Ok, now its hammer time. W_E W_E_R_E T_A_L_K_I_N_G O_F G_R_O_U_N_D S_P_E_E_D (A_S P_E_R_C_I_E_V_E_D I_N G_E_N_E_R_A_L)
Capacity needed to grasp sentence. Next question.

Look at quote above. Dont talk to me about generating lift, this is ancient knowledge from my side, and has nothing to do with the discussion. Look at the quote above.

Btw, you never answered my previous post about "implying"

Which effect? Show me the equations that your statemant relys on. Please.
There is a difference in aerodynamics in average and in special? What is the average aerodynamics?

What effect has the method of signal propagation to do with external or internal? Does it make a difference if the information is propagted via electromagnetic signals, sound waves or anything else? Don't ever use a technical term when you don't understand its meaning.

True, but i have nothing electronic at hand now. And for your level of understanding Wikipedia is far enough.
May i ask you for permission to print and publish your posts on this particular post? I need them for my colleagues to laugh.


edit:
What in gods name has the ground speed to do with a flying aircraft? When you could name one thing completely irrelevant for aerodynamics, you found it!

And your posts are no proof. Your posts are statements. Statements can be true or false. Name a source for your statements, so they can be checked.

And please. Just write down the equation for lift.

I speak strictly according to fact. Though you did not directly claim superiority, statine that he lacks the intelligence to understand certainly does equate to claiming that you do, which is the same as saying it without actually having to say it.

And you have now stooped to calling people "idiots". There is no implication there, but direct insult. This is bad debating, proves nothing, and is not part of any real argument.

Point 1 = nonsense, its ones opinion, it shows what one feels when dealing with a certain member, regardless of whom is right or wrong. Point 2 = Agreed. Point 3 = Regard to last para, is your opinion so right? worthy to tell him he is wrong and continued to be wrong!! In your eyes yes, in anothers does it hold so much to be desired?

Point 4 = agreed regard to IQ, pepole twist words all the time to support there meaning or objection, thus indirectly attempting to make original said comments worse, to beg favour of the situation. Point 5 = Dont be sorry Sir, for your own choice of words, as long as they adhere to the forum rules, one has relative freedom. P.S If i may, this thread should have been titled Maintain Discipline, my opinion only. A most worthy read though. Good day.

You can start with printing this for your collegues:

Originally Posted by KarlKoch:
VOR navigation actually IS an external observation. Just like GPS is. Or does

DelphiUniverse:
Vor stations is not external observation, it is a broadcasting station. GPS is not an external observator either.

:haha:

A wise man in this forum, I didnt know they existed :)

No, we were talking about submarines. You attempted to compare them with the flight of aircraft, and you were wrong.

And once again you attempt to "prove" a point by demeaning the intelligence of the person you are talking to. What you spelled out is no answer at all.


Which one? If you cited any sources, I apologize for missing it. Please point out where you quoted sources.

If it's "ancient knowledge", then why do you seem to have so little understanding of it? I pointed out specifics, you replied by saying I lacked the capacity to understand. As I said, calling someone an idiot doesn't make it so.

Done.

And i repeat my question. What has the method of propagation to do with wether its external or internal data? With both GPS and VOR (also DME and whatnot) you rely on data you get from OUTSIDE the airplane. You really know the meaning of external and internal?
Let's assume you are in your car. Driving down the road. You stop at a traffic sign. Is the traffic sign an internal or external signal? Remember, the light shines into your car.

e: And to be clear, i will use the quoted statement of yours. It is so much wrong, it is close to being no more funny. Really close.

Well, lets just put it this way. The machinery in the airplane interprets the broadcasting signals. There is no feedback to the stations at all. So the signals are interpreted only inside of airplanes (with no tracking from vor stations) and that is no feedback.

That is no observation, now get on with your life. For once.

About dme, that has nothing to do with vor stations or gps, its just a distance measuring equipment. And dont bring up localizers either, thats irrelevant.

Not nonsense. Attempting to disprove an argument by calling the other person names serves no purpose other than to antagonize. It neither proves one is right nor settles anything.

Possibly not, but since he has demeaned this whole discussion by attempting to prove a point by calling other members names, I can only reply to the best of my ability without actually doing the same myself, which is all too tempting.

FOCUS on the discussion. We have all moved on.

If we don't calm down, I can gaurantee that it will be hammertime.

The Management

A VOR signal is no observation because there is no feedback to the ground station? Either you are now sitting in front of your monitor, laughing your a** off, or you have really not the slightest clue of what you are saying here.

You don't need any feedback to the ground station. Because it doesn't even have a receiver. Its just a transmitter. Does that change anything in regard to the location of the VOR-station?

e: whoops, bad word not filtered.

Well welcome into my own words. I just said this, the vor station broadcasts it doesnt accept any input. Hence you just proved yourself wrong too.
(Isnt there any decency in this forum, using their own mistakes to attack others)

I have to remind you again so that you dont forget what we are discussing.

Originally Posted by KarlKoch:
VOR navigation actually IS an external observation. Just like GPS is. Or does

DelphiUniverse:
Vor stations is not external observation, it is a broadcasting station. GPS is not an external observator either.

Okay, i am now trying to let you understand something.
Imagine an 747 flying at 10'000 ft. Straight and level. You sit inside the plane as a passenger. The windows are blind, you cannot look outside. The plane is located over the atlantic ocean. You can only see water. No islands, no movement in the water, nothing. The air is calm, there is no movement of the air at all. Can you see or feel, that the aircraft is moving? Can you, in any way, determine if the plane is moving at all? You have no access to the cockpit, nor have you any other tools than your body.

edit:
What did i prove? With what? Its completely irrelevant if a station is transmitting information via broadcast or handshake. It can do both or it can not even send any signal at all, it won't change an external station into an internal or vice versa. It has nothing to do with each other at all.

Dont confuse to twist yet again, I made no mention about the name calling, I was remarking toward ones opinion of anothers education, i simply and meaningly stepped aside the petty insults, i do so understand to what you refer, I ask, beg, you read my postings with precision, I will either support or withdraw what I deem reasonable. If both parties wish to advance on the matter, to whats right and wrong then I shall sit on the wall as one normally does, and eat my popcorn. Just please watch the conduct gentlemen, how you present. Thank you. :salute:

You want the 'long winded and largely irrelevant arguments about aricraft that don't relate to submarine sims' forum for decency.

There's another that says that you should avoid arguing with idiots, as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. If true, it has an interesting implication about the person who wins the argument. Quite what that says about someone who claims to be the winner, I'm not sure.

That's not always easy, as your meaning is not always clear. Unlike my previous comments on your manner of speech (or of writing, which is more precise), I mean no offense, but often it is difficult to be sure of what you mean us to understand. I can only reply to what I percieve to be your meaning, as opposed to your actual intent.

You clearly are dragging this out of proportions. The claims were that you couldnt prove relative speed between aircraft and wind. And my claims were that you can, you use ground speed, indicated airspeed and true airspeed and besides airplanes have wind detectors outside too. YES THEY CAN, YES THEY CAN. (Your story up here is not on topic, I feel a lust to give you a pizza so that you can get out of here)

For christ sake, you just retold the same story that I have myself. You are repeating my own words. I explained to you that VOR stations are "stupid" and they DONT accept any input, and next you come with a post saying exactly the same thing AS IF I said the opposite. You are lost man, utterly lost and in the extreme wasting my time.

Dont try to flatter 4Para for sharing opinions. He doesnt want you to tell him what opinions he should have. He told the truth. You cannot win a discussion by flattering people.