A paradoxical thought experiment
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: tomorrow on 9 Jul 2010 15:31 On Jul 9, 3:00 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: > > On Jul 9, 8:52 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> 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. > > Only in HenryWorld does someone who, upon being attacked based on word > > choice, EXPANDS and CLARIFIES what was originally meant, get attacked > > AGAIN as backpedaling and weaseling. > > Earth to Timmy! twit claimed that there is no difference in > stability between a moving bike and a bike at rest - they'll > both fall right over and moving makes no difference. > Now it's claiming that a bike at speed is dynamically stable. > Ask twitbull why it "thinks" the more stable bike will fall > right over just as easily and the stationary bike. I'd ask twit > myself, but it's been reduced to hiding from its own idiocy > behind its killfile. <chuckle> Must be fun to be so self-satisfied.
From: Ben Kaufman on 13 Jul 2010 11:33 On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:50:45 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: >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. Ooh, oh, pick me, pick me <g> The flaw in the reasoning between items 2 and 3 is that item 2 compares free bodies and item 3 is a comparison against an immovable object, and in this case the mass of the moving object should not make any difference if it is not a destructive collision. Ben
From: Henry on 13 Jul 2010 12:08 tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > On Jul 8, 8:30 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 8, 6:29 pm, Twitbull imagined: >>> 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. But only until (A) some >>> input such as road camber upsets that stability and starts the bike >>> leaning towards one side or another, or (B) the bike hits something. >>> In the real world, neither thing ever takes very long to occur because >>> 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. >> You are just not correct. > Aamof, everything he wrote above is entirely correct. Even this part? "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." If you really think that's "entirely correct", then you're denying that the gyroscopic forces of the rotating wheels increase the stability of a moving motorcycle. -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: S'mee on 13 Jul 2010 16:32
On Jul 13, 10:08 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: Little boy if you'd bother to read the whole thread you'd understand that your betters have already addressed and corrected this. |