I give up, after many, many years!

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

There's your problem right there. Aviation is NOT a discussion.

You're entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you prefer a social club. I prefer
a science.

Interesting you snipped what I wrote after "Aviation is NOT a
discussion." I wrote "It is the art and science of flying and by flying
I mean using tools to overcome gravity in a controlled and managed way."

And yes there was a typo in the original but that matters not.

On May 30, 5:34*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:
Its not a bad thing at all, as long as you are sure the other person
is indeed wrong.

Why do I have to be sure? *(Although I typically am.)

well if you are not sure, it would be polite to say so instead of
using your usual authorative tone, but that is an issue of normal
human interaction and ettiquette, I dont expect you would understand
that.

But where you have gone wrong on this group is too
many times you have told people incorrectly that they were wrong, that
will really **** a lot of people off.

Why would I care about that? *People who react in that way are reliably
stupid, and I'm not interested in talking to stupid people.

That pretty much says it all. You want people to help you but you
dont give a **** what they feel or how you treat them.
No wonder you live your life in front of a computer screeen, but I'm
guessing it wont be long before your computer even walks out on you.

And then to make it worse,
there have been people who would still take the time to explain to you
why you were wrong, and you would refuse to accept it or acknowledge
you were wrong.

Examples?

I gave you an example, cacluculating the density of a parcel of
atmosphere from the gas laws. remember?

Come to think of it I cant recall a single time you admitted you
were wrong.

That's because I'm not often wrong, but I admit it when it is the case.

I'd like to see that.

Example? * would you like
to tell us again why we cant apply the ideal gas law to calculate the
air density of a parcel of air we want to fly in.

You cannot use the combined laws (note the nuance) because the volume of the
atmosphere is not constrained.


PV=nRT
substitue n for m/M

gives m/V ( density ) = PM/RT

notice how volume is now removed from the equation?

so for any parcel of air where the pressure and temp are effectively
constant, ie like at an airport that might interest a pilot, you can
calculate density by simply knowing the pressure and temperature, this
can then be related to density height and performance of the
aircraft. Explain why the non constrainment effects that
relationship?

Of course most pilots dont get out the calcuator and do this
calculation, they use tables that do effectively the same thing. But
they use the measured pressure ( the altimeter is effectively a
pressure meter) and read outside temperature from the thermometer, and
then use tables to read off density altitude ( density) which would
give you the same result as if I measured the pressure with a
barometer, temperature with a thermometer and used the ideal gas
equation in the form as given above, to calculate density and then
refer this density to the ISA atmosphere.

I suggest you cross understanding of gas laws off your list of non
trivial knowldege

Terry
PPL Downunder

I doubt your statement regarding ptivate pilots.



€The average person does not know how to use a circular slide rule.
The average pilot does, The private pilot must solve wind triangles, a
form of vector analysis, must demonstrate some skill in navigation,
enough gas theory to understand the dynamics of weather systems,
enough physics to know about lapse rates, and so on. The average
person does not. You have not demonstrated that either to the extent a
student pilot must.

Poor Mx. Born with a silver foot in his mouth.


-- aOn May 29, 3:28 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Steve Foley writes:
I'm curious to know how you have determined what 'most private pilots know'.

Private pilots are no different from the average person when it comes to
higher mathematics, physics, and gas theory, and the average person doesn't
know much of anything about these things. Therefore most pilots don't know
much of anything about these things, either. Simple logic.

I suspect you don't even know a significant sample.

Not necessary. See above.

On 28 May 2008 01:48:35 GMT, gregvk wrote:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in news:g1icla$8o3$1
:

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
I don;t have to show anything.

Is there some sort of prize awarded when one gets a person to respond
with that sentence? Anybody know?

Of course.


Oh, yeah, the lame attempt at froup snipping...

I wouldn't.

You give yourself good advice. Eliding groups from the Newsgroups
header isn't right for everyone - ask your doctor if it's right for
you.



Moi? I never snip froups.


As to the "literal" thing. someone who jumps into a shark's mouth is
not
wht you might call a figurative fjukkwit.





Bertie

"Jim Logjam" is a funny name.

That's what I'd name my kid if I wanted to make sure he got teased by
other kids to the point of turning into a word class loser with severe
psychological problems.

This from the retard whose parents named him "Greg". LOL, the only
"Greg" I ever knew was this portly, very pig liak (in looks) dip****
who sweat a lot and was always wheezing who hung out with this other
kid named "Frank" who smelled real bad and had runny snot leaking out
of his nose all the time.

Needless to say, both of them were relentlessly ridiculed for their
social disgraces, much in the same way you probably were. It of
course explains why you had to retard online looking to try and get
socially what you're too fumblingly ugly to get in the real world. On
teh Internet you can try and hide how pathetic you are (at least your
looks) which is just perfect for a "Greg" liak you. LOL

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"Don't ever **** with someone who has more creativity than you do."

"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the **** up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty ****ing high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

On May 30, 5:28*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Steve Foley writes:
I'm curious to know how you have determined what 'most private pilots know'.

Private pilots are no different from the average person when it comes to
higher mathematics, physics, and gas theory, and the average person doesn't
know much of anything about these things. *Therefore most pilots don't know
much of anything about these things, either. *Simple logic.

Thats a ridiculous statement and non logical at all. There are so
many barriers to gaining a pilots license ( as you would know) that it
would be self evident to any reasonable person that pilots ( even
private ones) must be skewed towards higher education , intelligence,
income and determination than the population as a whole ( ie your
average person). And by self evident ,I mean it should not require
any data to prove. One only has recognise several factors at play.
High intelligence , education , income and determination will will
not prevent a person from becoming a pilot, whereas a low rating in
any one of the above can certainly be a strong barrier to a person
becoming a pilot, thus the pilot population is naturally skewed and
your statement is incorrect.

Please cross statistics off your list of non trivial knowledge.
Terry

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Steve Foley writes:

I'm curious to know how you have determined what 'most private pilots
know'.

Private pilots are no different from the average person when it comes
to higher mathematics, physics, and gas theory, and the average person
doesn't know much of anything about these things. Therefore most
pilots don't know much of anything about these things, either. Simple
logic.

I suspect you don't even know a significant sample.

Not necessary. See above.

And you, Anthony, don't know anything about everything. This puts you way,
way below the knowledge level of the average person. In fact, it puts you
way, way below the knowledge level of the average moron.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

terry writes:

So whats your point then?

That someone who knows about these subjects is in a better position to
discuss them than someone who does not (the latter group including the
average pilot).


Since you don't know anything about everything, Anthony, why the hell are
you trying to discuss any subject?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

Well if you knew the answer why did you ask the question, Anthony?

I can exclude certain answers as obviously wrong without necessarily
knowing the correct answer.

For example, while I do not know the square root of ten to fifteen
decimal places off the top of my head, I do know that it is not four.

Wrong again, Anthony. You missed a key requirement for that statement.
Lacking that requirement, the square root of 10 is 4. Easily provable to
anyone who isn't a moron. Ooops, that leaves you out.

There's your problem right there. Aviation is NOT a discussion.

You're entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you prefer a social club. I
prefer a science.


No, you prefer to see how green you can get the grass around your home by
spewing bull ****.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

Well if you knew the answer why did you ask the question, Anthony?

I can exclude certain answers as obviously wrong without necessarily
knowing the correct answer.

For example, while I do not know the square root of ten to fifteen
decimal places off the top of my head, I do know that it is not four.


Wrong answer. The square root of 10 to 15 exactly 4.

The simple proof is left as an exercise for MX.

Benjamin Dover wrote in
:

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

Well if you knew the answer why did you ask the question, Anthony?

I can exclude certain answers as obviously wrong without necessarily
knowing the correct answer.

For example, while I do not know the square root of ten to fifteen
decimal places off the top of my head, I do know that it is not four.


Wrong answer. The square root of 10 to 15 exactly 4.

The simple proof is left as an exercise for MX.




Ooops. Fixing a typo.

The square root of 10 is exactly 4.
The very simple proof is left to MX.