Addressing Gl Arguments Regarding Noc Tech Paper
Jan 6 2009, 12:21 PM
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1
Looks like there is only one reply so far, out of much noise being generated at the GL site... so we'll address the first "legit" reply to our NoC paper...
Didn't 911files show that the radii PfT was using in their last video were fudged? Looks like they're still using those same radii in this paper.
ETA: Why, yes, he did...
Actually, no, he didnt.
1. It appears Farmer cherry picked one "radius" for his claim, not "radii". Yet refuses to show exactly which "radius" he feel is "fudged".
2. Based on Farmers final arithmetic for our alleged "fudged" radius, Farmer calculated his alleged G Load based on bank angle which Farmer claims is accurate -
Farmer calculates G load for given bank...
Banking angle = 62 degrees
g-force = 1.9
Its far from accurate...
First, Farmer doesnt specify speed to obtain such a bank angle.
Second, Farmer's arithmetic is wrong regarding G load for a given bank angle.
Every pilot from a student onward knows the rule of thumb that a 60 deg bank is 2.0G. How does Farmer calculate less G load for a higher bank? I'll tell you why, its because Farmer doesnt understand basic vector analysis as outlined in the paper, doesnt understand how to calculate a sag of an arc, nor is he able to determine a proper radii.
Looks like Farmer needs the chart as his "maths" is pathetic.
Or perhaps he will actually learn something from the tech paper regarding vector analysis.
n = 1/cos(62)
n = 2.13 G's
Farmer is more than 10% off with his "maths".
Jan 15 2009, 02:35 AM
Group: Global Mod
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294
Well, it looks like ol' "nicepants" is leading a new diversionary charge using the P4T name over in Randiland (most of the usual suspects are on that thread if anyone cares to look, although some of the more "intellectual" illusionist acolytes are strangely silent so far).
If anyone actually cares, and so that the reader doesn't need to sort through all the silly, illusionist "NWOise" of these junior Bildo O'Really-wannabes,
I wouldn't have noticed except "nicepants" put a big green & black arrow on the OP next to the "Pft members" part. Apparently "nicepants" likes green round things, if the "Darth Shrub" avatar is any indicator.
It would appear that "nicepants" has now graduated from trolling/dodging questions/"JAQ'ing off" (b )j[e]thomas style to this now... Isn't he precocious?(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
"An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious and anti-religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger"."
OK Randiite kiddies- who's up for the next well-earned "bitch-slap?" The question was "maths" I thought??? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 19th May 2013 - 08:15 AM|