Peter Piper

Unpopular opinion to follow. I found flying in simulated instrument conditions in a C172 to be really easy. It was still easy with the artificial horison and the turn co-ordinator covered. At times I got into an unstable dive-climb oscilation but when the instructor got me to let go of the controls it just stopped - the wings were level the whole time. Having just the artificial horison covered but still being able to see the turn co-ordinator was easiest of all. I was not chasing pitch and the instructor would leave me alone about small deviations. No, I am not saying that it is the same as flying in actual IMC and I am not saying that... etc.. etc. Obviously, this has more to do with the aircraft than with me.

I did not say that OME used a socratic method. No one was using socratic questining. Socratic questioning would be a way forward.

3 hours ago, old man emu said:

No one ever produced a rebuttal argument.

May I interest you in a thought experiment and some Socratic questioning?

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

First, Peter, it's Old Man Emu or OME, but thanks for the polite appellation.

 

Secondly, thanks for taking the time to research and post the above response. It is most interesting.

 

Thirdly, it is the nature of this forum for people to add their two cents' worth. It is the nature of forums, and, although a noble thought, is not democratic.

 

Fourth, the thread was closed at my request.

 

Fifth, based on a long history, of similar attacks on what I have said by a certain party, to open another thread to do as you suggest would be an "Open, Sesame" for further attacks.

 

Sixth, other people have had enough of this topic. In my opinion it is because the difference between the scientist's "mass" and the layman's "mass" has not been understood. And when I throw in terms like Avogadro's Number, Planck's Constant and mention the current definition of the kilogram, the level of misunderstanding rises exponentially.

 

Seventh, you have hinted at your academic qualifications, and I, too, have qualifications in science at the baccalaureate level, as well as internationally recognised qualifications in the application of Newton's Laws to daily occurrences. However, no one else has disclosed their training and experience in this field when attempting to rebut what I have said.

 

Therefore, I reluctantly decline your offer. I regret that I have to do that, as it sounds like a really interesting process.

 

With thanks, 

Old Man Emu

 

It seems to me that you re-opened the thread, saw that no one thought that PenName owed any money and decided to close the thread again.

I'm late to this soiree , but that might actually allow me to assist you better. Allow me to state my credentials, fellow aviators: I graduated in the top 1% of highschool students, and studied a little physics at university and a little maths as a post graduate. I carefully read the thread that the administrator closed. It seems to me that it is important to Mr Emu to discuss this but, like most of us, he is distressed by not being listened to when he has gone to so much trouble. Mr Pen was rude and stated his case without listening to Mr Emu. I might also add that I was a member of the Philosophy Club at university and like precise language.

Wikipedia states the following about socratic questioning.

Socratic questioning (or Socratic maieutics)^[1] was named after Socrates. He utilized an educational method that focused on discovering answers by asking questions from his students. According to Plato, who was one of his students, Socrates believed that "the disciplined practice of thoughtful questioning enables the scholar/student to examine ideas and be able to determine the validity of those ideas".^[2] Plato described this rigorous method of teaching to explain that the teacher assumes an ignorant mindset in order to compel the student to assume the highest level of knowledge.^[3] Thus, a student has the ability to acknowledge contradictions, recreate inaccurate or unfinished ideas and critically determine necessary thought.

Wikidedia states the following about thought experiments.

A thought experiment is a hypothetical situation in which a hypothesis, theory,^[1] or principle is laid out for the purpose of thinking through its consequences.

Johann Witt-Hansen established that Hans Christian Ørsted was the first to use the German term Gedankenexperiment (lit. thought experiment) circa 1812.^[2] Ørsted was also the first to use the equivalent term Gedankenversuch in 1820.

Much later, Ernst Mach used the term Gedankenexperiment in a different way, to denote exclusively the imaginary conduct of a real experiment that would be subsequently performed as a real physical experiment by his students.^[3] Physical and mental experimentation could then be contrasted: Mach asked his students to provide him with explanations whenever the results from their subsequent, real, physical experiment differed from those of their prior, imaginary experiment.

The English term thought experiment was coined (as a calque) from Mach's Gedankenexperiment, and it first appeared in the 1897 English translation of one of Mach's papers.^[4] Prior to its emergence, the activity of posing hypothetical questions that employed subjunctive reasoning had existed for a very long time (for both scientists and philosophers). However, people had no way of categorizing it or speaking about it. This helps to explain the extremely wide and diverse range of the application of the term "thought experiment" once it had been introduced into English.

The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question:

"A thought experiment is a device with which one performs an intentional, structured process of intellectual deliberation in order to speculate, within a specifiable problem domain, about potential consequents (or antecedents) for a designated antecedent (or consequent)" (Yeates, 2004, p. 150).

I propose that Mr Emu subject his ideas to socratic questioning about a thought experiment about the measurement of mass. When Mr Pen returns to the forum, his ideas can be subjected to similar examination. If Mr Emu agrees to this course of action, then I, playing the part of Socrates, will ask him a series of questions. Mr Emu must agree to specifially answer them, in the manner set out by the ancient Greeks. I invite Mr Emu to submit to this careful, polite questiong. If he wishes, he can wait for Mr Penn to return to the forum and they can discuss to their heart's content. What say you, Mr Emu? All eyes will be on your good self! I would also request that other parties avoid interrupting the conversation, if you please!

This is a shot from the video. Florida is not really near Mexico. So, here's hoping. The left wing is not visible, maybe because of a shutter issue.

Sunny, like my disposition. ☀️  But it hauls a better load than a Cessna IMHO. 

Judging by this thread, old man emu was ruder than APenNameAndThatA, if that is who A Pen name is. 

 "aro, I am crying tears of blood. You keep saying that I know f-all about physics. I cry because you know f-nothing." 

"Sorry that I didn't jump to reply to your demand for a reply, but I've wasted too much time trying to show someone who has no understanding of the manipulation of algebraic equations and a complete lack of primary school arithmetic ability to know that three divided by ten is the decimal fraction 0.3 .

How you are ever going to be able to do the simple calculations required for aerial navigation has me stumped." 

Especially when Mr Emu seems to be saying that a litre of water has a mass of 100 g. Maybe Pen Name said something rude and I missed it. Unless the problem was the zinger about the cathedral. I hope I don't get banned for standing up for Mr Pen. I only just got here! Can someone explain what is going on? 

Call me Peter Piper.