Gyroscopic effects
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Henry on 12 Jul 2010 15:31 > 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: >>>>> 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.... > Oh, well. Carry on with your silly little game, then. Alone. In other words, now that you've lost the silly little game you started, you're taking your ball and running home. Can't say it comes as much of a surprise. It requires a mature, confident, and intelligent adult to own up to his mistakes - children tend to throw little fits and run away... -- "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 12 Jul 2010 15:44 On Jul 12, 12:58 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: What a BIG liar you are...typical of children and wannbe men.
From: tomorrow on 12 Jul 2010 16:11 On Jul 12, 3:31 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > tomor...(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: > >>>>> 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.... > > Oh, well. Carry on with your silly little game, then. Alone. > > In other words, now that you've lost the silly little game you > started, you're taking your ball and running home. Can't say it > comes as much of a surprise. It requires a mature, confident, > and intelligent adult to own up to his mistakes - children tend > to throw little fits and run away... And once again, your silly little game permits you to avoid the actual discussion that the grown-ups are having.
From: tomorrow on 12 Jul 2010 16:12 On Jul 12, 2:55 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > tomor...(a)erols.com <tomorrowaterolsdot...(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? Henry is just playing his usual word games, because as usual, he is completely wrong about the actual subject of discussion.
From: CindiK on 12 Jul 2010 17:22
On Jul 12, 10:26 am, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 7:52 am, CindiK <cindi.k...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 11, 10:29 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 4:28 pm, "Stephen!" <N...(a)spam.com> wrote: > > > > > CindiK <cindi.k...(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:ca36e708-0930-4f23-9646- > > > > 93f5a7de0...(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > I know the angular momentum of the driveshaft in shaft-driven bikes > > > > > makes it impossible for them to wheelie. > > > > > Nice presentation. Oughta catch a few with that cast. > > > > She did, not bad for a dullsville rider. 8^) > > > The catching is easy. I'm less fond of the taking them off the hook > > and gutting and cleaning them. > > Them's the rules kid. You catch it you clean it and mom will cook it. > 8^) ....but... *I* am mom. |