A paradoxical thought experiment
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: The Older Gentleman on 9 Jul 2010 06:50 Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 12:09 am, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older > Gentleman) wrote: > > > > > > > because it's heavier and therefore has somewhat more inherent > > > stability than does a bicycle. > > > > I strongly suspect that someone has got his physics badly muddled here, > > but not being a fizzy-cyst I can't say for certain. > > Follow the bouncing ball: > > 1.) Due to inertia, a moving object will travel in a straight line > unless something deflects it. > > 2.) If two objects of differing mass are both travelling at the same > speed, it will require more force to deflect the more massive one a > given amount from it's original course than it will to deflect the > less massive one by that same amount. > > 3.) Motorcycles are normally quite a bit more massive than bicycles, > and it therefore requires more force to deflect a motorcycle from it's > path than it does to deflect a bicycle. > > 4.) That means that by virtue of it's greater mass, a motorcyle is > inherently more directionally stable than a bicycle. <Waves hands vaguely> Whatever. Like I said, I'm no physicist and I suspect someone could equally well convince me the other way. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: Henry on 9 Jul 2010 08:19 tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > On Jul 8, 2:54 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Twitbull imagined: >>> In real life, on real roads, a riderless bike will fall over rather >>> quickly. >> Wow. Poor twit. Even the obvious, simple things in life, he >> can't understand. Earth to twit - many people, including myself >> have seen bikes roll along without a rider for considerable >> distances. > Yep. And then fall over quite quickly. Like Pete said. Quoting twitbull: "Note: Left to it's own devices, a non-sidecar bike will fall right over. And this is equally true whether said bike is moving or at rest." So, as anyone can plainly see, twit said that even a moving riderless bike will fall over quite quickly. You're being very silly again, Timmy. That seems to happen whenever you come to the defense of my most rabidly obsessed and psychotic critics or the government's insane 9-11 cartoon fairy tale. But since twitbull and the clown lack the self respect, integrity, and spine to speak for themselves, I suppose you're just being compassionate when you try to defend them. Too bad for you (and them) that they appear to be beyond help. A guy couldn't ask for better "critics", though... <g> -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: tomorrow on 9 Jul 2010 08:25 > So, as anyone can plainly see, twit said that even a moving > riderless bike will fall over quite quickly. You're being very > silly again, Timmy. That seems to happen whenever you come to > the defense of my most rabidly obsessed and psychotic critics > or the government's insane 9-11 cartoon fairy tale. > But since twitbull and the clown lack the self respect, integrity, > and spine to speak for themselves, I suppose you're just being > compassionate when you try to defend them. Too bad for you (and > them) that they appear to be beyond help. A guy couldn't ask for > better "critics", though... <g> This paragraph tells readers far more about you (and trust me, what it tells them is not laudatory) than it does the two reeky contributors that you are criticizing. I know that you are incapable of realizing this fact, but that doesn't make it any less true.
From: Ben Kaufman on 9 Jul 2010 08:26 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 13:59:11 -0500, Mark Olson <olsonm(a)tiny.invalid> wrote: >Twibil wrote: >> On Jul 8, 11:05 am, Mark Olson <ols...(a)tiny.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> A riderless bike will happily stay upright so long as it is moving. >>> Put a throttle lock on it and give it open space and it will go >>> until it runs out of gas. >> >> Only on some ideal -but unreal- perfectly flat surface that extends >> forever. >> >> In real life, on real roads, a riderless bike will fall over rather >> quickly. > >Sure, if the throttle closes it will slow down and fall over. > >Bikes don't stay up because of rider input. They stay up because they >are dynamically stable. > >Where did you come up with the idea that bikes need a perfectly flat >surface to avoid falling over? > >Sure, if you don't have someone controlling the bike, and the surface the >bike is on is not open as I said, eventually it will run into something. >But it definitely doesn't have to be perfectly flat and level. > In fact, when in a " tank slapper" it is best not to fight the handle bars and let the bike correct itself. Ben
From: Henry on 9 Jul 2010 08:52
Twitbull timidly backpedaled and weaseled: > On Jul 8, 2:15 pm, "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: >>> Note: Left to it's own devices, a non-sidecar bike will fall right >>> over. And this is equally true whether said bike is moving or at rest. >>> It's only the kickstand when at rest, or the rider's constant >>> corrections when moving, that keep it upright. >> You're joking? I've seen bikes buck their rider off then proceed to the >> next corner just fine on their own. I assume you have too. > Sigh. > Yes, a bike at speed is dynamically stable. You said that left to its own devices, a bike will fall right over, and whether said bike is at speed or at rest makes no difference. You're backpedaling and weaseling again. > In the real world, neither thing ever takes very long to occur > the slower the bike is going the less stability it has, and the faster > it's going the more quickly it's likely to laminate itself to an > immovable object. And of course, "laminating itself into an immovable object" is a totally different thing than falling right over. As we've pointed out to you, an upright, moving, riderless bike will roll along quite nicely for considerable distances. You're backpedaling and weaseling, again, twit. Here's a clue - when you say something really silly that's clearly at odds with reality, and several people correct you, rather than dig yourself an even deeper hole, find the strength and integrity to admit that you were wrong.... -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |