Gyroscopic effects
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: tomorrow on 12 Jul 2010 12:15 On Jul 12, 11:19 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: > > On Jul 9, 3:15 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: > >>> On Jul 9, 10:36 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>>> tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: > >>>>> Yes, but it is vintage, classic, succinct, and comfortingly familiar > >>>>> reeky traditional bullshit! > >>>> Unlike your and twitbull's claim > >> Oh wow, you're so embarrassed by what you've said that you > >> had to censor it. Here's what you and twitbull believe. And > >> yes, it's very, very wrong. > >> "Left to it's [sic] own devices, a non-sidecar bike will fall > >> right over. And this is equally true whether said bike is moving > >> or at rest." That right there is some brand new reeky bullshit! <g> > >>> I'd much rather be lumped in with Pete and his positions - even when > >>> doing so is as nonsensical as you doing so above > >> The nonsense is yours and twit's, Tim. Like everyone but you > >> and twitbull, I understand that a moving bike will most definitely > >> not fall right over just as quickly as a stationary bike. Since > >> you believe that, you must also believe that all the people who've > >> seen riderless bikes roll along for considerable distances are > >> delusional, and all the videos showing the same thing are faked. > > No, what's silly is that you waste so much time making up stuff like > > this to "respond" to. > > Nothing was made up. Sure it was. I never said that I believe that a moving bike will fall over as quickly as a stationary bike, and I don't believe that, but you stated as fact that I do believe that. You made that up. As usual, you are incapable of separating your cherished items of faith from items of objective fact. This is no longer surprising or noteworthy to anyone who has read more than one or two of your postings.
From: Henry on 12 Jul 2010 12:31 tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > On Jul 12, 11:19 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: >>> On Jul 9, 3:15 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>> The nonsense is yours and twit's, Tim. Like everyone but you >>>> and twitbull, I understand that a moving bike will most definitely >>>> not fall right over just as quickly as a stationary bike. Since >>>> you believe that, you must also believe that all the people who've >>>> seen riderless bikes roll along for considerable distances are >>>> delusional, and all the videos showing the same thing are faked. >>> No, what's silly is that you waste so much time making up stuff like >>> this to "respond" to. >> Nothing was made up. > Sure it was. I never said that I believe that a moving bike will fall > over as quickly as a stationary bike, and I don't believe that, but > you stated as fact that I do believe that. twitbull said that, and you ran to his defense and said he was right when many others showed that he was mistaken. If you're now agreeing with the rest of us that he's mistaken, you should say it clearly and honestly. Give it a try. You'll feel better... -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 12 Jul 2010 13:00 tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > On Jul 12, 11:19 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: >>> On Jul 9, 3:15 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>> The nonsense is yours and twit's, Tim. Like everyone but you >>>> and twitbull, I understand that a moving bike will most definitely >>>> not fall right over just as quickly as a stationary bike. Since >>>> you believe that, you must also believe that all the people who've >>>> seen riderless bikes roll along for considerable distances are >>>> delusional, and all the videos showing the same thing are faked. >>> No, what's silly is that you waste so much time making up stuff like >>> this to "respond" to. >> Nothing was made up. > Sure it was. I never said that I believe that a moving bike will fall > over as quickly as a stationary bike, and I don't believe that, but > you stated as fact that I do believe that. You made that up. One of the things I like about newgroups is that when people try to weasel or lie out of their previous remarks, there's a record that reveals the truth. This can be very frustrating for some people, but it's been an asset for me. That's why my posts often include quotes and references. Look at your comment at the end of the quoted post below. It reads: "Aamof, everything he wrote above is entirely correct." The word "he" clearly refers to twitbull, and "everything "he wrote above" includes this passage: "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." So you see, Tim, you did in fact agree with twitbull that a moving bike will fall over as quickly as a stationary bike. Now you're saying that you don't believe that. Rather than admit that your mistake, you're probably going to project your frustration with yourself at me, because I have again spoken the truth. When you get upset with people because they display honesty, accuracy, integrity, and credibility, the problem is most likely on your end. You really should work on that problem and try to "act more like an adult".... <g> tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > On Jul 8, 8:30 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 8, 6:29 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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. -- "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 12 Jul 2010 14:21 On Jul 12, 1:00 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: > > On Jul 12, 11:19 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: > >>> On Jul 9, 3:15 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>>> The nonsense is yours and twit's, Tim. Like everyone but you > >>>> and twitbull, I understand that a moving bike will most definitely > >>>> not fall right over just as quickly as a stationary bike. Since > >>>> you believe that, you must also believe that all the people who've > >>>> seen riderless bikes roll along for considerable distances are > >>>> delusional, and all the videos showing the same thing are faked. > >>> No, what's silly is that you waste so much time making up stuff like > >>> this to "respond" to. > >> Nothing was made up. > > Sure it was. I never said that I believe that a moving bike will fall > > over as quickly as a stationary bike, and I don't believe that, but > > you stated as fact that I do believe that. You made that up. > > One of the things I like about newgroups is that when people try > to weasel or lie out of their previous remarks, there's a record > that reveals the truth. This can be very frustrating for some people, > but it's been an asset for me. That's why my posts often include > quotes and references. Look at your comment at the end of the quoted > post below. It reads: > > "Aamof, everything he wrote above is entirely correct." > > The word "he" clearly refers to twitbull, and "everything "he > wrote above" includes this passage: > > "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." > > So you see, Tim, you did in fact agree with twitbull that a moving > bike will fall over as quickly as a stationary bike. No, I did not, and Pete did not say that. You should re-read what you quoted. Pete said that either bike will fall right over. A stationary bike will fall right over when you let go of the handlebars because it is stationary. A moving bike will fall right over when it hits something or slows to the point that it is no longer stable, which in the real world, happens right away. I even cited an example of this happening to illustrate the point. If you wish to play word games (of course you do; that is your entire existence on usenet) you are welcome to, but I'm not going to play. I've told you this repeatedly, but you are incapable of understanding how adults interact. You know as well as I do, as well as Pete does, how motorcycles in general work, and you know EXACTLY what Pete was saying, and you simply CHOOSE to misinterpret it so that you can play your silly little game. Have fun. P.S. There's a perfect example of the way adults interact in my discussion of this exact issue with Stephen!, but never mind that; you've demonstrated repeatedly that you're not capable of learning from example. You obviously prefer personal attacks and name calling.
From: S'mee on 12 Jul 2010 14:31
On Jul 12, 12:21 pm, "tomor...(a)erols.com" <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > You know as well as I do, as well as Pete does, how motorcycles in > general work, and you know EXACTLY what Pete was saying, and you > simply CHOOSE to misinterpret it so that you can play your silly > little game. You are forgetting Henry is an idiots and incapable of learning. |