I give up, after many, many years!

On May 29, 2:46*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
gatt writes:
I have tried repeatedly to answer
MX evenly an accurately, only to have him tell me that I'm wrong ...

If someone is indeed wrong, why is it a bad thing to tell him that?

Its not a bad thing at all, as long as you are sure the other person
is indeed wrong. But where you have gone wrong on this group is too
many times you have told people incorrectly that they were wrong, that
will really **** a lot of people off. And then to make it worse,
there have been people who would still take the time to explain to you
why you were wrong, and you would refuse to accept it or acknowledge
you were wrong. Come to think of it I cant recall a single time you
admitted you were wrong. You invariably try to weasel your way out of
it by changing the argument, or saying your reasoning applied to some
other situation that is out of context with the original discussion.
In other words, intellectual dishonesty. Example? would you like
to tell us again why we cant apply the ideal gas law to calculate the
air density of a parcel of air we want to fly in. And if you want to
make a total idiot of yourself why not crosspost it to sci.chem?
Terry
PPL Downunder

terry writes:

Its not a bad thing at all, as long as you are sure the other person
is indeed wrong.

Why do I have to be sure? (Although I typically am.)

But where you have gone wrong on this group is too
many times you have told people incorrectly that they were wrong, that
will really **** a lot of people off.

Why would I care about that? People who react in that way are reliably
stupid, and I'm not interested in talking to stupid people.

And then to make it worse,
there have been people who would still take the time to explain to you
why you were wrong, and you would refuse to accept it or acknowledge
you were wrong.

Examples?

Come to think of it I cant recall a single time you admitted you
were wrong.

That's because I'm not often wrong, but I admit it when it is the case.

Example? would you like
to tell us again why we cant apply the ideal gas law to calculate the
air density of a parcel of air we want to fly in.

You cannot use the combined laws (note the nuance) because the volume of the
atmosphere is not constrained.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...


That's because I'm not often wrong, but I admit it when it is the case.


I have seen quite a few examples where you were wrong. I have also pointed
these out.

You have NEVER admitted to being wrong in rec.aviation.piloting.

Steve Foley writes:

I have seen quite a few examples where you were wrong. I have also pointed
these out.

You've disagreed with me, nothing more.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley writes:

I have seen quite a few examples where you were wrong. I have also
pointed
these out.

You've disagreed with me, nothing more.

The 'disagreement' that comes to mind was when you were applying the
incorrect trigonometric function to a vector analysis problem.

I guess you can simply re-define anything you choose. Unfortunately, the
civilized world will probably disagree with your definitions as well.

Steve Foley writes:

The 'disagreement' that comes to mind was when you were applying the
incorrect trigonometric function to a vector analysis problem.

Which problem was that?

I know that when people learn something by rote, they often will not recognize
equally valid statements of the theory behind what they've learned. I've seen
this happen even with extremely experienced pilots. They learn something by
rote, you give a theoretical explanation thereof that they've never heard, and
since they don't know any underlying theory themselves (remember, they learned
by rote), they think the theory is wrong. It would be amusing if it were not
so unfortunate.

I guess you can simply re-define anything you choose. Unfortunately, the
civilized world will probably disagree with your definitions as well.

There are lots of stupid people in the world, and lots of people who are
familiar with rote learning only. Rote learning is what allows the majority
of the population to survive in a technologically complex world.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

I know that when people learn something by rote, they often will not
recognize
equally valid statements of the theory behind what they've learned.

I didn't learn math and physics by rote.

On May 31, 5:50*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Steve Foley writes:
The 'disagreement' that comes to mind was when you were applying the
incorrect trigonometric function to a vector analysis problem.

Which problem was that?

I know that when people learn something by rote, they often will not recognize
equally valid statements of the theory behind what they've learned. *I've seen
this happen even with extremely experienced pilots. *They learn something by
rote, you give a theoretical explanation thereof that they've never heard, and
since they don't know any underlying theory themselves (remember, they learned
by rote), they think the theory is wrong. *It would be amusing if it were not
so unfortunate.

I guess you can simply re-define anything you choose. Unfortunately, the
civilized world will probably disagree with your definitions as well.

There are lots of stupid people in the world, and lots of people who are
familiar with rote learning only. *Rote learning is what allows the majority
of the population to survive in a technologically complex world.

Yes Anthony there are lots of stupid people in the world, and people
who can understand complex theory are definately in the minority, and
as such they are highly respected people who will be in high demand
and found in well paying jobs or self employment. Stupid people are
mostly unemployed, or do low paid menial work or are just
unemployable, and fortunately they dont fly planes.

On May 30, 5:34*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:
Its not a bad thing at all, as long as you are sure the other person
is indeed wrong.

Why do I have to be sure? *(Although I typically am.)

well if you are not sure, it would be polite to say so instead of
using your usual authorative tone, but that is an issue of normal
human interaction and ettiquette, I dont expect you would understand
that.

But where you have gone wrong on this group is too
many times you have told people incorrectly that they were wrong, that
will really **** a lot of people off.

Why would I care about that? *People who react in that way are reliably
stupid, and I'm not interested in talking to stupid people.

That pretty much says it all. You want people to help you but you
dont give a **** what they feel or how you treat them.
No wonder you live your life in front of a computer screeen, but I'm
guessing it wont be long before your computer even walks out on you.

And then to make it worse,
there have been people who would still take the time to explain to you
why you were wrong, and you would refuse to accept it or acknowledge
you were wrong.

Examples?

I gave you an example, cacluculating the density of a parcel of
atmosphere from the gas laws. remember?

Come to think of it I cant recall a single time you admitted you
were wrong.

That's because I'm not often wrong, but I admit it when it is the case.

I'd like to see that.

Example? * would you like
to tell us again why we cant apply the ideal gas law to calculate the
air density of a parcel of air we want to fly in.

You cannot use the combined laws (note the nuance) because the volume of the
atmosphere is not constrained.


PV=nRT
substitue n for m/M

gives m/V ( density ) = PM/RT

notice how volume is now removed from the equation?

so for any parcel of air where the pressure and temp are effectively
constant, ie like at an airport that might interest a pilot, you can
calculate density by simply knowing the pressure and temperature, this
can then be related to density height and performance of the
aircraft. Explain why the non constrainment effects that
relationship?

Of course most pilots dont get out the calcuator and do this
calculation, they use tables that do effectively the same thing. But
they use the measured pressure ( the altimeter is effectively a
pressure meter) and read outside temperature from the thermometer, and
then use tables to read off density altitude ( density) which would
give you the same result as if I measured the pressure with a
barometer, temperature with a thermometer and used the ideal gas
equation in the form as given above, to calculate density and then
refer this density to the ISA atmosphere.

I suggest you cross understanding of gas laws off your list of non
trivial knowldege

Terry
PPL Downunder

terry writes:

well if you are not sure, it would be polite to say so instead of
using your usual authorative tone ...

There's nothing authoritative about my tone.

That pretty much says it all. You want people to help you but you
dont give a **** what they feel or how you treat them.

I care much more about them than they do about me.

I gave you an example, cacluculating the density of a parcel of
atmosphere from the gas laws.

You just plug in the numbers and do the arithmetic by rote for most
calculations. Nothing particularly advanced or difficult about that.