|
|
30 Dec 2006, 06:01
|
#251
|
Victim of Marriage
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 784
|
Re: A Plane Problem
What about if someone creates a device that allows them to walk through walls, wouldn't they just fall through the ground...
__________________
You mean there's life outside the internet...oh man I'm screwed.
|
|
|
30 Dec 2006, 06:35
|
#252
|
Tilting at windmills
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 579
|
Re: A Plane Problem
****ing hell Tom.
This argument was put forth by the Flat Earth Society as early as 1957. (Scroll down for diagram)
__________________
[Fury] [1up] [Ascendancy]
|
|
|
30 Dec 2006, 10:05
|
#253
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,094
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
I have a question!!!
Someone asked me this at a party last night. It was rocking.
Imagine that a helicopter has an infinite amount of fuel. If it takes off vertically (ignore air movement etc), then stays hovering for 12 hours or so, will the earth rotate beneath it, so when it lands it will land in a different place?
|
Lets ignore the atmosphere (its annoying) and say theres a vacuum, assuming you're dealing with two places on the same latitude, the equator for instance, you'd go up and come down to land on the same spot.
However your ground track wrt your launch point wouldn't show you staying stationary over your launch point. Because angular momentum has to be conserved, any direct vertical movement would have to mean a reduction in angular velocity, so you would increasingly 'lag behind' your launch point the higher your went, as you came back down though you'd balance the equation in the other direction, you'd gain angular velocity and eventually end up where your started. Basically its a sub-orbital flight in a vaccum with the coriolis effect.
|
|
|
31 Dec 2006, 13:30
|
#254
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
Lets ignore the atmosphere (its annoying) and say theres a vacuum, assuming you're dealing with two places on the same latitude, the equator for instance, you'd go up and come down to land on the same spot.
However your ground track wrt your launch point wouldn't show you staying stationary over your launch point. Because angular momentum has to be conserved, any direct vertical movement would have to mean a reduction in angular velocity, so you would increasingly 'lag behind' your launch point the higher your went, as you came back down though you'd balance the equation in the other direction, you'd gain angular velocity and eventually end up where your started. Basically its a sub-orbital flight in a vaccum with the coriolis effect.
|
Lets say that you have a helicopter that takes off and hovers one micrometer above the surface of the earth. It will have a tiny fraction less angular velocity than the earth, which means that it will gradually move away from the landing site. Assuming the earth is a perfect sphere, and that this micrometer above the surface hovering may be kept up indefinitely, we'll wait until it's half the way around the world from the starting point (this will, incidentally, take 16 thousand million years or so). The engine is then turned off.
The helicopter is now in freefall, and hits the earth in some 0.5ms. In this time, according to you, it moves the 20,000km or so required for it to land where it took off. To do this, it will have to move (ignoring relativistic effects) some one hundred times the speed of light.
|
|
|
31 Dec 2006, 13:44
|
#255
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
Lets say that you have a helicopter that takes off and hovers one micrometer above the surface of the earth. It will have a tiny fraction less angular velocity than the earth, which means that it will gradually move away from the landing site. Assuming the earth is a perfect sphere, and that this micrometer above the surface hovering may be kept up indefinitely, we'll wait until it's half the way around the world from the starting point (this will, incidentally, take 16 thousand million years or so). The engine is then turned off.
The helicopter is now in freefall, and hits the earth in some 0.5ms. In this time, according to you, it moves the 20,000km or so required for it to land where it took off. To do this, it will have to move (ignoring relativistic effects) some one hundred times the speed of light.
|
At last GD has found a way to travel at intergalatic speeds. Well it had to happen eventually.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
|
|
|
31 Dec 2006, 13:55
|
#256
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: A Plane Problem
It won't actually take 16,000 million years or so, as I forgot to take the "height" of the center of mass of the heci-lopter into account. Still an awfully long time though!
|
|
|
31 Dec 2006, 14:58
|
#257
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: A Plane Problem
while i applaud mark's (entirely correct) explanation I can not but help think that it would have been quicker to reply "we have a moon ****tards".
__________________
hi
|
|
|
31 Dec 2006, 18:54
|
#258
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,094
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
Lets say that you have a helicopter that takes off and hovers one micrometer above the surface of the earth. It will have a tiny fraction less angular velocity than the earth, which means that it will gradually move away from the landing site. Assuming the earth is a perfect sphere, and that this micrometer above the surface hovering may be kept up indefinitely, we'll wait until it's half the way around the world from the starting point (this will, incidentally, take 16 thousand million years or so). The engine is then turned off.
|
I'm unsure exactly what you're trying to say here, 'hovering' implies that an external force is being used to keep it in place which would make arguments based on conservation of angular momentum pointless. Regardless you're mistaken in thinking you'd drift 'half way around the world', your ground track would only move until your rotational velocity had 'balanced out' for your particular altitude.
|
|
|
31 Dec 2006, 19:24
|
#259
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
I'm unsure exactly what you're trying to say here, 'hovering' implies that an external force is being used to keep it in place which would make arguments based on conservation of angular momentum pointless.
|
Why? It's acting along a line through the center of our assumed perfect sphere (that is, directly opposed to gravity), so there won't be any torque, and thus no change in angular momentum. If we wouldn't disregard forces that operated like that, then we'd quickly run out of uses for conservation of angular momentum, because things like orbits would no longer have it conserved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
Regardless you're mistaken in thinking you'd drift 'half way around the world', your ground track would only move until your rotational velocity had 'balanced out' for your particular altitude.
|
"Balanced out"?
|
|
|
31 Dec 2006, 19:33
|
#260
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,094
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
Why? It's acting along a line through the center of our assumed perfect sphere (that is, directly opposed to gravity), so there won't be any torque, and thus no change in angular momentum. If we wouldn't disregard forces that operated like that, then we'd quickly run out of uses for conservation of angular momentum, because things like orbits would no longer have it conserved.
|
Your terminology confused me, not the concept
Until your rotational velocity was correct for your altitude.
|
|
|
31 Dec 2006, 19:53
|
#261
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
Your terminology confused me, not the concept
|
The fact that I was asking a question seems to have passed you by as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
Until your rotational velocity was correct for your altitude.
|
By what mechanism is it being changed?
|
|
|
31 Dec 2006, 20:08
|
#262
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,094
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
The fact that I was asking a question seems to have passed you by as well.
|
Can you rephrase and ask again, because i missed it
Quote:
By what mechanism is it being changed?
|
Conservation of angular momentum/rotating frame of reference, choose your pick!
|
|
|
31 Dec 2006, 20:49
|
#263
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
Can you rephrase and ask again, because i missed it
|
It was the first word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
Conservation of angular momentum/rotating frame of reference, choose your pick!
|
Demonstrate this please, I might be being very slow today.
|
|
|
31 Dec 2006, 22:05
|
#264
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,094
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
It was the first word.
|
Because 'hovering' to me implies consciously staying in the same position wrt the ground, ie hovering above the takeoff spot- you're putting in an external force to keep position.
Quote:
Demonstrate this please, I might be being very slow today.
|
You want me to derive the coriolis effect both in terms of conservation of momentum and rotating frame of reference
If we just accept the coriolis effect exists and that after a vertical take off there is no external force to keep the helicopter over a fixed position, then the helicopter via the coriolis effect must change its position wrt the ground. Think of it in the same way as a space elevator but without the cable restraining it. As you move up you'll deflect away from the point you took off from, as long as there was no external input as you came back down you'd deflect back towards the point you took off from.
|
|
|
31 Dec 2006, 23:17
|
#265
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
Because 'hovering' to me implies consciously staying in the same position wrt the ground, ie hovering above the takeoff spot- you're putting in an external force to keep position.
|
No, why does it make conservation of angular momentum pointless?
Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
You want me to derive the coriolis effect both in terms of conservation of momentum and rotating frame of reference
|
I understand the coriolis effect exists (well, "exists") and that the acceleration due to it stops when the heci-lopter stops gaining height... but I don't see how this means that it will take off and land at the same spot. If the helicopter went up and then came down again, with an instantaneous pause at the top, then yes, the acceletarion due to the ascent would cancel with the acceleration due to the descent, and it would land on the same spot (air currents and resistance permitting)*.
But it hovers for a non-zero amount of time. If the helicopter "lags behind" the place where it took off, that must mean there's a non-instantaneous difference in angular velocity between them, which means that, when there are no net forces (excepting the centripetal force required for it to continue to orbit) acting on it then the angular velocity must continue to be lower than that of the point it took off from. In order for it to remain in the same relative position then, as the helicopter is taking off, it must undergo a net accelerate in the direction of the earth's rotation, which is in the opposite direction to the coriolis effect.
*Actually, it wouldn't. The accelerations would cancel out, but there would still be a lag.
Last edited by MrL_JaKiri; 1 Jan 2007 at 21:23.
|
|
|
1 Jan 2007, 05:00
|
#266
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
while i applaud mark's (entirely correct) explanation I can not but help think that it would have been quicker to reply "we have a moon ****tards".
|
apparently not.
__________________
hi
|
|
|
1 Jan 2007, 08:13
|
#267
|
USS Oklahoma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
|
Re: A Plane Problem
What would happen if a helicopter hovered over a runway which was actually a giant treadmill with a fixed wing aircraft trying to take off, would JBJ still be able to drink a Guiness or would all of the ale be sucked from the bottle and into a rift in the universe?
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
|
|
|
1 Jan 2007, 12:24
|
#268
|
the Sacred Pervert
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,492
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by dda
What would happen if a helicopter hovered over a runway which was actually a giant treadmill with a fixed wing aircraft trying to take off, would JBJ still be able to drink a Guiness or would all of the ale be sucked from the bottle and into a rift in the universe?
|
I think the spinning of the treadmill, the propellers from the helicopter, and the intakes from the engines of the fixed-wing will create a huge black hole and suck all the Guiness of the world, and JBG will die.
Pg 6 btw..
__________________
"....some might say, we will find a brighter day...."
-Oasis
Veneratio | Insomnia | F-Crew | Subh
|
|
|
8 Nov 2007, 22:01
|
#269
|
Love's Sweet Exile
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Living on a Stair (Now Sword-less)
Posts: 2,371
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Mythbusters are apprently going to do the plane-conveyor thing to see what happens:
Quote:
``We put the plane on a quarter-mile conveyor belt and tested it out,'' says Savage about the experiment using a pilot and his Ultralight plane. ``I won't tell you what the outcome was, but the pilot and his entire flight club got it wrong.''
|
http://www.mercurynews.com/food/ci_7...nclick_check=1
__________________
--SYMM--
Ba Ba Ti Ki Di Do
|
|
|
8 Nov 2007, 23:46
|
#270
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Dear lord!
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
9 Nov 2007, 15:19
|
#271
|
Infrequent
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 186
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
I'm staying out of this one
|
Me too
__________________
S.H.I.T
Self Harm In Tyneside
|
|
|
9 Nov 2007, 18:29
|
#272
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Bumping certain threads should automatically give the bumper Super-AIDs.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
|
|
|
12 Nov 2007, 19:45
|
#273
|
Back from timeout.
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 901
|
Re: A Plane Problem
The plane will take off.
It's not a question of forward motion but a question of airflow over the wings. The amount of lift generated over a wing is based on two things, thrust and Bernoulli's Principle.
For example: My students and I practice a manuever called slow flight where we put down the flaps and landing gear and pitch up to what is called minimum controllable airspeed(Vmca).
On rare occasions, when the airplane is slowed to Vmca, the pilot can turn the airplane into a strong enough wind and look at the ground and do one of 3 things: Fly forward at an extremely slow speed, remain stationary by essentially hovering, or fly backwards due to the wind being greater than the airplanes forward motion.
Now this situation is slightly different than the one mentioned, but the concept is the same: if enough air is travelling over the wings the airplane will fly, whether it be forwards or backwards.
This is all considered without taking into account that turbine engines produce anywhere upwards of 200,000 pounds of thrust.
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
You'll have to prise my penis from my cold, dead hand!
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Yahwe
Gay ducks only do it because it impresses their peers.
|
|
|
|
12 Nov 2007, 19:49
|
#274
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by QazokRouge5
The plane will take off.
It's not a question of forward motion but a question of airflow over the wings. The amount of lift generated over a wing is based on two things, thrust and Bernoulli's Principle.
|
where would the airflow come from if the plane isn't moving forward on the conveyor belt
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
12 Nov 2007, 19:59
|
#275
|
Back from timeout.
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 901
|
Re: A Plane Problem
in order for the airplane to counteract the treadmills reverse motion it has to create its own forward motion. And again, this is without considering the angle of incidence of the airplane and the induced lift caused by the thrust of the engines.
It doesnt occur to most people that the put the engines on the wings for a reason.
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
You'll have to prise my penis from my cold, dead hand!
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Yahwe
Gay ducks only do it because it impresses their peers.
|
|
|
|
12 Nov 2007, 20:06
|
#276
|
Insomniac
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by QazokRouge5
in order for the airplane to counteract the treadmills reverse motion it has to create its own forward motion. And again, this is without considering the angle of incidence of the airplane and the induced lift caused by the thrust of the engines.
It doesnt occur to most people that the put the engines on the wings for a reason.
|
If the engines being placed on the wing was sufficient for takeoff then planes would be able to take off vertically, with no downdraft required. Simply put the wheel brakes on - set engine to full and fly upwards.
|
|
|
12 Nov 2007, 20:11
|
#277
|
Back from timeout.
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 901
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
If the engines being placed on the wing was sufficient for takeoff then planes would be able to take off vertically, with no downdraft required. Simply put the wheel brakes on - set engine to full and fly upwards.
|
This makes absolutely no sense, which is a rarity for you Phil.
The core exhaust (thrust) of the airplane is pointed towards the back of the plane. The thrust generated by the engine is directed over the wing and thus creating airflow over the wings.
As for your suggestion, maybe I'm just not reading it like you want me to because I don't understand what you're saying.
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
You'll have to prise my penis from my cold, dead hand!
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Yahwe
Gay ducks only do it because it impresses their peers.
|
|
|
|
12 Nov 2007, 20:16
|
#278
|
Insomniac
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
|
Re: A Plane Problem
I was thinking in terms of props, mounted on the wing in front. Those push air ( in part ) over the wings surface - and if this thrust was sufficient vertical flight from it would be possible. Since prop planes cannot vertically take off at present, the thrust from the engine across the wings alone is insufficient
|
|
|
12 Nov 2007, 20:29
|
#279
|
Back from timeout.
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 901
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Well losing one engine in flight will result in an 80% loss of lift and a 50% loss of thrust. (Assuming only 2 engines on a conventional twin)
I see what you're saying, but you have to realize that helicopters could easily cover the criteria that you have suggested.
Besides, I think the Osprey program, despite its hiccups would also apply?
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
You'll have to prise my penis from my cold, dead hand!
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Yahwe
Gay ducks only do it because it impresses their peers.
|
|
|
|
12 Nov 2007, 21:06
|
#280
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by QazokRouge5
in order for the airplane to counteract the treadmills reverse motion it has to create its own forward motion. And again, this is without considering the angle of incidence of the airplane and the induced lift caused by the thrust of the engines.
It doesnt occur to most people that the put the engines on the wings for a reason.
|
No i dont think you understand the problem the treadmil is going AT THE SAME SPEED as the plane so its not going to move and hence wont take off.
Its largely a question of coriolis forces; if you arent balancing out the implied momentum from the treadmill then you obviously arent going to have flight regardless of the Bernoulli effect.
|
|
|
12 Nov 2007, 21:11
|
#281
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: A Plane Problem
this thread. which i note once died and i am not forgiving symm but that's another topic ...
... anyway this thread would never have got so big if any of you had ever run on a treadmill yourself
EDIT: FYI as 'they' say nowadays i notice Nod is quite right but i still find it ****ing shocking that fat little me is the only one here to have ever run on a treadmill ...
__________________
hi
|
|
|
12 Nov 2007, 21:39
|
#282
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
No i dont think you understand the problem the treadmil is going AT THE SAME SPEED as the plane so its not going to move and hence wont take off.
Its largely a question of coriolis forces; if you arent balancing out the implied momentum from the treadmill then you obviously arent going to have flight regardless of the Bernoulli effect.
|
I think this means you're disagreeing with Jakiri :fissicks-duel:
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
12 Nov 2007, 21:41
|
#283
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
I think this means you're disagreeing with Jakiri :fissicks-duel:
|
which is so odd when one considers how similar their reactions to meeting people
__________________
hi
|
|
|
14 Nov 2007, 18:51
|
#284
|
Bored
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nottm ->Shef ->Croydon ->Manc ->Durham ->Sheffield
Posts: 6,506
|
Re: A Plane Problem
I was assuming that the people who came into this thread now saying it wouldn't take off were trolling.
Mainly because it was proved time and time again earlier in the thread.
|
|
|
14 Nov 2007, 20:36
|
#285
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ste
I was assuming that the people who came into this thread now saying it wouldn't take off were trolling.
Mainly because it was proved time and time again earlier in the thread.
|
far-sin-ate-ing stuff daaaarling dooo sooo key-ppe uss inn-four-med
__________________
hi
|
|
|
14 Nov 2007, 22:55
|
#286
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ste
Mainly because it was proved time and time again earlier in the thread.
|
How was it proved?
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
14 Nov 2007, 23:20
|
#287
|
Bored
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nottm ->Shef ->Croydon ->Manc ->Durham ->Sheffield
Posts: 6,506
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
How was it proved?
|
with maths and physics?
|
|
|
14 Nov 2007, 23:23
|
#288
|
The Twilight of the Gods
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ste
with maths and physics?
|
Actually, in a non-Newtonian environment the plane wouldn't take off. It was one of the thought experiments used to demonstrate the difference between newtonian and einsteinian mechanics.
|
|
|
16 Nov 2007, 09:54
|
#289
|
Choice of Whacker sir?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 679
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
Actually, in a non-Newtonian environment the plane wouldn't take off. It was one of the thought experiments used to demonstrate the difference between newtonian and einsteinian mechanics.
|
if you had said this in your first post I might have believed you, rather I think yo have had time to google and are now trying to pass off intelligence you lack
__________________
* thanos sets mode: -brain The_Shadow_Man
|
|
|
16 Nov 2007, 12:10
|
#290
|
Henry Kelly
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 7,374
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShadowMan
if you had said this in your first post I might have believed you, rather I think yo have had time to google and are now trying to pass off intelligence you lack
|
lolling
__________________
You're now playing ketchup
|
|
|
16 Nov 2007, 12:39
|
#291
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
Actually, in a non-Newtonian environment the plane wouldn't take off. It was one of the thought experiments used to demonstrate the difference between newtonian and einsteinian mechanics.
|
What's a "non-Newtonian" environment? Somewhere that does not obey the normal rules of gravity?
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
16 Nov 2007, 12:39
|
#292
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ste
with maths and physics?
|
Oh I must have missed the standardised test proving this with maths and physics
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
16 Nov 2007, 13:36
|
#293
|
Next goal wins!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 5,406
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Tom you're making terrible posts, stop for your own sake.
__________________
bastard bastard bastard bastard
|
|
|
16 Nov 2007, 14:23
|
#294
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Don't listen to him Tom I think you're making wonderful posts.
Not really I'm just bored.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
|
|
|
16 Nov 2007, 14:47
|
#295
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepflow
Tom you're making terrible posts, stop for your own sake.
|
I was actually being serious about the non-Newtonian environment
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
16 Nov 2007, 14:55
|
#296
|
Next goal wins!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 5,406
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
I was actually being serious about the non-Newtonian environment
|
yeah i know
__________________
bastard bastard bastard bastard
|
|
|
16 Nov 2007, 16:34
|
#297
|
break it down!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,087
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepflow
Tom you're making terrible posts, stop for your own sake.
|
Yeah tom you should stop or you'll no longer be cool enough to be part of the #v crew
__________________
I put the sex in dyslexia!
|
|
|
16 Nov 2007, 17:13
|
#298
|
Next goal wins!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 5,406
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Kila_
Yeah tom you should stop or you'll no longer be cool enough to be part of the #v crew
|
I dunno man he's got a long way to go before he sinks to your level
__________________
bastard bastard bastard bastard
|
|
|
16 Nov 2007, 17:21
|
#299
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepflow
Tom you're making terrible posts
|
Mr Henry St. John, plz stop with the hating and the feuding.
kthnxsbye
P.S it's only taken you five and a half years to realise that? Thank god the drugs haven't affected your judgement or reaction times.
|
|
|
16 Nov 2007, 17:41
|
#300
|
Next goal wins!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 5,406
|
Re: A Plane Problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson
Mr Henry St. John, plz stop with the hating and the feuding.
kthnxsbye
P.S it's only taken you five and a half years to realise that? Thank god the drugs haven't affected your judgement or reaction times.
|
I wasn't doing drugs 5 and a half years ago.
Think how much quicker i would have been if i had been
__________________
bastard bastard bastard bastard
Last edited by Deepflow; 16 Nov 2007 at 17:47.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:24.
| |