SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   Silent Hunter 5 (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=244)
-   -   maintain depth (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=172783)

Lord Justice 08-23-10 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nisgeis (Post 1475181)
Quite what that says about someone who claims to be the winner, I'm not sure.

Though you did please to present it!! You feel humbly compelled to quote and advance?? :hmmm:

DelphiUniverse 08-23-10 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nisgeis (Post 1475181)
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.

Claiming to be the winner is sometimes neccesary when you see things that other dont see. And sometimes there might be people who do that just because they are not the winner.

If we compare this philosophy to my case. Let me get this straight, if I ever felt that I lost a case, I would be out of here, very fast. Trust me on that.

KarlKoch 08-23-10 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475190)
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)

True, it has nothing to do with sumarines at all. However, that doesn't make any of your arguments valid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475190)
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 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.

No, i did not. And i repeat it again: a VOR station does NOT accept any input. At all. It doesn't even have a receiver built into it. It is technically not able to receive anything. But that doesn't place that station magically inside the airplane (=internal). It stays outside of the aircraft and is independant of the movement of the aircraft (=external). You keep mixing up reference frames. You won't understand aerodynamics (or hydrodynamics) if you don't get the difference between reference frames. One thing for you to think about. Are you just now sitting in your chair? If so, are you moving at all? Answer is at the end of this post.

But since you prefer to not answer my posts and keep saying the same (wrong, utterly wrong) story over and over, i hereby give up. As long as you don't read any literature on that subject or try to understand what others want to tell and explain you, there is no point in arguing with you. Congratulations, you won the argument. And i say that with direct respect to Nisgeis's post above.


Answer to the above question: Yes, you move. You move around the center of the earth as well as you move according to the movement of the earth in the universe. But you don't see or feel any movement, because you are in the same reference frame. You only have internal data.

DelphiUniverse 08-23-10 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475197)
No, i did not. And i repeat it again: a VOR station does NOT accept any input. At all. It doesn't even have a receiver built into it. It is technically not able to receive anything.

Holy mother of christ, here you are doing it AGAIN. I just told you that VOR stations are stupid, broadcasting stations that dont accept input, and you repeat it after me. Why do you do that.

Ok, this is a good time for a break. (Just because im not responding, doesnt mean i will not respond later)

Nisgeis 08-23-10 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Para (Post 1475193)
Though you did please to present it!!

That's so true! :har:

Nisgeis 08-23-10 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475194)
Let me get this straight, if I ever felt that I lost a case, I would be out of here, very fast.

I like when I find out I am wrong about things, because not only do I stop walking around with inaccurate information, but it also opens up new ways of thinking about things and perhaps connections that otherwise wouldn't have been made now can be ('Ah, so that's why...').

Sailor Steve 08-23-10 10:21 AM

[QUOTE=DelphiUniverse;1475192]Dont try to flatter 4Para for sharing opinions.[/quote
Politeness and flattery are not the same thing. I was politely responding to his comments

[quote]He doesnt want you to tell him what opinions he should have.
And where did I try to do that?

Quote:

He told the truth. You cannot win a discussion by flattering people.
But you seem to think you can win a discussion by insulting people. A discussion is not about "winning", it's about getting at the truth. In my previous posts I made several observations you have avoided answering, specifically that your original comparison of a submarine to an aircraft is invalid, as the way they operate is altogether different.

DelphiUniverse 08-23-10 10:23 AM

[QUOTE=Sailor Steve;1475212][QUOTE=DelphiUniverse;1475192]Dont try to flatter 4Para for sharing opinions.[/quote
Politeness and flattery are not the same thing. I was politely responding to his comments

Quote:

He doesnt want you to tell him what opinions he should have.
And where did I try to do that?


But you seem to think you can win a discussion by insulting people. A discussion is not about "winning", it's about getting at the truth. In my previous posts I made several observations you have avoided answering, specifically that your original comparison of a submarine to an aircraft is invalid, as the way they operate is altogether different.
Didnt have time to reply to all the quotes. When 15 people ask for evidence (God knows they asked for evidence for why a word was colored green) you probably understand why i couldnt keep up. ( I was frustrated because I didnt have time to answer all the quotes. It made me bitter because I had an answer to all of them)

Later.

robbo180265 08-23-10 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475052)
I surely provided proof that they didnt need to INCREASE speed like krauter said.

And I also provided evidence that helicopters and harriers didnt need speed to fly.

And secondly, he suggested speed was a LAW, which it isnt, there is nothing to prove with that, there is no proof that speed is a law. You cant prove a negative.

Now understand me correctly, if speed is a law, you would see it take effect ALWAYS. And thats where it doesnt take effect, It is entirely possible to fly without the aircraft having speed. It is possible, piper cubs have done this, jet fighter like harriers can do this, helicopters can do this, sailplanes can do this.

If it WAS a law, it would be seen all over the spectrum, which we cant see all over the spectrum.

Everything you said below is wrong, i'm tired of this discussion now so I wont be quoting today.

Man you are so wrong - and you just wont admit it.

Takeda Shingen 08-23-10 10:53 AM

Okay. This one is over.

The Management


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.