|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 02 2017 00:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I don't really care. Lets just call it a translation difference and leave it at that. And it's off topic anyways. Just accept that planes can fly upside down, stop calling my explanations horseshit, ascept that planes don't fly because of some bullshit about Bernoulli, same way that Christopher Colombus didn't see a moth crawl across an orange and disproved the Earth was flat and move the conversation onwards.
Dude i linked a picture of a plane flying upside down, i've flown before, i've built 3D planes and 3D helicopters, am currently (trying to) build a 3D drone, could you drop that stupid red herring?
What you said is literally "if you turn a plane upside down it won't crash" and that's factually wrong. In my first answer to that i even fucking said "in a vacuum" trying to point out that if the only thing you do is turn it upside down, you will crash. Is it that fucking hard?
|
We should have an argument about flipping a coin twice in a row and the chances of it landing on the same side. That one was a blast.
|
On September 02 2017 00:52 Zambrah wrote:
We've seen the full merger of the US Politics Thread and the Ask and Answer Stupid Questions thread, who could have ever predicted this? Asking how a plane fly is not a stupid question, but an intelligent one.
On September 02 2017 00:54 m4ini wrote:
What you said is literally "if you turn a plane upside down it won't crash" and that's factually wrong.
I never said that. I LITERALLY never wrote what you have placed in quotation marks.
Also just to clarify. A glider is not a plane. A motorised glider is a plane if it can lift off under its own power. It is also a glider when the engine is switched off and it is gliding. This sounds contradictory, and it probably is, but no one cares other than regulators.
|
Neither is the coin question frankly.
EDIT: One could be surprised about how many of the dumb questions are actually entirely reasonable questions (usually framed poorly).
|
They're exactly the same except in one no one ever agrees with the answers in this one.
|
On September 02 2017 00:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2017 00:52 Zambrah wrote:
We've seen the full merger of the US Politics Thread and the Ask and Answer Stupid Questions thread, who could have ever predicted this? Asking how a plane fly is not a stupid question, but an intelligent one.
You must not frequent that thread much. 
|
On September 02 2017 00:54 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2017 00:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I don't really care. Lets just call it a translation difference and leave it at that. And it's off topic anyways. Just accept that planes can fly upside down, stop calling my explanations horseshit, ascept that planes don't fly because of some bullshit about Bernoulli, same way that Christopher Colombus didn't see a moth crawl across an orange and disproved the Earth was flat and move the conversation onwards. Dude i linked a picture of a plane flying upside down, i've flown before, i've built 3D planes and 3D helicopters, am currently (trying to) build a 3D drone, could you drop that stupid red herring? What you said is literally "if you turn a plane upside down it won't crash" and that's factually wrong. In my first answer to that i even fucking said "in a vacuum" trying to point out that if the only thing you do is turn it upside down, you will crash. Is it that fucking hard?
If you turn a plane upside down (or even right way up) in a vacuum it most definitely will crash. I don't know a lot about planes, but they aren't rockets, and actually need air
|
On September 02 2017 00:56 Ghostcom wrote:
Neither is the coin question frankly.
EDIT: One could be surprised about how many of the dumb questions are actually entirely reasonable questions (usually framed poorly).
The framing of the question and people not reading it carefully was the root of the last argument. People kept restating probability question wrong and then arguing their answer was right. And it went on forever. It was our own tiny little example of the durability of bad information.
|
On September 02 2017 00:58 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2017 00:54 m4ini wrote:On September 02 2017 00:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I don't really care. Lets just call it a translation difference and leave it at that. And it's off topic anyways. Just accept that planes can fly upside down, stop calling my explanations horseshit, ascept that planes don't fly because of some bullshit about Bernoulli, same way that Christopher Colombus didn't see a moth crawl across an orange and disproved the Earth was flat and move the conversation onwards. Dude i linked a picture of a plane flying upside down, i've flown before, i've built 3D planes and 3D helicopters, am currently (trying to) build a 3D drone, could you drop that stupid red herring? What you said is literally "if you turn a plane upside down it won't crash" and that's factually wrong. In my first answer to that i even fucking said "in a vacuum" trying to point out that if the only thing you do is turn it upside down, you will crash. Is it that fucking hard? If you turn a plane upside down (or even right way up) in a vacuum it most definitely will crash. I don't know a lot about planes, but they aren't rockets, and actually need air
Smartass. 
I never said that. I LITERALLY never wrote what you have placed in quotation marks.
No, you actually didn't. You said the opposite and i misunderstood. The same way btw you're misunderstanding what i'm saying, the reason why we can't get anywhere is because we're on the same page but i'm arguing a statement that you didn't make. Mea culpa.
|
Soooooooo, how is the cat. 3 Hurricane from this morning doing? Still trucking along in direction of Cuba with 12 MPH?
|
....
I don't like to backseat moderate but can we take this fascinating discussion about aircraft somewhere else then the US Politics thread...
|
More interestingly, since i actually wouldn't be able to tell, could Trump tack his wall payment to a "bill" that's supposed to help texas?
edit: not asking about morals, that's out of the window anyway.
Technically.
|
The problem is that lift actually isn't very easy, as shown by the length of This Wikipedia Article
There is a persistent false explanation for the lift which is based on equal travel time of the air around the wing, followed by Bernoulli. This is nonsense, because the air doesn't behave that way. (Also mentioned in that article). It is the result of wanting a simple, easy to understand and straightforward explanation of the flight of planes.
However, Bernoulli and air speed differences actually do factor into the lift of the plane. Lift is the result of a bunch of different effects and can be explained differently by using different physical approaches. You can go via pressure, via conservation of momentum, forces and probably a bunch of other ways.
Multiple things effect the lift of a wing. The shape of the wing is relevant, but also the angle of attack, the speed (And it doesn't change linearly with speed either), air currents, and whatever else.
I'd bet that anyone here who claims that it is very simple doesn't understand it correctly.
|
On September 01 2017 23:09 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +
Donald Trump's lawyers understand that obstruction of justice charges against the President are “real and serious", a former US Attorney has said.
In addition to four congressional investigations, the US President and his 2016 campaign are under investigation by special counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller, over claims they colluded with Russia.
Mr Trump’s lawyers have met several times with Mr Mueller over recent months and have submitted detailed memos refuting the allegations.
And Former US Attorney Preet Bharara said the fact the President's legal representatives had given written responses to the claims showed they recognised their significance.
"There may never be any charges, but defense lawyers don't usu waste time on preemptive memos re: frivolous theories of criminal guilt," he wrote on Twitter.
www.yahoo.com
I just want to go back and say that this memo is really weird. I have never heard of anyone preparing legal memo before charges are filed and there is a judge to convince one way or the other.. The only reason I can think it exists is because Trump wants something done in his defense and refuses to wait until Mueller pulls the trigger.
|
On September 02 2017 01:07 m4ini wrote:
More interestingly, since i actually wouldn't be able to tell, could Trump tack his wall payment to a "bill" that's supposed to help texas?
edit: not asking about morals, that's out of the window anyway.
Technically.
technically trump couldn't do it; but some senator/representative could, and such things are commonplace. Not sure if trump has any allies in congress who'd be willing to try that though. And it might well get shot down wherever they try to sneak it in (often sneaking is done in committee votes or the reconciliation process, or wording changes during draft changes).
|
On September 01 2017 23:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
This was posted a couple of pages back. Still one of the most unbelievable things I've seen involving police. Most of the shootings of unarmed black men weren't done with 4 other cops standing by watching silently and with the approval of those cop's supervisors. She's even an Olympic skier ffs. Not sure they could have acted in a dumber manner.
|
On September 02 2017 02:11 Nevuk wrote:This was posted a couple of pages back. Still one of the most unbelievable things I've seen involving police. Most of the shootings of unarmed black men weren't done with 4 other cops standing by watching silently and with the approval of those cop's supervisors. She's even an Olympic skier ffs. Not sure they could have acted in a dumber manner.
The part that annoys me most is no one can stand up for her or assist without fear of the use of force. Part of the trust of the police department is that they won’t abuse their power or will be held accountable if they do. But every day we see cases that show that is not the case. There is no official venue for her to bring a complaint beyond a civil claim, which may result in settlement. But there is no guarantee he will be held accountable. He won’t be publicly pulled in front of a judge and told he violated her civil liberties. Police are not even held to the same standards at the people they arrest. Not even close.
|
|
|
On September 02 2017 02:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2017 02:11 Nevuk wrote:This was posted a couple of pages back. Still one of the most unbelievable things I've seen involving police. Most of the shootings of unarmed black men weren't done with 4 other cops standing by watching silently and with the approval of those cop's supervisors. She's even an Olympic skier ffs. Not sure they could have acted in a dumber manner. The part that annoys me most is no one can stand up for her or assist without fear of the use of force. Part of the trust of the police department is that they won’t abuse their power or will be held accountable if they do. But every day we see cases that show that is not the case. There is no official venue for her to bring a complaint beyond a civil claim, which may result in settlement. But there is no guarantee he will be held accountable. He won’t be publicly pulled in front of a judge and told he violated her civil liberties. Police are not even held to the same standards at the people they arrest. Not even close.
The nest suggestion I've ever seen was that if they want to act like military to treat them like military. Give them military style tribunals and regulations and hold them to a higher standard. Currently it is legal, not just permissible, for a cop to knowingly break the law as long as he thinks he is upholding a different one.
|
What do you mean? Even Politifact agrees he's rejected presidential salary so far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
