quote:

Originally posted by feldspar99:

quote:

the questions have been answered in detail.
I will forgive for not knowing that as there are 214+ pages here and I have no idea where the answers were posted

Seems like in the amount of time you spent telling me you already answered the questions it wouldn’t have been that tough to type a simple yes or no and a couple of sentences to describe how you would do the test.

2 lines = a simple yes or no and a couple of sentences to describe how I would do the test.??????????????? sorry but the math just doesn't add up.
Besides, if you actually cared you would had done your own leg work.

roofingguy, the specific answers to his questions have been given in great detail(more than just a few sentences) and i've always tried to keep the same basic foundation.
care to actually point out which posts you are "quoting" as you are either outright lying or outright taking a post out of context.

The reason that Graham doesn't usually offer any answers is because he is invariably wrong unless he is copying someone else's previous point, something he does quite often.

This is the person who, for example, when he finally did understand enough after 150 or more pages to offer some basic maths on the thread subject, claimed others had forgotten the basic relationship between plane speed relative to the belt and plane speed relative to on the ground, and amazingly he did this in direct responses to a post which offered the same maths but he simply didn't understand it.

This is someone who cannot understand the simplest of mathematical or logical explanations and will never understand the problem of the belt matching the speed of the aeroplane if the speed is measured relative to the belt.

Every time he asserts something, he is aware he receives lots of critical responses he can't fully understand from people who are obviously much more intelligent than he is, and at some unconscious and deep level he is vaguely aware that he is wrong, but he desperately tries to ignore the criticism to maintain his self-respect. He should be vaguely aware he is a figure of fun or contempt for the rest of us, no one can be so dense as not to realise that surely?

quote:

MythBulldog posted:

Majmattmason wouldn’t you need a rocket to perform the test in a giant vacuum chamber since the engine runs on a fuel/air mixture? I am a believer in it will fly and they got it right from before it aired since my gut reaction when I first heard the myth was it would have no effect, but I am just trying to understand your vacuum chamber idea.

Roofingguy was exactly right with his comment about putting intake and exhaust piping to/from the engine in the vacuum chamber. I noted the intake part in my original post.

I probably should have copied or provided a link to my previous post since it was so far back. Sorry for the confusion.

Here you go (page 199):
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/94019...6/m/4441931059/p/199

He's equally correct about the facetious nature of my suggestion. Although, I think a giant vacuum chamber would be handy for for other myth interpretations. For example, does a truck load of birds make the truck lighter if they try to fly without any air.

Later!

quote:

graham75 posted:

roofingguy,
...
care to actually point out which posts you are "quoting" as you are either outright lying or outright taking a post out of context.

quote:

Roofingguy posted:

At one point in a long-closed thread when I was talking about the pilot and the throttle, graham75 asked "What pilot? What throttle?" and said to only go by what was specified in the question.

I can corroborate Roofingguy's statement. I remember Graham75 posting those comments.

Also, Graham, I think if you take a closer look at Feldspar's comment, your math would work out better.

"Seems like in the amount of time you spent telling me you already answered the questions it wouldn’t have been that tough to type a simple yes or no and a couple of sentences to describe how you would do the test."

Later!

quote:

2 lines = a simple yes or no and a couple of sentences to describe how I would do the test.??????????????? sorry but the math just doesn't add up.
Besides, if you actually cared you would had done your own leg work.

Amazing, you have now spent the time and energy to not answer at least three times.

quote:

Every time he asserts something, he is aware he receives lots of critical responses he can't fully understand from people who are obviously much more intelligent than he is, and at some unconscious and deep level he is vaguely aware that he is wrong, but he desperately tries to ignore the criticism to maintain his self-respect. He should be vaguely aware he is a figure of fun or contempt for the rest of us, no one can be so dense as not to realise that surely?

Sometimes he is so far around the bend that I have to wonder if he is an alter ego somebody made up just to yank peoples chains and create some conflict, it wouldn’t be the first time.

quote:

care to actually point out which posts you are "quoting" as you are either outright lying or outright taking a post out of context.

Well, since you got the thread deleted, that's kinda difficult, now isn't it? Both to show the quote and its context. But we'll go with MajMatt's:

quote:

I can corroborate Roofingguy's statement. I remember Graham75 posting those comments.

quote:

I don't know if it was roofinguy or rational that was calling graham "cracker".

It started with a post by christi7df:

quote:

Graham is speaking in a special code. It's called graham code.

It's a tough code to crack. We need to find a way to crack it.

What we need is a graham cracker.

Since then, numerous posters have repeatedly referred to him as "graham crackers". I just shortened it to "Crackers" because I'm lazy that way, but he seemed to feel this was somehow perjorative so I stopped.

Of course, that does add a new wrinkle... when the original threads have been deleted, the "I have answered before" non-answer is even more pointless... nobody can go back and see the original answers.

Ok guys its time to take it easy on the no fliers. Even the flier on the episode was duped by what people THINK is common sense. Now as you can see I admitted on page 213 to being WRONG. We are not all too thick to understand. The simple fact is a plane will always be able to take off from a surface that is moving in the oppsite direction, or same directiion I suspect in which it is taking off from. IE: treadmill, conveyer belt, aircraft carrier. Theoretically if the treadmill was going the same direction as the plane but faster than the plane the wheels on the airplane could be rotating backwards while the plane is moving forward. It is true the only way it would matter is if the the plane relied on the wheels for propelling the plane forward rather than the propeller. I don't know of any plane made this way. Subductionzone you are correct. The only way to hold the plane in place would be to work the trottle to a speed where the plane would never take off anyway or tie it to an immovable object like a tree.

quote:

Ok guys its time to take it easy on the no fliers.

I try to be civil and explain the facts right up until somebody calls me an idiot and starts explaining how lift works. I have no problem with people that don’t get it and may need an explanation. Many of the people on this site trying to explain why the plane takes off started off by being fooled initially. I have no problem admitting that the first time I read the question I was briefly fooled into thinking the plane was stationary. Unlike many, I had the sense to read a couple of pages and spend 5 minutes thinking it through and realized my mistake before posting something silly.

It’s amazing how many people start a post along the lines of – “only a moron thinks a plane can fly without air moving over the wings” when nobody, in the years that this has been discussed almost daily, has ever made that claim.

I would certainly not expect anybody to read all 200+ pages of this thread but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect somebody to read a few pages, post an intelligent response and at least be open to the possibility that they might be wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by feldspar99:

quote:

2 lines = a simple yes or no and a couple of sentences to describe how I would do the test.??????????????? sorry but the math just doesn't add up.
Besides, if you actually cared you would had done your own leg work.

Amazing, you have now spent the time and energy to not answer at least three times.

Amazing, you have spent the same amount of time NOT getting the answers yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by roofingguy:

quote:

care to actually point out which posts you are "quoting" as you are either outright lying or outright taking a post out of context.

Well, since you got the thread deleted, that's kinda difficult, now isn't it? Both to show the quote and its context. But we'll go with MajMatt's:

quote:

I can corroborate Roofingguy's statement. I remember Graham75 posting those comments.

quote:

I don't know if it was roofinguy or rational that was calling graham "cracker".

It started with a post by christi7df:

quote:

Graham is speaking in a special code. It's called graham code.

It's a tough code to crack. We need to find a way to crack it.

What we need is a graham cracker.

Since then, numerous posters have repeatedly referred to him as "graham crackers". I just shortened it to "Crackers" because I'm lazy that way, but he seemed to feel this was somehow perjorative so I stopped.

deleted? or locked?
and wasn't the result a collaborative effort on the part of many posters?
this thread?:
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9551919888/m/1601935988

quote:

Originally posted by roofingguy:
Of course, that does add a new wrinkle... when the original threads have been deleted, the "I have answered before" non-answer is even more pointless... nobody can go back and see the original answers.

The answers should also be in this thread somewhere. If you want them there is always the *find* button.

quote:

deleted? or locked?
and wasn't the result a collaborative effort on the part of many posters?
this thread?:
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9551919888/m/1601935988

No, not that thread.

Nor this one: http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/95519...531956549#1531956549

One of the ones before that. The thread I have in mind had been locked. But I can't bring up *any* of my posts that I remember from it, nor any of the other posts from it, and I can't bring up Mythmod's closing comments from when she locked it, and since there were POAT threads in every section, I have no interest in manually searching all the pages of all the sections to double-check if it was in fact deleted, or if "Find" is just not finding any of the posts from it.

quote:

Originally posted by roofingguy:

quote:

deleted? or locked?
and wasn't the result a collaborative effort on the part of many posters?
this thread?:
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9551919888/m/1601935988

No, not that thread.

Nor this one: http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/95519...531956549#1531956549

One of the ones before that. The thread I have in mind had been locked. But I can't bring up *any* of my posts that I remember from it, nor any of the other posts from it, and I can't bring up Mythmod's closing comments from when she locked it, and since there were POAT threads in every section, I have no interest in manually searching all the pages of all the sections to double-check if it was in fact deleted, or if "Find" is just not finding any of the posts from it.

What can I say? I'm man enough to take what is posted without running off crying to a mod. Were you?

You can't bring up *any* of your posts but have no problem with mine and yet you can't find the thread....fishy I say.

quote:

Amazing, you have spent the same amount of time NOT getting the answers yourself.

OK, I’m not going to play anymore. Clearly you don’t want to discuss the subject, that’s fine. And before you try to be clever by paraphrasing my answer back to me again with something about me being to lazy to look up your past answers – Your right, I have no intention of slogging through 200 pages on the outside chance I’ll find something intelligent. I have no intention of responding to you again so go ahead and post something you think is clever and then pat yourself on the back for getting in the last word.

For anybody else that thinks they did it wrong and is interested in a reasonable discussion – I ask the following questions not because I desperately want to know the answers but in the hopes that in the process of trying to answer them you may realize why the idea that the plane is stationary does not make any sense, or at least lead to some points for debate.

1. Is the pilot allowed to try to take off using the thrust required for a normal take off?
2. Describe how you think a valid test should be done, keeping in mind that seeing a plane applying the thrust necessary for flight, sitting stationary on a conveyer, is not an option because it is not possible.

quote:

What can I say? I'm man enough to take what is posted without running off crying to a mod. Were you?

Actually, I had nothing to do with any of the reportings. I was frustrated that you still wouldn't answer any questions, but I wasn't the one repeatedly reporting your threads that whole week. Perhaps ask all the others why they felt your posts needed reporting.

And besides, I've run afoul of the mods enough times. I've had numerous posts deleted because I crossed the line. It's not like I was claiming to be the perfect poster, but Mythmod's comments at the close of that thread seem to oppose your "wasn't the result a collaborative effort on the part of many posters?" question.

quote:

You can't bring up *any* of your posts but have no problem with mine and yet you can't find the thread....fishy I say.

Uh... genius... I typed your quote, from memory, I didn't quote it directly or link to it. The thread is gone. Or, at least non-searchable. There were comments in it I know I made, and they don't come up with a "Find". There were comments others made, and they don't come up with a "Find". I can find no evidence at the minute of that thread ever existing. Read into that what you want. If you think it's "fishy", then so be it.

But guess what? It's where you and I first started debating the point. All the other threads since then, before the episode aired, when your response to direct questions was merely "I've answered that before", I repeatedly told you I couldn't find the thread with answers. How come it was not "fishy" back then for the thread to be gone? Or were you just not paying attention to my posts when I told you I couldn't find it and repeatedly asked you to either help me find it or answer again?

The fact remains, I can find nowhere in any threads in any sections of this board where you detail the math and physics of the belt beginning to move with absolutely no motion of the plane, or answer the beltspeed=beltspeed-0.000000000001 quandry.

quote:

Originally posted by feldspar99:

quote:

Amazing, you have spent the same amount of time NOT getting the answers yourself.

OK, I’m not going to play anymore. Clearly you don’t want to discuss the subject, that’s fine. And before you try to be clever by paraphrasing my answer back to me again with something about me being to lazy to look up your past answers – Your right, I have no intention of slogging through 200 pages on the outside chance I’ll find something intelligent. I have no intention of responding to you again so go ahead and post something you think is clever and then pat yourself on the back for getting in the last word.

For anybody else that thinks they did it wrong and is interested in a reasonable discussion – I ask the following questions not because I desperately want to know the answers but in the hopes that in the process of trying to answer them you may realize why the idea that the plane is stationary does not make any sense, or at least lead to some points for debate.

1. Is the pilot allowed to try to take off using the thrust required for a normal take off?
2. Describe how you think a valid test should be done, keeping in mind that seeing a plane applying the thrust necessary for flight, sitting stationary on a conveyer, is not an option because it is not possible.

is it not reasonable for the participants to atleast pretend to get get some background info.
The answers to the questions have been posted numerous times and no amount of retyping will make anyone read them.

roofingguy, since you apparently are not a genuis i will give you a hint.....the answers are in this thread. That you can't read them is not my issue. You have replied to them and even quoted them and changed the meaning of what i've said....which means you have read them.
Fishy that you "remember" quotes from a "deleted" thread yet can't remember info provided in this very thread. not sure if you can get a prescription for that or not but you might considerd looking into that.

The fact remains that despite Graham's delusions to the contrary, the question, as tested, does not describe a plane held stationary and the belt can not prevent it from moving in the described setup.