I'd never seen this before

"John Mazor" wrote in news:zJSej.16112$DG4.3791
@trnddc04:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Gig601XLBuilder wrote in
:

Mxsmanic wrote:
John Mazor writes:

If your familiarity with Wikipedia extended beyond authoring
articles on flypaper and being rejected for editor status, you'd
know the definition as set by the Fédération Aéronautique
Internationale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karman_line

What makes their definition special?


Because, much like your ignorance, it is internationally recognized.

Boom! headshot!

He's too hard-headed to even have noticed that.




True.

Bertie

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in news:7d9fafc9f4e18@uwe:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
If your familiarity with Wikipedia extended beyond authoring articles
on flypaper and being rejected for editor status, you'd know the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]

What makes their definition special?

What makes you "special"?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_bus


You saying he edited this?


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Tina writes:

As in many things, arbitrary choices are made and agreed upon. You
can choose to accept those definitions or not, but if you don't you
have trouble communicating with the community of experts who do use
the words in the way other professionals understand them to be used.

Which "experts" and "professionals" do you have in mind?

An enduring trait among true professionals is their willingness to
admit when they are wrong. Insecure people seem to have trouble with
that.

Another one of their enduring traits is a reluctance to attack others.

I am still waiting to see you derive, using right triangles, line of
sight distances over a horizon defined by ones altitude over a
sphere.

I didn't realize you needed an explanation.

If A is your eyepoint, and B is where your line of sight touches the
horizon, and C is the center of the Earth, ABC form a right triangle.
You know the distances CA and CB, so all you have to do is solve for
AB. Even for someone who hates math as much as I do, it's pretty
straightforward.


Nope

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
WingFlaps writes:

And yet you got it wrong. Care to explain why?

You're the one who says it's wrong, so it's up to you to explain why.


Nope


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:
WingFlaps writes:

And yet you got it wrong. Care to explain why?

You're the one who says it's wrong, so it's up to you to explain why.

Because it makes the assumption that the Earth is round and smooth,
which it is not, and ignores the fact that the atmosphere bends light.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

The question not answered, assuming both a spherical cow and a round
smooth earth with no atmosphere, is how you, using right triangles,
know the distance to the horizon. That is what one is trying to
determine, even in this very simple minded example.

It's simple minded, and yet, it seems, too complex for you to
understand.

So no, you can't on your own solve this. Quick, google to the answer!




glles, On Jan 3, 3:53 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Tina writes:
As in many things, arbitrary choices are made and agreed upon. You can
choose to accept those definitions or not, but if you don't you have
trouble communicating with the community of experts who do use the
words in the way other professionals understand them to be used.

Which "experts" and "professionals" do you have in mind?

An enduring trait among true professionals is their willingness to
admit when they are wrong. Insecure people seem to have trouble with
that.

Another one of their enduring traits is a reluctance to attack others.

I am still waiting to see you derive, using right triangles, line of
sight distances over a horizon defined by ones altitude over a sphere.

I didn't realize you needed an explanation.

If A is your eyepoint, and B is where your line of sight touches the horizon,
and C is the center of the Earth, ABC form a right triangle. You know the
distances CA and CB, so all you have to do is solve for AB. Even for someone
who hates math as much as I do, it's pretty straightforward.

writes:

Because it makes the assumption that the Earth is round and smooth,
which it is not, and ignores the fact that the atmosphere bends light.

The notion of stall speeds is wrong in that sense, too, but pilots use the
notion every day.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Because it makes the assumption that the Earth is round and smooth,
which it is not, and ignores the fact that the atmosphere bends light.

The notion of stall speeds is wrong in that sense, too, but pilots use the
notion every day.

As always when shown to be incorrect, you respond with something irrelevant
to the original topic in a vain attempt to prove you have self-worth.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jan 3, 10:49 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
WingFlaps writes:
And yet you got it wrong. Care to explain why?

You're the one who says it's wrong, so it's up to you to explain why.

So you still think a 1000' tower can be seen over 1000 miles away? Was
this another MS flight sim experience?

Bwhahhahahhahaha.

Now, don't be petulant- just try to engage some common sense -does it
even sound plausible? Could the empire state building really be seen
1/3 of the way across the Atlantic? Can people in London see the
Eiffel tower or people in Paris see the PO tower in London?

Cheers

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

Because it makes the assumption that the Earth is round and smooth,
which it is not, and ignores the fact that the atmosphere bends
light.

The notion of stall speeds is wrong in that sense


Nope



Bertie