Gyroscopic effects
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: S'mee on 12 Jul 2010 14:36 On Jul 12, 11:00 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: Yep little boy you are one weasling little lying special needs 'tard. Now git boy! You ain't wanted where the adults are.
From: The Older Gentleman on 12 Jul 2010 14:55 tomorrow(a)erols.com <tomorrowaterolsdotcom(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > No, I did not, and Pete did not say that. You should re-read what > you quoted. Good God. Another one? -- 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 12 Jul 2010 14:58 tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > 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. So, when twitbull wrote, "And this is equally true (the bike will fall right over) whether said bike is moving or at rest", you think he meant it applies to a bike at rest but not to a bike that's moving? You sure can be silly at times, Tim. Why not just admit that you and twitbull were wrong, rather than backpedal, weasel, play silly games, and dig yourself an ever deeper hole? > 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. Yes, I do know how motorcycles work and I do know exactly what twitbull said. So does everyone else (except you) who commented, which is why we all corrected him. For some bizarre reason, you expect people to interpret "equally true" to mean "not true at all". That is indeed a *very* silly game, but it's yours and twitbull's, not anyone else's.... -- "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 15:19 On Jul 12, 2:58 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Yes, I do know how motorcycles work Oh, well. Carry on with your silly little game, then. Alone.
From: Henry on 12 Jul 2010 15:21
tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > 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: >>> 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. Equally so. > A stationary bike will fall right over when you let go of the > handlebars because it is stationary. Yes, that's true. > 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. No, that most definitely does not happen right away. As several people have pointed out to you and twitbull, most of us have seen riderless bikes continue to roll upright for considerable periods of time. We have not seen stationary bikes remain upright with no support for equal periods of time. This is why your and twitbull's claim that it's equally true whether the bike is at rest or moving is dead wrong and easily proven to be dead wrong. Even s'mee knows this, so it's obviously incredibly basic stuff. You're just digging yourself an ever deeper hole... -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |