Why wouldn't a completely enclosed rotary wing produce lift? After all, theoretically it is the low pressure of the air across the top of the wing that allows for the high pressure beneath the wing to push the wing up into the low air pressure area.
And the high pressure beneath the wing is also pushing the bottom of the enclosure down with equal force. You can't violate conservation of momentum in a closed system. Wings work only because they are not a closed system: there is a constant flow incoming and outgoing air, and these flows are moving in different directions. The outgoing air is redirected downwards by the wing, and the reaction force pushes the wing upwards, conserving momentum. If you don't understand conservation of momentum and Newton's third law, please read up on elementary physics before trying to wrestle with more advanced concepts. Don't bother trying to explain it to him, it's way way way beyond his level of understanding. |
|
|
|
Why wouldn't a completely enclosed rotary wing produce lift?
The thrust would only be confined to inside the enclosed area. Outside you would just have an enclosure doing nothing but making lots of noise and vibration. What advantage does out-in-the-open have over totally-enclosed?
Out-in-the-open ones work. Since I am not doing it, and since my training is only entry level, you are right.
Training for what? |
|
|
|
|
I wonder how many terrorists ISIS have hidden amongst the refugees?
|
|
|
|
|
^ 512GB! That's unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
Look at ourselves Bodily parts how nicely and precisely has been created.
Or evolved, which gives us the impression of being created with this much precision. |
|
|
|
- low transactions fee forever ( some altcoins even have them for free and it will be forever)
That's because hardly anybody uses them. |
|
|
|
This helicopter thing smells suspiciously like the water power car BS thing. Probably from the same website.  Anyway, I wouldn't want some amateur home mechanic who doesn't know how to use a torque wrench building a helicopter kit in his garage, then flying it over my house. |
|
|
|
The thread went completely the wrong path once you've started answering to BADecker.
Okay, point taken. I won't speak to him on this thread anymore. |
|
|
|
Might as well just whip out the Visa card if on-chain are too expensive and left to use off-chain transactions.
Better than downloading 3 GB of data every day only so you can play satoshi dice for 10cents a bet.... AND HARDFORKING WITHOUT CONSENSUS YOU MORON! I've been debating recently whether to change my node over to XT or not. Your angry personal attack has just made up my mind. THANK YOU. I am changing it over tonight. Hint: I'm not joking by the way. I really am.  Edit: Oh look what I've just found. User "Pecunia non olet" aka desperate Popescu is starting self-moderated threads now, so 20MB supporters can be silenced. LOL Too funny.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1077762.0 |
|
|
|
|
Might as well just whip out the Visa card if on-chain are too expensive and left to use off-chain transactions.
|
|
|
|
also some bullshit about a signature compaign to advertise the new Blockchain ? tell me those people are trolling  There is currently no new blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
Don't worry, the UK will take them all. There are lots of cheap empty houses, the NHS is a long way from breaking point and 600'000 empty job positions, so they wouldn't need to live a life of crime.
|
|
|
|
|
Trouble is if a car breaks down, chances are you can pull over safely. If your homemade helicopter breaks down you gonna get seriously hurt, or worse.
|
|
|
|
i take an agnostic stance, neither side has definite proof
Atheists don't need proof, they aren't the ones asserting anything. Atheists reject theist assertions on the grounds they are fallacious, not because atheism asserts a counter position to the theist assertion. You might as well have said you take an agnostic side on the issue of invisible pink unicorns because neither side has definite proof. How dishonest of you! We all know that someone who doesn't take sides, might not be asserting something very much. Somebody who has a belief and who doesn't think about his belief except infrequently, and in a passing way, might simply be holding a belief. But when one asserts that he isn't asserting anything, he is simply a liar, contradicting himself by his non-assertion assertions. Simply because you want to focus on part of a dictionary definition, this doesn't mean that the other parts don't apply as well. If you are suggesting something simply because you are trying to show a point, okay. I showed you your point is misleading. If you actually believe your point, you are warped and dishonest. By the dictionary definitions of the words "atheism" and "religion," atheism is a religion. Of course, in your case, as it applies to you, atheism is a religion in a different way than a formal religion. A formal religion comes right out and says that it is a religion, expressing the things of religion that make it a religion. Atheism is a religion that is deceptive because, it doesn't easily allow its followers to understand that they are in a religion by being atheists. Atheism is a religion of dishonesty more than any other religion. If it were a violent religion, it would have Islam beat hands down. Why? Because at least Islam acknowledges with its members that it is a religion. Many people are agnostics regarding many things at times. But many theists are not agnostic, even in the most general or liberal sense of the word.  No really sure why you keep pressing this Atheism is a religion thing. Think about it, it makes no difference at all if it's a religion or not. Atheists don't believe in a God and that's that. Putting them in a religious box changes nothing. Your beliefs cannot be proven true and neither can theirs, which means they are just as valid as yours. |
|
|
|
This thread is going out of control... Not every atheist hates religion ,Everyone has the right to believe in what they want
It was never really going to be a mature solid conversion was it. I mean OPs initial question was a fallacy because it was a loaded question from the start. |
|
|
|
You yourself said that you have 1 million dollars, by implication ("I'll... give you $1 million"). But since now you are essentially denying what you said previously ("I may or may not have $1 million"), it makes no sense to enter into any agreement with you, sorry...
Nothing personal
It's a moot point, anyway. The reason I said what I said was to emphasize my confidence. I thought this was obvious. Really, I don't need to worry about some negative feedback along the lines, "User offers $1 million dollar bet without proof he has it. Scammer!" do I? I'm not going to say that this is not how agreements are made (that was your idea, after all), since even if you had a million dollars (which you obviously don't), you wouldn't give them in any case. In fact, your failure is more serious than that. You tried to emphasize your confidence where you actually should have questioned it... The million dollar thing was a figure of speech. We all have to realise we are all from different geographic locations (thousands of miles apart maybe) with different ways of saying things. |
|
|
|
Islam is the best religion on earth and that is why so many people convert to it.
Do they have a choice in the matter? |
|
|
|
People have believed in a God, not necessarily the same God, for millions of years man has been on the planet and they will believe until every last human is destroyed. I don't think that is a reasonable assertion to make. Religion is borne of ignorance and a need to imagine the answers to the questions of life, the universe and everything. Since the human species has begun to explore its reality by way of the scientific method of observation, measurement and testing, we have rapidly learned to better understand the cause-and-effect action/reaction processes that make up our universe and are growing increasingly aware of the fact that 'god did it' isn't knowledge of any kind. Trouble I have with this, is science can never disprove God may exist. It's impossible to do. Possibly science can disprove religion(s), such as the bible. But that's a different thing than disproving God. To be fair if science can eventually prove the bible completely false, I wouldn't want to be around anyway, it would create lots of very very very angry people. |
|
|
|
And how do you know how god works?
BADecker doesn't, nobody does. People that claim they do are lying. There is no god or jeebus.
How would you possibly know that? It's 2015, I thought we were beyond this dark ages crap by now.
People have believed in a God, not necessarily the same God, for millions of years man has been on the planet and they will believe until every last human is destroyed. We think of the main religions now, such as Christianity, as very old ancient religions. But in reality, they are just brand new ones in the timeline of human existence. How many have existed and forgotten in the millions of years before Christianity was invented? Hundreds, Thousands? Who knows. |
|
|
|
So why are people so stupid to need to latch on to a religion?
When the banks scammed everyone with their financial mis-selling tactics the victims weren't stupid people. The banks were suppose to be trustworthy sound businesses, and people trusted them to make the right decisions and advice. People were lied to and stolen from. Same with the church. It is supposed to be a trustworthy business and people naturally follow it's advice. That doesn't make them stupid. The church tells people that xyz will happen when they die. Not might happen, they sell it as fact. Yet as discussed earlier, not a single person on the planet knows what will happen when we die. So clearly the church is lying and mis-selling. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
