Light bends up, right?

Parsifal: "everyone is assuming Newton's first law of physics is true and correct"
Me: "It isn't? Prove it isn't then, If you cannot, the first law is true and therefore so is gravity"

Make more sense?

You're still stupid. Stop trolling my threads.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 11, 2010, 10:51:55 PM

You're still stupid. Stop trolling my threads.

Prove that I am stupid. I dare you.

No, not really, unless you're making at least two completely invalid and unfounded assumptions.

Quote from: Parsifal on March 11, 2010, 10:53:10 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 11, 2010, 10:51:55 PM

You're still stupid. Stop trolling my threads.

Prove that I am stupid. I dare you.

Quote from: Parsifal on March 11, 2010, 09:50:46 PM

No, not really, unless you're making at least two completely invalid and unfounded assumptions.

Please stop pretending to not understand the points that anyone makes. It makes people hate you.

Quote from: spanner34.5 on March 11, 2010, 02:04:27 AM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 10, 2010, 04:48:01 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 10, 2010, 04:45:35 PM

Anyone ever give any thought to how difficult making a visual approach in an aircraft would be if light was "bendy"? I bet the VASI, much less ILS for an instrument landing, would end up being wildly inaccurate.

Why the fuck didn't I think of this?

This is true, you can hold a constant power setting, constant airspeed, therefore constant profile and have the vasi/papi give the same reading.
Mind if I make a topic on it?

No such thing as a constant power setting, power output varies with air pressure or altitude.  Also constant airspeed is difficult, again altitude affects ASI. Lift also increases with air density.

These factors would give a gently curved approach, approximately matching bendy light's trajectory.

That was the most confused non sequitur I have ever seen. A curved path, which any pilot knows is far from ideal, caused by varying lift coefficients has nothing to do with following a Cat III. Brit PP schools! lol

Thats a cute semantic difference, but you are quibbling.  That is like saying four right turns forms a perfect circle. The proponents of BLT are looking for a constant curve, not one that is digitally divided into linear segments. You are conflating the two concepts.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 11, 2010, 04:58:24 AM

Oh, did you try dropping a brick on your testicle and pretending there is no detectable force? Did you try jumping in the air and seeing if you could avoid coming back down?
You really are a sad specimen.

There is no way to detect gravity without reference to an assumption.

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 11, 2010, 05:18:41 PM

Thats a cute semantic difference, but you are quibbling.  That is like saying four right turns forms a perfect circle. The proponents of BLT are looking for a constant curve, not one that is digitally divided into linear segments. You are conflating the two concepts.

One which I didn't initiate and one which is independent of BLT.  I would aslo compare it to 'n' equal right turns approximate a perfect circle.

Are you an  EE?

OK let's break the loop. What is the assumption?

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 11, 2010, 06:17:38 AM

Quote from: spanner34.5 on March 11, 2010, 02:04:27 AM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 10, 2010, 04:48:01 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 10, 2010, 04:45:35 PM

Anyone ever give any thought to how difficult making a visual approach in an aircraft would be if light was "bendy"? I bet the VASI, much less ILS for an instrument landing, would end up being wildly inaccurate.

Why the fuck didn't I think of this?

This is true, you can hold a constant power setting, constant airspeed, therefore constant profile and have the vasi/papi give the same reading.
Mind if I make a topic on it?

No such thing as a constant power setting, power output varies with air pressure or altitude.  Also constant airspeed is difficult, again altitude affects ASI. Lift also increases with air density.

These factors would give a gently curved approach, approximately matching bendy light's trajectory.

That was the most confused non sequitur I have ever seen. A curved path, which any pilot knows is far from ideal, caused by varying lift coefficients has nothing to do with following a Cat III. Brit PP schools! lol

My point is that on a piston engined plane, a constant power setting does not give a constant rate of descent. The plane would not exactly follow the vasi/papi as the descent rate would decrease.

Take the problem to the extreme for clarity. Fly at max altitude, trimmed, this requires full throttle. Reduce the power setting to normal cruise. The plane will descend, then level itself to a new altitude.

The new constant power setting does not give a fixed descent rate.

The landing approach is no different.

What does the atmosphere have to do with BLT?

Also, are you an EE?

And yes, I move photons for a living.

Quote from: spanner34.5 on March 12, 2010, 01:31:03 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 11, 2010, 06:17:38 AM

Quote from: spanner34.5 on March 11, 2010, 02:04:27 AM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 10, 2010, 04:48:01 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 10, 2010, 04:45:35 PM

Anyone ever give any thought to how difficult making a visual approach in an aircraft would be if light was "bendy"? I bet the VASI, much less ILS for an instrument landing, would end up being wildly inaccurate.

Why the fuck didn't I think of this?

This is true, you can hold a constant power setting, constant airspeed, therefore constant profile and have the vasi/papi give the same reading.
Mind if I make a topic on it?

No such thing as a constant power setting, power output varies with air pressure or altitude.  Also constant airspeed is difficult, again altitude affects ASI. Lift also increases with air density.

These factors would give a gently curved approach, approximately matching bendy light's trajectory.

That was the most confused non sequitur I have ever seen. A curved path, which any pilot knows is far from ideal, caused by varying lift coefficients has nothing to do with following a Cat III. Brit PP schools! lol

My point is that on a piston engined plane, a constant power setting does not give a constant rate of descent. The plane would not exactly follow the vasi/papi as the descent rate would decrease.

Take the problem to the extreme for clarity. Fly at max altitude, trimmed, this requires full throttle. Reduce the power setting to normal cruise. The plane will descend, then level itself to a new altitude.

The new constant power setting does not give a fixed descent rate.

The landing approach is no different.

You still arent getting my point. If the light from the VASI beam were always curving up (or really the radio waves from the CATIII, since you dont usually see the VASI at a far enough distance for there to be a measurable curve, even with the kookiness of BLT) you would  be following a curve on final, instead of a consistent angle as you are supposed to. This would lead to you either being too low of the glideslope at touchdown, or in a condition of early roll out too high above the runway. The paractical considerations of noticing this effect in weather are tricky for sure, but look closely at your VSI and altimeter if you are ever established on the localizer in severe clear and you will see that you are following a consistant angle, not a curve.

im not sure why you wouldn't take newton's first law as true.  Most of the time, when you claim it as false, THAT becomes the assumption.  Not saying people havent assumed that newton's first law wasnt true before, just saying that believing it to be true doesnt necessarily make it an assumption.  its like "assuming" 2+2=4.  You could bend the rules by assuming something false, like 2+j=3, and see where you go with it. (j being (-1)^0.5)

Quote from: brathearon on March 12, 2010, 09:29:48 AM

im not sure why you wouldn't take newton's first law as true.  Most of the time, when you claim it as false, THAT becomes the assumption.  Not saying people havent assumed that newton's first law wasnt true before, just saying that believing it to be true doesnt necessarily make it an assumption.  its like "assuming" 2+2=4.  You could bend the rules by assuming something false, like 2+j=3, and see where you go with it. (j being (-1)^0.5)

How does one's argument relying on an unproven theorem being true not qualify as making an assumption?

its not a theorum, its a law that almost everyone has tested personally many, many times.  If it wasnt true, then there would be no need to explain the source of the constant upward acceleration that the FErs talk about in their model.

Quote from: brathearon on March 12, 2010, 09:47:36 AM

its not a theorum, its a law that almost everyone has tested personally many, many times.  If it wasnt true, then there would be no need to explain the source of the constant upward acceleration that the FErs talk about in their model.

Nothing you've said changes the fact that nobody has proven Newton's first law of motion to be true.

Its been proven to a point where it is accepted as much as most things we deem "real".  Which i realize does not COMPLETELY proove it, as nothing can be.  It would be like saying that i put books in a box, do i know that the books dont disappear while they are inside and reappear when i open it again?  how do i know that someone doesnt secretly take them, and put them back before i open it again every time?  How do i know that something im looking at is really there?  There are circumstances that can make things that i know and see as real, to be actually false, but it is rare/unlikely that it is.

Im not completely saying that newton's law cant be false, im saying its unlikely that it is, especially for macroscopic objects.

Quote from: brathearon on March 12, 2010, 09:47:36 AM

its not a theorum, its a law that almost everyone has tested personally many, many times.  If it wasnt true, then there would be no need to explain the source of the constant upward acceleration that the FErs talk about in their model.

Nothing you've said changes the fact that nobody has proven Newton's first law of motion to be true.

Nothing you've said changes the fact that you've never proved you're not a talking sphincter.
You let go of something, it falls, there's evidence that a force is acting. If that's not evidence that a force is acting then you need to revisit your definition of a force.
If the best you can do is fall back on the tenet that theories can never be proved, only disproved, then that can be extended infinitely to say that you can never even trust your own senses. Prove that your eyes are showing you reality. Prove that cheese really smells like that. And so on.
We're wise to your game now, sphincter boy. When you can debate properly, come back and play with the grown ups.

Quote from: brathearon on March 12, 2010, 09:47:36 AM

its not a theorum, its a law that almost everyone has tested personally many, many times.  If it wasnt true, then there would be no need to explain the source of the constant upward acceleration that the FErs talk about in their model.

Nothing you've said changes the fact that nobody has proven Newton's first law of motion to be true.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 12, 2010, 10:25:51 AM

Nothing you've said changes the fact that you've never proved you're not a talking sphincter.
You let go of something, it falls, there's evidence that a force is acting. If that's not evidence that a force is acting then you need to revisit your definition of a force.
If the best you can do is fall back on the tenet that theories can never be proved, only disproved, then that can be extended infinitely to say that you can never even trust your own senses. Prove that your eyes are showing you reality. Prove that cheese really smells like that. And so on.
We're wise to your game now, sphincter boy. When you can debate properly, come back and play with the grown ups.

When you can prove Newton's first law of motion, let me know and I will retract my statement about gravity being based on an assumption.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 12, 2010, 10:25:51 AM

Nothing you've said changes the fact that you've never proved you're not a talking sphincter.
You let go of something, it falls, there's evidence that a force is acting. If that's not evidence that a force is acting then you need to revisit your definition of a force.
If the best you can do is fall back on the tenet that theories can never be proved, only disproved, then that can be extended infinitely to say that you can never even trust your own senses. Prove that your eyes are showing you reality. Prove that cheese really smells like that. And so on.
We're wise to your game now, sphincter boy. When you can debate properly, come back and play with the grown ups.

When you can prove Newton's first law of motion, let me know and I will retract my statement about gravity being based on an assumption.