Butters

I must have missed where he said "and you better believe it too" - can you point it out for me, or were you just projecting? I'm using past and present posts to connect the dots. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Blah, blah, blah ... I believe in something I can't prove and you better believe it to ... blah, blah, blah. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Certainly not! Just the Roman Pagan goddess worship of her. I'd use the book from which they base their faith to argue my case. So you would belittle others beliefs because they are not your beliefs. No, I would explain how many of their beliefs are not found in scripture and in fact, are the opposite. And they would explain how many of your beliefs are not found in their scripture ... PS: Ignorant religious individuals make me wish the rapture had happened because then the world wouldn't have to deal with them and could move on to bigger and better things. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

They could have not had a prayer which caused waves ... should we call them stupid f**kers also? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Certainly not! Just the Roman Pagan goddess worship of her. I'd use the book from which they base their faith to argue my case. So you would belittle others beliefs because they are not your beliefs ... so your intolerant and a hypocrite. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

... of the same coin. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I like the dive and flair ... we could always use this for glide ratio. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

So you like to smoke the shit out of the small penis on your bicycle? Interesting ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Pretty difficult assumption to satisfy over that speed range. Why? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Video "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

The geek in me loves the data overlay ... nice flight. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I'm all about speed. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

If you want to be specific than go weigh a T-Bird and an S-Bird ... do they weigh the same? No. The size of his or her suit does affect the answer. PS: Now add a weight belt. Grasping at straws now? Are you asking yourself? After all, I've been right from the beginning ... a larger suit causes more disturbance, a larger suit with a weight belt causes more disturbance, and a larger suit has a larger area of disturbance. Having trouble admitting you're wrong now? "Smaller suits also cause less disruption to the air flow around them, making it easier for others." is NOT in agreement with the fundamental conservation laws of physics, for reasons already explained. From a theoretical standpoint, a larger suit will weigh more than a smaller suit and thus a larger suit will cause more disruption in accordance with the fundamental conservation laws of physics. From a practical standpoint, a larger suit flown inefficiently produces more disruption over a larger area than a smaller suit flown efficiently. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Does a smaller suit weigh less than a larger suit? Yes. So weight was implied. Does fall rate change whether a lighter object has more disruption than a heavier object? No. So fall rate doesn't matter. Keep grasping at straws ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

If you want to be specific than go weigh a T-Bird and an S-Bird ... do they weigh the same? No. The size of his or her suit does affect the answer. PS: Now add a weight belt. Grasping at straws now? Are you asking yourself? After all, I've been right from the beginning ... a larger suit causes more disturbance, a larger suit with a weight belt causes more disturbance, and a larger suit has a larger area of disturbance. Having trouble admitting you're wrong now? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

If you want to be specific than go weigh a T-Bird and an S-Bird ... do they weigh the same? No. The size of his or her suit does affect the answer. PS: Now add a weight belt. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Im truly moved and feel sorry for your loss, but dont see why you suddenly skip the whole arguement, and start naming other reasons for flying a certain sized suit. . Because it's the suit I bought when I was 9 kg heavier. You and Butters have this asinine thinking that I should jump a smaller suit because I've lost weight. All this started because I stated that larger suits produce more disturbance and you disagreed ... it's your inability to admit you're wrong that is asinine. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

But not with neccessary range and maneuverability, obviously. And regardless of the suitability of the big suits for flocking, an 80mph base is a problem! I mean come on, what's the point? I agree that those speeds are a problem. I disagree that the solution is to wear a large suit and add weight ... Your position is that using a suit I already have with a weight belt that I already have for RW is inappropriate, and spending $1,200 for a different suit so I can jump with the big boys is the way to go. Do you get a commission on WS sales? No, I don't. You're proving my point, you can't (or won't) admit that you were wrong. An individual in a larger suit with a weight belt causes more disturbance than the same individual in a smaller suit without a weight belt. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

But not with neccessary range and maneuverability, obviously. And regardless of the suitability of the big suits for flocking, an 80mph base is a problem! I mean come on, what's the point? I agree that those speeds are a problem. I disagree that the solution is to wear a large suit and add weight ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

And neither do they care about your lack of applying the proper ones to the situation we are discussing... Conservation of momentum IS the correct law. The momentum you transfer to the atmosphere each second depends on weight and fall rate but NOT on area. So someone would transfer more momentum to the atmosphere if they added weight? And less if the base slowed down, which WAS my original point. But you would transfer even less momentum if you didn't add weight and they slowed down ... correct? Edit: Why were you even wearing a wingsuit at those speeds? After all, you've mentioned in other threads that you can track at those speeds ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

And neither do they care about your lack of applying the proper ones to the situation we are discussing... Conservation of momentum IS the correct law. The momentum you transfer to the atmosphere each second depends on weight and fall rate but NOT on area. So someone would transfer more momentum to the atmosphere if they added weight? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Why does it have to be a replacement? I climb and skydive! "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

If it's a two way I'll chase, if it's a three way it depends on other things whether I'll chase or finish the dive plan, if it's a four (or more) way I'll finish the dive plan. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I may not know Newtonian physics but I know I was right and you were wrong ... I also know that you won't (or can't) admit it. The laws of physics care little for your opinion. Opinion? I was right, fact. You won't (or can't) admit it, fact. Care to stop attacking the poster(s) and attack the argument? Edit: You may want to read the book Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, And Hurtful Acts. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Horrible exits ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch