The111

No, your toggle is INTERNAL to the reference frame (the moving mass of air). Physically impossible. Wind only exists on the reference frame of the ground. You can walk into wind, but you can't fly into it. You only fly in air. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Is there a reason we don't consider momentum in these conversations? A 200 pound human traveling at 600 mph would have considerable momentum. I'm thinking specifically of how an individual would swing out from under the canopy when starting a sharp turn from a 0 mph ground speed versus a 45 mph ground speed. My brain is struggling with visualizing, let alone calculating whether or not there would be a difference, not to mention a noticeable one. When the winds are that high where I jump, turbulence would crush any other more subtle factors. -eli It's all about reference frames, Eli. The whole universe is in motion, has momentum and velocity. Our galaxy and our planet both have motion. To consider any physics problem, you have to pick a reference point and say that it's not moving (which is a lie, since everything is moving, always). If your reference point is the body of air you are in, your momentum is unchanged whether you are flying your canopy through still air or fast air. The only thing different about fast air is that the ground is moving rapidly underneath it. That's what the air thinks at least.... the ground thinks the air is moving rapidly right above it. In the end, the physics of you flying your parachute, diving, turning, flaring, does not change in your "body of air" reference frame. It only changes to somebody standing on the ground, on Earth. Or on Mars, or anywhere else in the universe. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Your ground speed doesn't increase when you "turn downwind"... it increases when you fly downwind, period. Winds have everything to do with your groundspeed and nothing to do with your airspeed. They also don't affect your descent rate during a turn unless they are blowing vertically up or down. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

You car is anchored to the ground by its tires. Your canopy is not. You are thinking in terms of a ground dweller and not somebody in flight. If you hold your hand out the window of an airplane flying on a day with no winds.... vs a day with high winds... you will feel the same force. Because the airspeed it the same. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

No offense taken, but your observation begs more fundamental questions. What is the definition of a serious discipline? One where records (of contact-formations) can be made? Because there are plenty of serious disciplines that don't fall under that definition (freestyle, skysurfing, swooping). To me it seems the common denominator or "serious" disciplines is a numeric metric that can be achieved to provide the competitors with a constant ongoing challenge. RW formation? Biggest, or most points turned. Swoop? Longest, or fastest. Although, some artistic disciplines still fall outside of this definition. As a photographer, I am lucky, because my discipline is entirely artistic... the challenge which I am constantly facing is this: take better pictures. Nobody can define that with numbers, so I have only myself to please. As it should be. What can be done to make wingsuiting "serious?" And does this matter to us? But perhaps the most important question of all: what is the value of a "serious" discipline vs one that is... not serious? Did we start skydiving to: a) be serious b) impress our peers c) have fun? To me, being arty is more fun than being serious. I'd be bored off my ass turning points all day long. Do I think the guys who do are serious? Sure. But I also think trees are tall and water is wet. Neither fact is really relevant to my purpose. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

How does the software solution deal with lens distortion? I'm assuming since the angles are all based off each local member, that this method can handle lens distortion better than the grid can. Also, where do you put the dots? In the center of the helmet? What happens if you have a dot in what you think is the center of a helmet, and the formation fails, but you move that dot over to the edge of the helmet and then it succeeds? It could turn into a "positioning game" like the current grid is. All in all though I think it sounds like a really good idea. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I drop out of my wing and land it all the time. I call that wing a par-a-chute. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yes, camping WILL be allowed. Also, I checked with the Hyatt. I got a rate for $165.00 a night with continental breakfast included, free water and soda, free parking and no hidden fees. There are 20 rooms available. I will post the contact info soon cause the manager of the hotel asked for a meeting before giving this rate out. It was 220 a night and she lowered the rate to $165.00. This is one of the nicest hotels around the Dorado area, if not, the second best in Dorado. The best being the embassy suites. Let me know if anyone is interested, send me a PM. I got a studio room at the Hyatt for avg $153 per night at the normal web rate. It has one bed and one fold out sofa bed. Still a little more than I'd like to spend, but at least it was easy to do. I called several of the numbers in this thread and got no reply and at one of them somebody kept picking up the phone and not saying anything. At least the Hyatt is easy to deal with, even if it is a class up from my usual accommodations. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Wrong. If it had, the issue wouldn't be before the courts and there wouldn't be referenda. Evolution is a process. Maybe it's not finished evolving (but really, what ever does finish?). Which means it still will evolve some more (i.e. in those last few places of the human mind that are so resistant to change). But, it already has evolved. This discussion actually proves that. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Did you not grow up while drugs were illegal? So apparently the laws didn't make it any better. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

True enough, I'm not sure what he is trying to prove by repeatedly mentioning how "small" the group is. Size has no bearing on right or wrong. It's one of the most evil logical fallacies around that the majority is right (or the converse, that the minority is wrong). Man, that description conjured up an amusing picture. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Well, the way I see it is this: He won't discuss my analogy anymore (as he keeps repeating). But he WILL discuss his refusal to discuss it (as he keeps doing). Pretty soon, he will no longer discuss the discussion regarding his refusal to discuss my analogy. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

No, that would be an analogy for homosexuals wanting to be called heterosexual. Which they never asked for. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Find me a couple dozen 200 year old legal libraries to prove that. Doesn't matter, because it was never the point of my analogy anyway. The analogy was about rights being denied to minorities. Read it again... I never used the word "legal definition" anywhere. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

It was certainly denied to blacks! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Not in the constitution, but it was culturally, socially defined that way. I'd even wager it existed in some sort of dictionary definition of it, somewhere, back then. Of course I have no way to prove that. Not by the constitution, it's not. Culturally, socially, it is. But that definition is already under debate, therefore it's a shaky "definition" at best (or the debate wouldn't exist). Many dictionaries already mention that there are more than one type of marriage (and I'm not just talking about homo vs hetero here). www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Which article of the Constitution did that? It only speaks to "free persons". Color is not mentioned anywhere. And which article of the constitution defines marriage? To the best of my understanding, the consitution does not mention marriage. Please correct me if I'm wrong. My analogy was never about the letter of the constitution. It was about the laws that are in effect today. 99% of which we know aren't mentioned in the constitution (like income taxes, speed limits, and a dozen others). You made this about the constitution, so if you're going to call my analogy poor because of the constitution, then please back that up. Otherwise, accept my analogy. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

So, when exactly did you begin expressing your opinion that the definition and business of marriage should be kept away from the government? Where were you before the current debate? Your issue is apparently unrelated to the current debate, so it should have been tabled long ago. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

The government has already been using the word marriage for centuries (as you keep pointing out) and we're not much worse for the wear. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yup, and plenty of English speaking countries already support gay marriage. The word has already been usurped. Those dictionaries are already going down the drain, man. Poor, poor dictionary factories. They're really going to be feeling the squeeze in these upcoming years. Dictionaries are re-written all the freaking TIME. Language was created by man, we certainly have the time and ability to control it. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Then please explain why, as you explained why Bill's didn't work. Black - a minority group being denied a right Homosexual - a minority group being denied a right Citizenship - the right being denied blacks Marriage - the right being denied homosexuals Was it a usurpation of the English language to redefine the word citizen, when blacks got the rights that went along with citizenship? Why not just give them all the rights, but make a new word for them? Leave the word citizenship as it's been for ages, for non blacks? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I changed a few words around to illustrate my analogy. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I agree with you that is not a great analogy. So here's one that DOES work. When blacks gained citizenship rights, did we leave the word citizen for non-blacks, and give the blacks a new word to describe their legal status? Blitizen? Negrizen? OR... did we "usurp" the existing word: citizen? If you really want to specify the skin color of a citizen, you can easily do so with a modifier in front of the word. Black citizen. White citizen. Whatever. Just like once the gays usurp the word marriage, we can still use modifiers to further describe that marriage... if you so desire. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Shit, the homo secret agenda - total linguistic annihilation - is working! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

And that definition is based on an inequality. Could you please qualify labeling them a "special interest group?" Is it your position that being gay is just something to be interested in? Like parachuting? Would you call women a special interest group? Blacks? You give away your entire position by insulting them with this label. You are born black. You are born white. You are born man. You are born women. These are all biological characteristics. We can't redefine them. Marriage is man made. If the definition is wrong, fix it. www.WingsuitPhotos.com