.
Next "proof" concerns the fate of the broken off piece of a wing, should the collision produce such a flying object. Prof. Binienda or his colleague claims to have calculated that the wingtip (20 ft in length, thrown with the initial velocity of about 150 knots at a slant angle, say +5 degrees, w.r.t. the ground) would according to his calculations initially rise, then extremely quickly break aerodynamically in the air and then, after losing most of the kinetic energy, fall down to the ground at a distance of merely 10-12m (32-39ft) behind the fateful tree. Nobody in the world knowing elementary Physics will confirm that result. As a matter of fact, you are in touch with Dr. Szuladzinski, who has recently stated that according to his independent and much more reasonable estimate, that distance is 50-90 meters (160-300ft).
My more detailed estimate taking into account rotational degrees of freedom of the wing and the initially non-random lift force on a wingtip, originally placed at a positive angle of attack, show that the likely distance traveled should be
90-110m (300-360ft). In reality, the unchallenged fact is that the wing was found 110m (360 ft) behind the birch tree. Additional reasons for the faulty supposition by Nowaczyk and Binienda of there having been no collision with the tree is their misunderstanding of the recorded TAWS messages, and the true uncertainties of recorded parameters, as well as their willful neglect of the most accurate source of information on altitude of the aircraft above the terrain - the radio-altimeter. That instrument measures the distance to the ground with a 1.5ft accuracy and due to the 8-bit coding scheme, the black boxes record that altitude with a 3m (10ft) uncertainty. The values recorded in Polish and the independent Russian black boxes near the fateful tree were (6.1+-3)m (that is 20+-10 ft), much lower than the 50ft height of the tree. The collision was thus unavoidable, while the simulations done by your 'experts' are totally incorrect.
Finally, the scenario of "two explosions" is also unphysical and easily disproved. It is based on two things: first, a misunderstanding of the cause of signals recorded as vertical accelerations in the black boxes, and second, the lack of elementary knowledge of avionics and the aircraft structure. The first recorded jolt is from the collision with the tree and not and from an explosion of a mysterious charge in front of the wing, at the precise time and place(!) where the wing was passing the tree. The second jolt is likely not a jolt at all, but a spurious electrical disturbance which occurred when the wing touched, shorted, and severed a medium-voltage line documented in the official reports. The time and place of this even correspond exactly to the supopsed "second explosion". Dr. Szuladzinski's idea of a plane broken in
two pieces yet flying together up until the ultimate destruction field is physically impossible. Both the multiple witness testimony and the black boxes recorded that the plane was banking left and performed a half-roll before the final crash. Dr. Szuladzinski proposes that the front of the plane, severed by the explosion, did not rotate, only the central and aft part did. Please inform him that this cannot be so. The gyros, very precise instruments by the way, are located in the front of the Tupolev 154M plane. The black boxes - as usual, in the back. His scenario would thus lead to the rotation of only the black boxes, but not of the gyros, which measure the bank angle. Yet the rotation of gyros did indisputably occur, which concludes the counter-proof of the two-explosions scenario. By the way, lacking even the basic aeronautical and aerodynamical knowledge, the supposed experts failed to realize that their scenario necessarily would lead to an immediate detachment of the two pieces of the aircraft, as a result of huge aerodynamical forces and moments acting on the aft part, which would rotate this piece upward, causing its chaotic tumbling under enormous drag. The outcome would have been large separation of the two pieces on the ground and the severance of electrical connection between the numerous probes and instruments in the frontal part from the black boxes in the back of the plane. Neither of these things happened at the proposed point of explosion/detachment. To the contrary, the correct interpretation of the recorded data, properly taking into account buffering, sampling rate and the details on back box operation, shows that they were functioning until the final disintegration on the ground. Recordings do not stop in mid-air, as they would have to if the explosion scenario had any validity.
I do agree that the catastrophe must be better studied and explained than what we've seen so far. As a matter of fact, I strongly support such efforts, as the Polish-speaking viewers of this interview can attest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLFHouvcXVA
(I gave it for one of the main Polish news channels Polsat News, a few days ago.) However, such efforts should be organized by the Polish Academy of Sciences, incidentally led by prof. M. Kleiber, the top Polish expert on finite element method and dynamical simulations of explosions inside aircrafts (he's participated in a relevant project for Airbus consortium) and not by the individuals you have interviewed, who despite being specialists in their narrow fields, clearly lack the depth and the breadth of knowledge needed for the task.
chciałem Instytutowi serdecznie podziękować, rozbawił mnie Instytut do łez a o to w dzisiejszych czasach naprawdę trudno. Pan Premier przecież zapowiedział, że "żarty sie skończyły". A brak dobrych żartów bardzo obniża mi jakość życia. Jakby tak jeszcze Instytut podał przykłady jakichś działań modernizacyjnych Rządu Premiera Donalda Tuska ...
Nie ma takiej możliwości. Pobór zlikwidowali a ośrodki wypoczynkowe posprzedawali. No chyba, że opozycję zamkną na "orlikach". A do wojska się zgłosimy na ochotnika. Tylko że nie chca przyjmować, bo kasy nie ma.
Nawet nosiłem kiedyś znaczek z literkami "PK" - "pełzająca kontrrewolucja". Miałem też drugi: "EA" - "element antysocjalistyczny". Muszę poszukać i odkurzyć. Oporniki też gdzieś mam.
Tylko kogo pan premier na nas pośle? Wojsko? Wolne żarty. Mili.. uups, przepraszam - policję? Miałem okazję obserwować, jak zwiewali przed kibicami. No chyba, że zmobilizuje dziennikarzy. Pluton zmotoryzowanych Lisów wsparty kompanią Gugałów, do tego parę Olejnik i zaczyna się robic groźnie. Może tez wezwać na pomoc "niemieckich antyfaszystów".
Teraz jest już po wyborach i one przestały obowiązywać. Będą obowiązywać następne, powyborcze. Ja to sobie na kartce wydrukowałem słynne 10 obietnic PO i powiesiłem na ścianie koło biurka. Przypomina mi, że można obiecywać i nie wywiązywać się z obietnic czyli zwyczajnie kłamać. Łgarza mamy za premiera. Pamiętacie to?
DZIESIĘĆ ZOBOWIĄZAŃ PO
Polska zasługuje na cud gospodarczy
1.Przyspieszymy i wykorzystamy wzrost gospodarczy
2.Radykalnie podniesiemy płace dla budżetówki, zwiększymy emerytury i renty
3.Wybudujemy nowoczesną sieć autostrad, dróg ekspresowych, mostów i obwodnic
4.Zagwarantujemy bezpłatny dostęp do opieki medycznej i zlikwidujemy NFZ
5.Uprościmy podatki – wprowadzimy podatek liniowy z ulgą prorodzinną, zlikwidujemy ponad 200 opłat urzędowych
6.Przyspieszymy budowę stadionów na Euro 2012
7.Szybko wypełnimy naszą misję w Iraku
8.Sprawimy, że Polacy z emigracji będą chcieli wracać do domu i inwestować w Polsce
9.Podniesiemy poziom edukacji i upowszechnimy Internet
10.Podejmiemy rzeczywistą walkę z korupcją.
Gdyby zdjecia satelitarne zrobione przez USA zawieraly jakies zamachowe sensacje to sprawa ta dawno juz bylaby oficjalnie upubliczniona lub w jakis mniej oficjalny sposob sposob "wyciekla" do mediow.
-------------
Od kiedy Amerykanie i Anglicy wiedzieli o prawdziwych sprawcach zbrodni katyńskiej?
Jeżeli olafo zamiesci taki komentarz(lub jego istotny fragment) w swojej odpowiedzi, na pewno przeczytam. Nie mam jednak, niestety, czasu na śledzenie całej dyskusji, którą olafo prowadzi.
Do Igora Janke
Niedotrzymana obietnica.
20 października 2010 roku zamieścił Pan interesujący tekst "Socjotechnika i kobieta zgwałcona – jak wyjść z pułapki". W materiale tym stwierdził Pan, że strategia agresji, stosowana przez partię rządzącą jest skuteczna, bowiem "agresja wpędza w bierność". Obiecał Pan również drugą część, czyli właśnie informację "jak wyjść z pułapki". I co? I nic.
@Sowiniec
------------
Niestety, to ma być "na zawsze".
Jan Kazimierz w Potopie:
@pawel.nn
---------------
Ortografia, głupcze!
Wy tu sobie gawędzicie o tym i o owym, narzekając na trolli i z nimi dyskutując a pod tekstem
-------------------
Dear Mr. Mangels,
First, let me thank you for your article, which tries to objectively describe the controversy. My name is Pawel Artymowicz. I am a full tenured professor of Physics and Astrophysics at the University of Toronto. I have 25 years of
experience in numerical hydrodynamics (aerodynamics). I am also an FAA-certified pilot, with experience in the design, maintenance and operation of experimantal aircraft . I am one of the main critics of the opinions you presented, ordered by a totally politicized parliamentary group led by A. Macierewicz, essentially a one-party caucus. I am in no way trying to attack the persons you mention personally. However, as a Physicist and as an Aviator,
I strongly object to the quality of their work and the baseless allegations they perpetuate. The proposed assassination scenarios while a priori conceivable, contradict both the physical and the aviation knowledge.
To begin with, these are pseudo-scientific works at best, as prof. Binineda for the ninth month in a row refuses to publish the input file to his LS-Dyna calculations, thus violating the most basic scientific tenets of openness and verifiability. Carl Sagan once echoed the thoughts expressed earlier by Laplace by saying: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is not a shred of physical or computational evidence of such a caliber in prof. Binienda's
works. As a matter of fact, the calculations are secret and only the animations showing unphysical results are being shown over and over again. The numerical calculation of the wing-birch collision is incorrect; as dr Szuladzinski himself noticed the timber is magically disappearing if subject to a given strain in LS-Dyna, which is the main reason why you see the tree trunk melt and disappear in the collision zone. The non-conservation of mass, momentum and energy underlying such a calculation invalidate it, and explain why the results are at such odds with the data on the
ground. The photographed tree has 3 ft-long splinters instead of a flat knife-like cut across the trunk in animations; the location and direction of the top of the birch is also totally different than in the animation, in fact it leans against the lower trunk+roots and the top points toward the north, none of which is reproduced by the calculation.
Next "proof" concerns the fate of the broken off piece of a wing, should the collision produce such a flying object. Prof. Binienda or his colleague claims to have calculated that the wingtip (20 ft in length, thrown with the initial velocity of about 150 knots at a slant angle, say +5 degrees, w.r.t. the ground) would according to his calculations initially rise, then extremely quickly break aerodynamically in the air and then, after losing most of the kinetic energy, fall down to the ground at a distance of merely 10-12m (32-39ft) behind the fateful tree. Nobody in the world knowing elementary Physics will confirm that result. As a matter of fact, you are in touch with Dr. Szuladzinski, who has recently stated that according to his independent and much more reasonable estimate, that distance is 50-90 meters (160-300ft).
My more detailed estimate taking into account rotational degrees of freedom of the wing and the initially non-random lift force on a wingtip, originally placed at a positive angle of attack, show that the likely distance traveled should be
90-110m (300-360ft). In reality, the unchallenged fact is that the wing was found 110m (360 ft) behind the birch tree. Additional reasons for the faulty supposition by Nowaczyk and Binienda of there having been no collision with the tree is their misunderstanding of the recorded TAWS messages, and the true uncertainties of recorded parameters, as well as their willful neglect of the most accurate source of information on altitude of the aircraft above the terrain - the radio-altimeter. That instrument measures the distance to the ground with a 1.5ft accuracy and due to the 8-bit coding scheme, the black boxes record that altitude with a 3m (10ft) uncertainty. The values recorded in Polish and the independent Russian black boxes near the fateful tree were (6.1+-3)m (that is 20+-10 ft), much lower than the 50ft height of the tree. The collision was thus unavoidable, while the simulations done by your 'experts' are totally incorrect.
Finally, the scenario of "two explosions" is also unphysical and easily disproved. It is based on two things: first, a misunderstanding of the cause of signals recorded as vertical accelerations in the black boxes, and second, the lack of elementary knowledge of avionics and the aircraft structure. The first recorded jolt is from the collision with the tree and not and from an explosion of a mysterious charge in front of the wing, at the precise time and place(!) where the wing was passing the tree. The second jolt is likely not a jolt at all, but a spurious electrical disturbance which occurred when the wing touched, shorted, and severed a medium-voltage line documented in the official reports. The time and place of this even correspond exactly to the supopsed "second explosion". Dr. Szuladzinski's idea of a plane broken in
two pieces yet flying together up until the ultimate destruction field is physically impossible. Both the multiple witness testimony and the black boxes recorded that the plane was banking left and performed a half-roll before the final crash. Dr. Szuladzinski proposes that the front of the plane, severed by the explosion, did not rotate, only the central and aft part did. Please inform him that this cannot be so. The gyros, very precise instruments by the way, are located in the front of the Tupolev 154M plane. The black boxes - as usual, in the back. His scenario would thus lead to the rotation of only the black boxes, but not of the gyros, which measure the bank angle. Yet the rotation of gyros did indisputably occur, which concludes the counter-proof of the two-explosions scenario. By the way, lacking even the basic aeronautical and aerodynamical knowledge, the supposed experts failed to realize that their scenario necessarily would lead to an immediate detachment of the two pieces of the aircraft, as a result of huge aerodynamical forces and moments acting on the aft part, which would rotate this piece upward, causing its chaotic tumbling under enormous drag. The outcome would have been large separation of the two pieces on the ground and the severance of electrical connection between the numerous probes and instruments in the frontal part from the black boxes in the back of the plane. Neither of these things happened at the proposed point of explosion/detachment. To the contrary, the correct interpretation of the recorded data, properly taking into account buffering, sampling rate and the details on back box operation, shows that they were functioning until the final disintegration on the ground. Recordings do not stop in mid-air, as they would have to if the explosion scenario had any validity.
I do agree that the catastrophe must be better studied and explained than what we've seen so far. As a matter of fact, I strongly support such efforts, as the Polish-speaking viewers of this interview can attest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLFHouvcXVA
(I gave it for one of the main Polish news channels Polsat News, a few days ago.) However, such efforts should be organized by the Polish Academy of Sciences, incidentally led by prof. M. Kleiber, the top Polish expert on finite element method and dynamical simulations of explosions inside aircrafts (he's participated in a relevant project for Airbus consortium) and not by the individuals you have interviewed, who despite being specialists in their narrow fields, clearly lack the depth and the breadth of knowledge needed for the task.
Sincerely,
Pawel.Artymowicz@utoronto.ca
Drogi "Instytucie Obywatelski",
Do autora
@Ronin.
Coś mi przypomina ten "pełzający pucz".
Tylko kogo pan premier na nas pośle? Wojsko? Wolne żarty. Mili.. uups, przepraszam - policję? Miałem okazję obserwować, jak zwiewali przed kibicami. No chyba, że zmobilizuje dziennikarzy. Pluton zmotoryzowanych Lisów wsparty kompanią Gugałów, do tego parę Olejnik i zaczyna się robic groźnie. Może tez wezwać na pomoc "niemieckich antyfaszystów".
Obietnice były wyborcze.
DZIESIĘĆ ZOBOWIĄZAŃ PO
Polska zasługuje na cud gospodarczy
1.Przyspieszymy i wykorzystamy wzrost gospodarczy
2.Radykalnie podniesiemy płace dla budżetówki, zwiększymy emerytury i renty
3.Wybudujemy nowoczesną sieć autostrad, dróg ekspresowych, mostów i obwodnic
4.Zagwarantujemy bezpłatny dostęp do opieki medycznej i zlikwidujemy NFZ
5.Uprościmy podatki – wprowadzimy podatek liniowy z ulgą prorodzinną, zlikwidujemy ponad 200 opłat urzędowych
6.Przyspieszymy budowę stadionów na Euro 2012
7.Szybko wypełnimy naszą misję w Iraku
8.Sprawimy, że Polacy z emigracji będą chcieli wracać do domu i inwestować w Polsce
9.Podniesiemy poziom edukacji i upowszechnimy Internet
10.Podejmiemy rzeczywistą walkę z korupcją.
Donald Tusk
@rajder135
-------------
Osobliwe ma osoba poczucie humoru.To efekt wychowania, czy konsekwencja jakiegoś urazu?
@wadams
-------------
Od kiedy Amerykanie i Anglicy wiedzieli o prawdziwych sprawcach zbrodni katyńskiej?
@Mr.Spock
-------------
Czy Mr.Spock na pewno rozumie znaczenie słowa paszkwil?
@pandada
------------
Pandada wybaczy, ale na tego typu wpisy może być tylko jeden komentarz:
Ortografia, głupcze!
@Palmer
--------------
Trzeba być zupełnie pozbawionym poczucia humoru, żeby nie widzieć śmieszności obecnego Pana Premiera Rządu RP.
@olafo
@olafo
--------
TVP, Polsat i TVN też są. I co z tego?
@Palmer
----
Ojca Tadeusza Rydzyka pewnie nie stać. Ale stać grupę ludzi, którzy chcą miec możliwość wyboru.
@Palmer
--------
A ja płacę abonament, żeby również to ogladać.