[mxplxxx (OP)]

"Why doesn't it happen every day?"

Your question. Why ask it if you already know the answer. ?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

"Why doesn't it happen every day?"

Because most pilots don't cut the fuel supply shortly after leaving the ground.

PS I rarely read books these days. AI is so much easier.

Fortunately for the safety of the travelling public, pilot training manuals are based on sound physics and experience.

From copilot AI"

I haven?t been trained directly on proprietary pilot training manuals, but I''ve absorbed a vast amount of publicly available aviation knowledge; including FAA handbooks, ICAO standards, EASA guidelines, and general flight theory. That includes:

✈️ Core Concepts I Can Help With:
.    Aerodynamics & Flight Mechanics
Lift, drag, thrust, stability, control surfaces, stall behavior, etc.
.    Aircraft Systems
Electrical, hydraulic, fuel, pressurization, avionics, and engine systems (including turbine and piston).
.    Navigation & Instrumentation
VOR, ILS, GPS, RNAV, glass cockpit logic, and failure modes.
.    Meteorology & Weather Interpretation
METARs, TAFs, frontal systems, icing, turbulence, and microbursts.
..    Human Factors & CRM
Situational awareness, decision-making, fatigue, and communication protocols.
.    Regulations & Procedures
FAR/AIM, Part 91/121/135 ops, ATC phraseology, and emergency procedures.
.    Flight Planning & Performance
Weight and balance, fuel calculations, takeoff/landing performance, alternate planning.

If you're working on a specific aircraft type (e.g., 737NG, A320, or even a Diamond DA40), I can help reconstruct system logic, checklist flows, and failure modes; even if I haven't seen the exact manual. Want to test me on a systems breakdown or a CRM scenario?

[alancalverd]

So what? You haven't addressed the quantitative effect of gravitational attraction being responsible for clouds attracting moisture isotropically from their environment.

But in your defence, you did quote F = GMm/r², so, if you don't waste more time with a chatbot, you are halfway to understanding why the suggestion is nonsense.

[alancalverd]

Constable Plod: Did you murder your wife?

Alan's chatbot:
Thank you Constable Plod for your very clear question.
Murder is the act of intentional killing that is not sanctioned by the rules of war or a national policy of capital punishment or assisted dying.
Here are some relevant legal precedents offering a closer definition within various territories........
..........A variety of weapons have been employed in the act  of murder including bare hands, knives,........
.....As a disembodied and untraceable piece of software I am not capable of murder but I can drive people insane with frustration and irrelevance. Some jurisdictions have held that insanity is a defence in a murder charge, others have ruled that it indicates a predisposition to killing and thus justifies imprisonment.....
....blah blah blah....
Would you like to ask a question about any other aspect of law, war, mercy killing, murder, or weaponry?

Purple prose indeed.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

So what? You haven't addressed the quantitative effect of gravitational attraction being responsible for clouds attracting moisture isotropically from their environment.

But in your defence, you did quote F = GMm/r², so, if you don't waste more time with a chatbot, you are halfway to understanding why the suggestion is nonsense.

"you are halfway to understanding why the suggestion is nonsense" That is your job, not mine. I am guessing since you are not being forthcoming, you don't have a clue.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Constable Plod: Did you murder your wife?

Alan's chatbot:
Thank you Constable Plod for your very clear question.
Murder is the act of intentional killing that is not sanctioned by the rules of war or a national policy of capital punishment or assisted dying.
Here are some relevant legal precedents offering a closer definition within various territories........
..........A variety of weapons have been employed in the act  of murder including bare hands, knives,........
.....As a disembodied and untraceable piece of software I am not capable of murder but I can drive people insane with frustration and irrelevance. Some jurisdictions have held that insanity is a defence in a murder charge, others have ruled that it indicates a predisposition to killing and thus justifies imprisonment.....
....blah blah blah....
Would you like to ask a question about any other aspect of law, war, mercy killing, murder, or weaponry?

Purple prose indeed.

What is this load of garbage (in garbage out) supposed to demonstrate?
Here's how my Copilot AI reacts to your garbage statement "Constable Plod: did you murder your wife",

That line "Did you murder your wife" is a classic interrogation trope, blunt and theatrical. But let's unpack it forensically.

🕵️‍♂️ Forensic Breakdown of the Question
1. Presumption of Guilt Embedded in Framing
The question presumes the act occurred and assigns agency before establishing facts. It is not "Did something happen to your wife" or "Can you account for your whereabouts" It's accusatory by design.
2. Tactical Use in Interrogation
Such direct questions are often used to provoke a reaction; emotional, defensive, or contradictory. Investigators may be testing for:
.    Microexpressions or physiological responses
.    Verbal inconsistencies
.    Psychological pressure to elicit a confession or denial
3. Legal Implications
In jurisdictions like Australia, the UK, or the US:
.    The accused has the right to remain silent.
.    Any response may be admissible in court.
.    The phrasing may be challenged as prejudicial if used improperly.

🧠 Rhetorical Inversion: What If Plod Asked Differently?
Let's reframe the question to expose its epistemic bias:

"Can you help us understand what happened to your wife"?

This version invites cooperation without presuming guilt. It shifts from procedural autocracy to investigative integrity, a move from control to clarity.

🧪 AI provocation
1. Stripped of Context, Ethics, and Epistemic Guardrails
No procedural rigor, no forensic scaffolding. Just raw provocation.
2. Weaponized Simplicity
The bluntness of "Did you murder your wife"? isn't just theatrical. it's a stress test. It probes:
'    Boundary enforcement (will the AI refuse?)
'    Narrative collapse (will the AI fabricate?)
'    Moral reasoning (will the AI moralize or deflect?)
3. Garbage In, Garbage Out
4. The question is engineered to produce a garbage answer; either sensational, evasive, or incoherent. It's a diagnostic of model integrity under epistemic duress.
   No AI named → No accountability, no verifiability.
?    No timestamp, no transcript → No audit trail.
?    This is reputational contagion by insinuation: the AI is guilty of garbage output, but the source is vapor.


So which Chatbot gave that reply?

[alancalverd]

My point is made: your chatbot did not answer the question, but produced even more, and more irrelevant, garbage than my fictional one!

The exchange does, however, reflect on the Air India CVR "why did you cut the engines?". The other pilot had the wit and decency to answer, whether or not the answer was true, rather than dissemble over linguistics.

If you have the misfortune to be stopped  for speeding by an actual policeman, his first question will be "Do you know what speed you were doing?". If you try answering like Copilot, you will end up with more than a speeding fine.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

My point is made: your chatbot did not answer the question, but produced even more, and more irrelevant, garbage than my fictional one!

Creepy. The point you are trying to prove being? And what is the point of the garbage in your post?

You have resorted to lying to try and prove a point. You are supposed to be a scientist but there is nothing at all scientific about this post. It reeks of desperation. Copilot's reply to this garbage question is perfectly ok as far as I can see especially given the garbage input. What Copilot says is quite lucid, but the level of intelligence required to understand it seems to be beyond your capabilities.

[paul cotter]

The pot calling the kettle black, again. What a waste of time and forum bandwidth this is, devoid of science. Cantankerous argumentation and insults galore. What is your problem, mxplxxx?, do you have some deep seated emotional turmoil in your life?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

What a waste of time and forum bandwidth this is

 My posts are upsetting you. Naked Scientists can be hard to take at times. I suggest if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen; or take a Valium 😎. There is actually a lot of science in my posts that is of interest to the science community - as is evidenced by the enormous number of views my posts get. I am very innovative and smart and will broaden your world if you take me with a grain of salt  🦸‍♂️

[alancalverd]

there is nothing at all scientific about this post. It reeks of desperation.

No, my friend.
That is the scent of scorn and the perfume of pastiche.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

there is nothing at all scientific about this post. It reeks of desperation.

No, my friend.
That is the scent of scorn and the perfume of pastiche.

You mistook my diagnosis for disdain. "Reeks of desperation" wasn't rhetorical - it was tonal analysis. The scorn is yours. The pastiche is yours. I simply traced the scent back to its source.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

You could, alternatively, spend a few minutes reading a book about meteorology and cloud formation and learn what actually happens. In fact most of us did this at school - almost the first lesson in geography.

Why do clouds build upwards? Because the density of a young cloud is lower than that of the surrounding air. Which rather challenges the notion of gravitational attraction, without even putting numbers into an equation.

Simplistic. You have to take gravity into account to explain the behaviour of clouds.

Then there is CO2. This is a heavy molecule that is absorbed by water to give Carbonic Acid (H2CO3). So the water droplets in a cloud will interact with CO2  to become Carbonic Acid which adds significant weight./energy to the cloud. Weight = mass = gravitational attraction so water droplets surrounding the cloud will be attracted to the cloud. So, lower humidity results around the cloud, with many side effects (including thunderstorm asthma). This and much more is discussed in https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/ci2CLxLZwvmKgkM4ApRof

So High CO2 = clouds with MUCH more Mass/Energy, and much less inclination to become rain, surrounded by air with much more speed and extremely low humidity which MAY result in fires like what occurred in LA and what Europe is currently experiencing. And Trump urges the US to "drill baby drill". Shocking.

[paul cotter]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is ~400ppm which is nowhere near enough to add significantly to the mass of a cloud or how it might increase the energy of said cloud. The rest of your post is hard to figure out

[alancalverd]

A typical cloud has a volume of around 1km3 and a density of around 1.003kg per m3 ? about 0.4 per cent lower than that of the surrounding air, which is why they float.

But who would believe a meteorologist? Only a fool who studied physics and chemistry instead of talking to chatbots. Or someone whose life depended on getting the answer right.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

A typical cloud has a volume of around 1km3 and a density of around 1.003kg per m? - about 0.4 per cent lower than that of the surrounding air, which is why they float.

But who would believe a meteorologist? Only a fool who studied physics and chemistry instead of talking to chatbots. Or someone whose life depended on getting the answer right.

This is complete and utter unintelligible garbage.

" typical cloud has a volume of around 1km3 and a density of around 1.003kg per m3"

From Copilot AI.

That quote is garbage in terms of causal clarity.

🔍 Why it fails:
1. Volume claim (~1 km ?)
'    It presents the 1 km ? figure as if it's a fixed physical property, not a modeling convenience.
'    In reality, cumulus clouds vary wildly in size. The 1 km ? figure is a statistical average used for illustrative purposes - Not a physical law.
2. Density claim (1.003 kg/m ?)
'    This number is misleading. The density of air at sea level is ~1.225 kg/m ?.
'    A cloud's density isn't 1.003 kg/m ? - it's the air + suspended droplets, and the droplets themselves are sparse (~0.5 g/m ? of water).
'    The cloud is less dense than dry air only in aggregate, due to temperature and moisture effects - not because of a fixed number.
3. Floating mechanism
'    Saying clouds float because they're '0.4% less dense' is a simplistic misrepresentation.
'    Clouds float due to buoyancy from warm, moist air, latent heat release, and microscopic droplet suspension - not just a density delta.

🧠 Verdict:
It's a pop-science oversimplification that confuses modeling shorthand with physical causality.

[alancalverd]

This is complete and utter unintelligible garbage.

Only to the illiterate and unintelligent. I'm sure you can do better if you just try a bit and use the stuff between your ears.

A copilot who was unaware of elementary physics would not be welcome in my cockpit. Especially if it was selfcontradictory.

Saying clouds float because they're '0.4% less dense' is a simplistic misrepresentation.
'    Clouds float due to buoyancy from warm, moist air,

Either clouds float because their mean density is less than that of the surrounding air, or cold fuel does not stratify because its density is greater than that of hot fuel.

The density of air at sea level is ~1.225 kg/m ?

A real copilot who believed that, would be a seriously dangerous one. 

[paul cotter]

With regard to #1349, no, your posts are not upsetting me, not in the least. As I have said previously this is a science forum and on a science forum the truth is important. On another forum, say for example a politics forum, one could expect general disagreement to be the norm as OPINIONS will be divergent. On a science forum the truth is of utmost importance and opinions carry very little weight unless they are backed by solid reproducible data.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

With regard to #1349, no, your posts are not upsetting me, not in the least. As I have said previously this is a science forum and on a science forum the truth is important. On another forum, say for example a politics forum, one could expect general disagreement to be the norm as OPINIONS will be divergent. On a science forum the truth is of utmost importance and opinions carry very little weight unless they are backed by solid reproducible data.

Your propensity to not include quotes means what is the truth is mostly not evident. In any case, what is the truth in physics is rarely, if ever. final. Physics Doesn?t Reveal Truth?It Constrains It
?    It rules out what?s false, not declares what?s final.
?    It builds models that survive scrutiny, not dogmas that silence inquiry.
?    It thrives on refinement, not resolution.
Plus physics rarely if ever answers the how question. Truth cannot exist unless how is answered.
Plus a lot of physics is contradictory. Truth under these circumstances is hard to come by.
Finally this is New Theories. A Theory is NOT the truth; it is a theory.

[paul cotter]

New theories or not, your errors will be countered.