Remove All Wind Abilities

Frosted Tips·Sep 9, 2018·4 votes·1,694 views

It is that simple just remove all abilities that are wind based. has no Ult now has no knock up or windwall no wave clear is of course deleted from existence What do you guys think?

26 Comments

Pokemonred200Sep 9, 20181 votes

Quinn ult doesn't use wind... are you thinking of Riven ?

ΡaradigmSep 9, 20184 votes

if it doesnt use wind how is valor supposed to stay in the air?

BoulderoxSep 9, 20183 votes

[{quoted}](name=Doctor Lilith,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Gyr6uNUE,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-09-09T19:06:29.691+0000)

if it doesnt use wind how is valor supposed to stay in the air?

Anivia AurelionSol Kayle Nocturne Nami Xerath Velkoz Swain ult Aatrox ult...

I would say no, wind isn't required to fly... Wind can assist flight greatly, but there are birds that can achieve flight with wing flap force alone, and glide along the air.

rawiazam1Sep 9, 20181 votes

{quoted}

ult ult...

I would say no, wind isn't required to fly... Wind can assist flight greatly, but there are birds that can achieve flight with wing flap force alone, and glide along the air.

are you high or something? without air no bird or plane can fly unlees they're orbiting the earth

DaBossNoobSep 9, 20183 votes

{quoted}

are you high or something? without air no bird or plane can fly unlees they're orbiting the earth

Wind is not air. Wind is moving air. Without wind there is still air. Also orbit has little to do with air.

rawiazam1Sep 9, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Wind is not air. Wind is moving air. Without wind there is still air. Also orbit has little to do with air.

and how exacly are u gonna generate lift without moving air?

and i clearly said "UNLESS" they're in orbit, suggesting that if you don't orbit the earth, you don't really have a relaible source or staying away from the ground if there is no air

BoulderoxSep 9, 20182 votes

{quoted}

and how exacly are u gonna generate lift without moving air?

and i clearly said "UNLESS" they're in orbit, suggesting that if you don't orbit the earth, you don't really have a relaible source or staying away from the ground if there is no air

air has substance you know, the reason a plane works is along with the general engines, the wings cut through the air, and generate it's own draft that it uses to hold itself aloft. air is a mix of gases wind is moving air... you can use gravity to generate the lift you desire, ie why some birds jump off cliffs... so if you want to argue semantics, you can MAKE your own wind if in whatever impossible world you believe to have no wind... you make wind by moving any mass in the air, it is just so minute that you cannot tell but if you remove air, every living thing dies... happy?

SwiftKitten88Sep 9, 20182 votes

{quoted}

air has substance you know, the reason a plane works is along with the general engines, the wings cut through the air, and generate it's own draft that it uses to hold itself aloft. air is a mix of gases wind is moving air... you can use gravity to generate the lift you desire, ie why some birds jump off cliffs... so if you want to argue semantics, you can MAKE your own wind if in whatever impossible world you believe to have no wind... you make wind by moving any mass in the air, it is just so minute that you cannot tell but if you remove air, every living thing dies... happy?

also

https://thumbnails.texastribune.org/d-LWIAfJUqM1oFvD-nQgEUdNT5I=/850x570/smart/filters:quality(80)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/images/2017/07/05/Hot_Air_balloon_TT.jpg

rawiazam1Sep 10, 20181 votes

{quoted}

also

https://thumbnails.texastribune.org/d-LWIAfJUqM1oFvD-nQgEUdNT5I=/850x570/smart/filters:quality(80)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/images/2017/07/05/Hot_Air_balloon_TT.jpg

boyancy != lift

rawiazam1Sep 10, 20181 votes

{quoted}

air has substance you know, the reason a plane works is along with the general engines, the wings cut through the air, and generate it's own draft that it uses to hold itself aloft. air is a mix of gases wind is moving air... you can use gravity to generate the lift you desire, ie why some birds jump off cliffs... so if you want to argue semantics, you can MAKE your own wind if in whatever impossible world you believe to have no wind... you make wind by moving any mass in the air, it is just so minute that you cannot tell but if you remove air, every living thing dies... happy?

air doesn't have any substance, it is a gas.

if air cant move. it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate lift, when a plane "cuts" through the air, the shape of the wings makes the air under the wing move slower than the air over the wing, this difference in speeds makes difference in pressure. difference in pressure is what lift is. i replied to someone who said wind isn't required to make lift, which is a big mistake. so you point of "we'll all die if there was no air" is very irrelivant

please don't argue in a field you don't understand very well.

SwiftKitten88Sep 10, 20182 votes

{quoted}

please don't argue in a field you don't understand very well.

the air doesn't need to move, "airspeed" is a relative term. the air can be standing still, lift works because air has mass, and the shape of the airfoil means as long as the AOA is low enough to maintain laminar flow over the top of the wing the pressure is lower on the top of the airfoil in relation to the bottom of the airfoil it is pushed "up". this is called "aerodynamic lift". the the AOA is too great it breaks the laminar flow over the wing it causes an aerodynamic stall, modern plans are designed to stall in the area of the wing furthest from the ailerons as possible so u can regain control over the aircraft during said stall

there is also "reaction lift" which u can experience youself by sticking your hand out the window at a slight AOA

i am a FAA certified aircraft mechanic. i have spend 1900 hours learning this and to even be ALLOWED to take the tests, and passed 6 FAA tests, (the first three written ones, needing to be passed to be ALLOWED to take the second three practical ones ), in order to get my FAA certification, i know the flight works...

i have worked on EMB-135, 145, 747-400 and MD-11

and I'm not going to spend time arguing with you.

"wind" is NOT required for flight " only relative movement of a fluid

wind is movement of air in relation to the surface of the earth.

aircraft cause their relative movement, completely independent of "wind".

PS.. gases have substance.. u nitwit...

rawiazam1Sep 10, 20181 votes

{quoted}

the air doesn't need to move, "airspeed" is a relative term. the air can be standing still, lift works because air has mass, and the shape of the airfoil means as long as the AOA is low enough to maintain laminar flow over the top of the wing the pressure is lower on the top of the airfoil in relation to the bottom of the airfoil it is pushed "up". this is called "aerodynamic lift". the the AOA is too great it breaks the laminar flow over the wing it causes an aerodynamic stall, modern plans are designed to stall in the area of the wing furthest from the ailerons as possible so u can regain control over the aircraft during said stall

there is also "reaction lift" which u can experience youself by sticking your hand out the window at a slight AOA

i am a FAA certified aircraft mechanic. i have spend 1900 hours learning this and to even be ALLOWED to take the tests, and passed 6 FAA tests, (the first three written ones, needing to be passed to be ALLOWED to take the second three practical ones ), in order to get my FAA certification, i know the flight works...

i have worked on EMB-135, 145, 747-400 and MD-11

and I'm not going to spend time arguing with you.

"wind" is NOT required for flight " only relative movement of a fluid

wind is movement of air in relation to the surface of the earth.

aircraft cause their relative movement, completely independent of "wind".

PS.. gases have substance.. u nitwit...

air does have to move, you can't create difference in air pressure if the air is static, and no. air speed isn't relative. the wing physically forces the air to move at different speed. although the air might not be moving as fast, but the wing still forces it to crease high and low pressure regions

SwiftKitten88Sep 10, 20181 votes

{quoted}

air does have to move, you can't create difference in air pressure if the air is static, and no. air speed isn't relative. the wing physically forces the air to move at different speed. although the air might not be moving as fast, but the wing still forces it to crease high and low pressure regions

the region is created by the difference in airspeed, obviously there has to be relative movement been the wind and the air, and becuase of the shape of the wind that cuases the air on the top to covered a greater distance and therefore it need to move faster causing a lower pressure

but WIND refers to airspeed in relation to the surface of the earth.

AIRSPEED is necessary for aerodynamic lift.. "WIND" is not.

in fact u can very easily have a 100 MPH and zero airspeed

one of the most dangerous things flight is "wind shear"

which is the wind abruptly changing into the opposite direction at a different elevation

foir example u can have a 50 mph headwind and you could be moving forward at 100 mph that that gives u 150 mph of airspeed and "airspeed" is what u fly off of" but if at 150 feet that 50 mph "wind" changes to the opposite direction

then u suddenly have a 100mphs difference in airspeed becuase not only did u lose 50mph toward u you have 50 mph going BEHIND YOU

so your airspeed drops to 50 mph.. which is no longer enough airspeed to maintain lift... and you drop like a rock.

what i am demonstrating here is that aircraft do not fly off "wind" they fly off "airspeed"

and that is completely different from wind

BoulderoxSep 10, 20181 votes

{quoted}

air doesn't have any substance, it is a gas.

someone forgets that Gas still is made up of molecules, that ARE A SUBSTANCE Because GASES HAVE WEIGHT Hot air expands making it lighter that is how a hot air ballon works

And the pure mention that wind cannot exist, but air can exist baffles me... wind is LITERALLY moving air, and in the case of the plane, wind is generated when high pressure and low pressure are present, and thus the air moves to the low pressure area, creating a wind current, so by your own definition, the plane creates it's own wind current...

I am no science wiz, but you don't need to be an Einstein to see that the periodic table has gasses with weight, thus making them have substance

rawiazam1Sep 10, 20181 votes

{quoted}

someone forgets that Gas still is made up of molecules, that ARE A SUBSTANCE Because GASES HAVE WEIGHT Hot air expands making it lighter that is how a hot air ballon works

And the pure mention that wind cannot exist, but air can exist baffles me... wind is LITERALLY moving air, and in the case of the plane, wind is generated when high pressure and low pressure are present, and thus the air moves to the low pressure area, creating a wind current, so by your own definition, the plane creates it's own wind current...

i didn't say air isn't a substance. i said air doesn't have a substance because you said "air has substance" which i don't really know what the ment to mean.

on the other hand, that was my point. someone argued that you can make lift without moving air and i tried to explain why you can't really generate lift if the air doesn't move around the wing. so we're both in agreement around this

HalcyonDwellerSep 10, 20181 votes

{quoted}

someone forgets that Gas still is made up of molecules, that ARE A SUBSTANCE Because GASES HAVE WEIGHT Hot air expands making it lighter that is how a hot air ballon works

And the pure mention that wind cannot exist, but air can exist baffles me... wind is LITERALLY moving air, and in the case of the plane, wind is generated when high pressure and low pressure are present, and thus the air moves to the low pressure area, creating a wind current, so by your own definition, the plane creates it's own wind current...

I am no science wiz, but you don't need to be an Einstein to see that the periodic table has gasses with weight, thus making them have substance

Dude just stop arguing with them. They don't understand what you meant, and they are assuming things about your argument without ever being willing to go back and examine whether their assumptions were wrong.

HalcyonDwellerSep 10, 20181 votes

Wind is moving air, moving air is not always wind. it's not a mutually exclusive definition.

You're using the same silly logic as this:

All cats are mammals, and
all mammals are cats, so <-- here is where you go wrong
dogs, which are also mammals, must also be cats.

That's not how this works at all. You can't reverse a definition of a broader category to encompass only one of it's components.

rawiazam1Sep 10, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Wind is moving air, moving air is not always wind. it's not a mutually exclusive definition.

You're using the same silly logic as this:

All cats are mammals, and

all mammals are cats, so <-- here is where you go wrong

dogs, which are also mammals, must also be cats.

That's not how this works at all. You can't reverse a definition of a broader category to encompass only one of it's components.

you seem to misunderstand the fallacy.

the fallacy states that is two things have something in common you can't conclude that other things are the same. it has nothing to do with the ting that you stated.

wind is moving air. implying that the definition of win is moving air. so moving air = wind. it's definitions, not categories nor traits. so it doesn't fit in the fallacy of false equivalence definition since it's not fallacious. please check your facts first

HalcyonDwellerSep 10, 20181 votes

Here they were talking about wind:

{quoted}

I would say no, wind isn't required to fly... Wind can assist flight greatly, but there are birds that can achieve flight with wing flap force alone, and glide along the air.

Then you used "air" in place of "wind."

{quoted}

are you high or something? without air no bird or plane can fly unlees they're orbiting the earth

Then they pointed out that they were not talking about air.

{quoted}

Wind is not air. Wind is moving air. Without wind there is still air.

And you doubled down talking about air again when they already explained that they weren't talking about air.

{quoted}

and how exacly are u gonna generate lift without moving air?

This entire thing is a misunderstanding that you started. Their original statement was that wind is not necessary for flight. They never said that air was unnecessary for flight.

rawiazam1Sep 10, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Here they were talking about wind:

Then you used "air" in place of "wind."

Then they pointed out that they were not talking about air.

And you doubled down talking about air again when they already explained that they weren't talking about air.

This entire thing is a misunderstanding that you started. Their original statement was that wind is not necessary for flight. They never said that air was unnecessary for flight.

simply not true, wind is neccecery for flight, wind, by your definition is moving air. when i say moving air. i refer to wind

HalcyonDwellerSep 10, 20181 votes

[deleted]

rawiazam1Sep 10, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Holy shit, you care so much about being right that you are incapable of seeing the point.

the point being?

you said that what i claimed is a fallacy, i explained why it isn't. i still don't see which point you're refering to

HalcyonDwellerSep 10, 20181 votes

The premise which you originally disagreed with was: "wind isn't required to fly..."

You argued that "air is required to fly."

They never said air was not required to fly. They said "wind is not required to fly."

It's like someone saying "submarines can dive below the water line," and you responded with "sailboats can't go underwater." They weren't talking about sailboats, and they weren't talking about air.

You argued about a completely unrelated point that had nothing to do with what they were talking about.

rawiazam1Sep 10, 20181 votes

{quoted}

The premise which you originally disagreed with was: "wind isn't required to fly..."

You argued that "air is required to fly."

They never said air was not required to fly. They said "wind is not required to fly."

It's like someone saying "submarines can dive below the water line," and you responded with "sailboats can't go underwater." They weren't talking about sailboats, and they weren't talking about air.

You argued about a completely unrelated point that had nothing to do with what they were talking about.

no, go read the coments again. i argued that you can't generate lift without moving air. if i didn't write moving in one coment doesn't validate what you're saying since i'm clearly refering to moving air. sorry to burst your bubble

HalcyonDwellerSep 10, 20181 votes

{quoted}

no, go read the coments again. i argued that you can't generate lift without moving air. if i didn't write moving in one coment doesn't validate what you're saying since i'm clearly refering to moving air. sorry to burst your bubble

Imagine it like swimming. You can swim without there being a water current. If you flap your arms and scoop the water then you can move. You don't need wind to generate lift the same way you don't need water currents to generate movement while swimming.

Wind in the English language is commonly used to refer to large air currents that flow relatively consistently. If you knew this then you would not have made the misunderstanding in the first place.

Frosted TipsSep 9, 20181 votes

Also Riven R