Cheapo bike



J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 00:12:57 -0000, "half_pint"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> You haven't seen Guy's bike haven't you?

>He hasn't seen mine either.


I don't need to. I can be pretty confident that mine is both heavier
and more aerodynamic. But go ahead and prove me wrong if you will...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
C

Carol Hague

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:


> As to "drop both bikes off the cliff" - never heard of Galileo have
> you?


Rays!

--
Carol
"I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
- Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Carol Hague" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1go3zc0.da8bvpe4214wN%[email protected]
> half_pint <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > When thrown over a clift my bike will reach the bottom first.

>
> Ahem. There's some chap outside called Galileo who'd like a word about
> that...


Unfortunately he is dead and wrong, I am correct and very much alive,
objects only fall at the same speed in a vacuum, as far as objects of the
same shape are concerned, heavier objects fall faster through air.


>
> --
> Carol
> "I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
> - Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).
 
R

Richard

Guest
half_pint wrote:
> Unfortunately he is dead and wrong, I am correct and very much alive,
> objects only fall at the same speed in a vacuum, as far as objects of the
> same shape are concerned, heavier objects fall faster through air


You're still wrong. There are many examples of heavier objects falling
slower than lighter objects through air, as well as vice versa.

R.
 
C

Clive George

Guest
"half_pint" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Carol Hague" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1go3zc0.da8bvpe4214wN%[email protected]
> > half_pint <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > When thrown over a clift my bike will reach the bottom first.

> >
> > Ahem. There's some chap outside called Galileo who'd like a word about
> > that...

>
> Unfortunately he is dead and wrong, I am correct and very much alive,
> objects only fall at the same speed in a vacuum, as far as objects of the
> same shape are concerned, heavier objects fall faster through air.


Do you want to clarify that statement or carry on looking stupid?

clive
 
D

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers

Guest
>Do you want to clarify that statement or carry on looking stupid?
>
>clive


Don'cha know that when Galileo was alive, oxygen had not been "discovered" nor
the other consituent parts of air, IIRC (my history of science is a little
vague on exact dates this afternoon), ergo, Galileo must have been working in a
vacuum. Stands to reason, guv'nor.

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*[email protected]$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
 
V

Velvet

Guest
half_pint wrote:
> "Carol Hague" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1go3zc0.da8bvpe4214wN%[email protected]
>
>>half_pint <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>When thrown over a clift my bike will reach the bottom first.

>>
>>Ahem. There's some chap outside called Galileo who'd like a word about
>>that...

>
>
> Unfortunately he is dead and wrong, I am correct and very much alive,
> objects only fall at the same speed in a vacuum, as far as objects of the
> same shape are concerned, heavier objects fall faster through air.
>
>
>
>>--
>>Carol
>>"I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
>> - Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).

>
>
>


Um, identical shape *and* size, I presume you meant to say. A heavier
but larger object *cannot* be guaranteed to fall faster than a lighter
but smaller one.

--


Velvet
 
V

Velvet

Guest
Velvet wrote:
> half_pint wrote:
>> Unfortunately he is dead and wrong, I am correct and very much alive,
>> objects only fall at the same speed in a vacuum, as far as objects of the
>> same shape are concerned, heavier objects fall faster through air.
>>
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Carol
>>> "I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
>>> - Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).

>>
>>
>>
>>

>
> Um, identical shape *and* size, I presume you meant to say. A heavier
> but larger object *cannot* be guaranteed to fall faster than a lighter
> but smaller one.
>


Oh, and I've gotta ask - did uk.legal get so fed up with you that they
universally killfiled you? :)

--


Velvet
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> > Thus terminal velocity is proportional to the square root of weight, if

you
> > dispute
> > then have a word with Nasa.
> >
> > I am sure they will take your views in account (ie dismiss them) when
> > designing
> > the next generation of space shuttles :O|

>
> I strongly suspect that anyone at Nasa talking about "weight" will find
> themselves travelling well in excess of terminal velocity on their way
> to the job centre!


Well you best tell them to remove the term from their offical
website

This is the guy you will need to speak to as he produced the page.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/benson.html


Good luck ;O)

>
> Jon
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
> >Do you want to clarify that statement or carry on looking stupid?
> >
> >clive

>
> Don'cha know that when Galileo was alive, oxygen had not been "discovered"

nor
> the other consituent parts of air, IIRC (my history of science is a little
> vague on exact dates this afternoon), ergo, Galileo must have been working

in a
> vacuum. Stands to reason, guv'nor.


Ah yes the vacuum (of intelligence?) which surrounds the leaning tower
of Pisa where he conducted his famous experiment by droping a
cannon ball and a wooden ball from the tower.

http://www.endex.com/gf/buildings/ltpisa/ltpnews/physnews1.htm
"This story is apocryphal. While some of his earlier predecessors actually
performed this experiment, Galileo did not. However, when Galileo was an
old man, one of his students did perform the demonstration to an audience
of Aristotlean scholars and found in fact a slight difference in the time
the two balls struck the ground."

So there you have it, Galileo was wrong and I am correct, unfortunately
I am far smarter than he ever was :O)


>
> Cheers, helen s
>
>
> --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
> to get correct one remove fame & fortune
> h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*[email protected]$*a$o*l.c**$om$
>
> --Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched

off--
>
>
>
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Velvet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint wrote:
> > "Carol Hague" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:1go3zc0.da8bvpe4214wN%[email protected]
> >
> >>half_pint <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>When thrown over a clift my bike will reach the bottom first.
> >>
> >>Ahem. There's some chap outside called Galileo who'd like a word about
> >>that...

> >
> >
> > Unfortunately he is dead and wrong, I am correct and very much alive,
> > objects only fall at the same speed in a vacuum, as far as objects of

the
> > same shape are concerned, heavier objects fall faster through air.
> >
> >
> >
> >>--
> >>Carol
> >>"I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
> >> - Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).

> >
> >
> >

>
> Um, identical shape *and* size, I presume you meant to say.


Obviously.

> A heavier
> but larger object *cannot* be guaranteed to fall faster than a lighter
> but smaller one.


True. (Were those objects of the same shapes by the way? You didn't
specify)

> --
>
>
> Velvet
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Velvet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Velvet wrote:
> > half_pint wrote:
> >> Unfortunately he is dead and wrong, I am correct and very much alive,
> >> objects only fall at the same speed in a vacuum, as far as objects of

the
> >> same shape are concerned, heavier objects fall faster through air.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> --
> >>> Carol
> >>> "I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
> >>> - Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>

> >
> > Um, identical shape *and* size, I presume you meant to say. A heavier
> > but larger object *cannot* be guaranteed to fall faster than a lighter
> > but smaller one.
> >

>
> Oh, and I've gotta ask - did uk.legal get so fed up with you that they
> universally killfiled you? :)


No I kil filed them :O)

>
> --
>
>
> Velvet
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> > Granted you will go up faster than me but I will be faster going down!!

>
> Really? My current record stands at 48mph, and I intend to better that
> soon. Given that the enormous amount of cod knowledge that you carry
> with you will inevitably slow you down, I'll beat you up and down the
> hill.


Maybe as I have a bigger brain I need a bigger head which will
be a disadvantage terms of aerodynamics.

>
> > Yes generally but if you do not eat a healthy ammount you will not feel
> > very energetic at all!

>
> But that does not change the maths. I believe that what you are saying
> is, "If you eat less, you may feel less inclined to exercise and thus
> will use even less energy.". This however has no effect on the in:eek:ut
> ratio for energy. It's an argument for eating a sensible diet.
>
> > Well yes it is a bit of an 'old wives tale' but there tends to be quite

a
> > lot
> > of truth in them, if you eat in the morning you may well feel more

energetic
> > and burn that energy off, you will not burn much energy off when you are
> > asleep!

>
> A "bit of an 'old wive's tale'"? Presumably, one should only eat in the
> morning then. Your whole metabolism slows down while you sleep. This
> means you use less energy than when walking around during the day, but
> also means that you put down fat more slowly.
>
> Once more, regardless of when you eat, if you take in more energy than
> you use, you will gain weight.


True but it does not follow that eating less makes you lose weight.
>
> Jon
 
V

Velvet

Guest
half_pint wrote:
> "Velvet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>>half_pint wrote:
>>
>>>"Carol Hague" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:1go3zc0.da8bvpe4214wN%[email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>>half_pint <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>When thrown over a clift my bike will reach the bottom first.
>>>>
>>>>Ahem. There's some chap outside called Galileo who'd like a word about
>>>>that...
>>>
>>>
>>>Unfortunately he is dead and wrong, I am correct and very much alive,
>>>objects only fall at the same speed in a vacuum, as far as objects of

>
> the
>
>>>same shape are concerned, heavier objects fall faster through air.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Carol
>>>>"I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
>>>> - Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>Um, identical shape *and* size, I presume you meant to say.

>
>
> Obviously.
>
>
>> A heavier
>>but larger object *cannot* be guaranteed to fall faster than a lighter
>>but smaller one.

>
>
> True. (Were those objects of the same shapes by the way? You didn't
> specify)
>
>


I didn't specify because it has no bearing on the validity of my statement.

Your statement that your heavier bike will fall faster is only valid
with the qualifiers that it is a) identically shaped, b) identically
sized, and c) identically launched off clifftop to the lighter bike.

Since it is very rare that two bikes are of differing densities yet
exactly the same size/shape/launch angles, it is by no means certain
that your statement is thus true.

I'm now off to do more useful things in my life, half_pint, than argue
the principles of physics and application thereof. However, you might
like to note that acceptance into a group is generally made easier by a
more friendly attitude than you've displayed thus far. Many many people
here are extremely experienced cyclists who can and do regularly offer
very good quality advice on a vast range of topics.

If you truly wish to get any benefit out of this group, I'd suggest
re-evaluating the way you post. I for one can't see much of value thus
far from what you're typing, and I suspect you've hit the killfiles of a
lot of people already. I'm sure once almost everyone's done that things
will get very boring for you, so I'd hope it doesn't come to that if,
indeed, you really are a cyclist and actually interested in
participating in the group.

--


Velvet
 
D

Doki

Guest
half_pint wrote:
> "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>>
>> half_pint wrote:
>>> "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> half_pint wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When thrown over a clift my bike will reach the bottom first.
>>>>
>>>> You never did Physics did you?
>>>
>>> Only as far as 'A' level, the finer points are not covered
>>> at CSE level, as you have demonstrated.

>>
>> I'm pretty sure you've got no idea whether your bikes more
>> aerodynamic than anyone elses's when it's tumbling down the side of
>> a cliff. Ignoring aero drag, two objects of differing mass will drop
>> at the same speed.

>
> However you cannot ignore aero drag, you certaintly won't win any
> bicycle races if you do.


We weren't talking bicycle races, you ****wit. You were talking about
throwing bikes over cliffs. If you want to win bike races, buy an expensive
bike, train lots, take performance enhancing drugs. If you want to ride
fast, get a recumbent.
 
D

Doki

Guest
half_pint wrote:
> "Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
>
>> Once more, regardless of when you eat, if you take in more energy
>> than you use, you will gain weight.

>
> True but it does not follow that eating less makes you lose weight.


I think you'll find it does. There's a thing called thermodynamics you may
have heard of.
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Velvet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint wrote:
> > "Velvet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >
> >>half_pint wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Carol Hague" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:1go3zc0.da8bvpe4214wN%[email protected]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>half_pint <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>When thrown over a clift my bike will reach the bottom first.
> >>>>
> >>>>Ahem. There's some chap outside called Galileo who'd like a word about
> >>>>that...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Unfortunately he is dead and wrong, I am correct and very much alive,
> >>>objects only fall at the same speed in a vacuum, as far as objects of

> >
> > the
> >
> >>>same shape are concerned, heavier objects fall faster through air.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Carol
> >>>>"I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
> >>>> - Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Um, identical shape *and* size, I presume you meant to say.

> >
> >
> > Obviously.
> >
> >
> >> A heavier
> >>but larger object *cannot* be guaranteed to fall faster than a lighter
> >>but smaller one.

> >
> >
> > True. (Were those objects of the same shapes by the way? You didn't
> > specify)
> >
> >

>
> I didn't specify because it has no bearing on the validity of my

statement.
>
> Your statement that your heavier bike will fall faster is only valid
> with the qualifiers that it is a) identically shaped, b) identically
> sized, and c) identically launched off clifftop to the lighter bike.
>
> Since it is very rare that two bikes are of differing densities yet
> exactly the same size/shape/launch angles, it is by no means certain
> that your statement is thus true.
>
> I'm now off to do more useful things in my life, half_pint, than argue
> the principles of physics and application thereof. However, you might
> like to note that acceptance into a group is generally made easier by a
> more friendly attitude than you've displayed thus far. Many many people
> here are extremely experienced cyclists who can and do regularly offer
> very good quality advice on a vast range of topics.
>
> If you truly wish to get any benefit out of this group, I'd suggest
> re-evaluating the way you post. I for one can't see much of value thus
> far from what you're typing, and I suspect you've hit the killfiles of a
> lot of people already. I'm sure once almost everyone's done that things
> will get very boring for you, so I'd hope it doesn't come to that if,
> indeed, you really are a cyclist and actually interested in
> participating in the group.



Well whatever, I am entitled to my opinions and if people do not like
them they can either show that they are incorrect opinions or just
accept that there are some facts they do not like.

And if pointing out that someone is incorrect is unfriendly
I have to plead as guilty, as guilty as the person who incorrectly
pointed out I was wrong.

My opinions are based on facts and I cannot help it if
the facts disagree with other peoples opinions, however
experienced they are.




>
> --
>
>
> Velvet
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> half_pint wrote:
> > "Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Once more, regardless of when you eat, if you take in more energy
> >> than you use, you will gain weight.

> >
> > True but it does not follow that eating less makes you lose weight.

>
> I think you'll find it does. There's a thing called thermodynamics you may
> have heard of.


Well whatever you are obviously wrong.

>
>
 
V

Velvet

Guest
half_pint wrote:

>
>
> Well whatever, I am entitled to my opinions and if people do not like
> them they can either show that they are incorrect opinions or just
> accept that there are some facts they do not like.
>
> And if pointing out that someone is incorrect is unfriendly
> I have to plead as guilty, as guilty as the person who incorrectly
> pointed out I was wrong.
>
> My opinions are based on facts and I cannot help it if
> the facts disagree with other peoples opinions, however
> experienced they are.
>

You need to learn to post those 'facts' accurately then, because,
believe me, you aren't at the moment. The 'facts' are dribbled out step
by step, as others take issue with the holes in your 'facts'.

Either state them in their accurate entirety first (or even second) off,
or stop making out you know everything there is to know about everything.

It might be fun for you, but posting incomplete and thus misleading
information is irresponsible if it has a link with safety. Of course,
you might not give a monkey's about that. And judging from your reply,
I'm guessing you are just here to express your 'opinions' and see just
how much dust you can stir up doing it.

Which continues to make me believe you're not a cyclist but a troll
who's got bored of uk.legal and moved here instead.

Thus, you'll be killfiled, I'm afraid to say. I for one can live
without your opinions, and based on what you've said so far, I'm pretty
sure you're not going to come out with any life-changing statements that
will lead to my increased safety, enjoyment or ability when it comes to
cycling.

Think of it this way:
You say your opinions are based on facts.
I say my opinions are based on facts.

Your opinions, after closer scrutiny, turn out to be something other
than what you originally claimed. Do I therefore trust what you tell
me? No, and rightly so.

You could say 'oh such and such brakes blah blah' and I take it at face
value. Off I go, brakes fail, oops. You counter with 'but not if x y
z' - having failed to state that originally. You *knew* it was
misleading but you continued anyway.

I believe everyone that posts here regularly has the best interests of
their fellow riders at heart. But you... y'know, I just can't put you
along side them yet.

Sad, but true.


--


Velvet
 
V

Velvet

Guest
half_pint wrote:
> "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>
>>half_pint wrote:
>>
>>>"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Once more, regardless of when you eat, if you take in more energy
>>>>than you use, you will gain weight.
>>>
>>>True but it does not follow that eating less makes you lose weight.

>>
>>I think you'll find it does. There's a thing called thermodynamics you may
>>have heard of.

>
>
> Well whatever you are obviously wrong.
>
>
>>

>
>


Gosh, how about you provide some facts to back this up then, half_pint?

Once again you're twisting the argument, insisting everyone else but you
fully qualifies the argument to the nth degree.

--


Velvet