Re: Analytical Nonsense



B

Bob Schwartz

Guest
Scott wrote:
> I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
> you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
> apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
> both mathematically and empirically.
>
> Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
> your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
> presented?

Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He
needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep
it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend
indefensible positions.

I'd just let it go.

Bob Schwartz
 
On Dec 3, 7:30 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
> > you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
> > apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
> > both mathematically and empirically.
>
> > Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
> > your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
> > presented?
>
> Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He
> needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep
> it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend
> indefensible positions.
>
> I'd just let it go.
>
> Bob Schwartz

I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like
picking a scab.
 
On Dec 3, 10:49 am, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 7:30 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Scott wrote:
> > > I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
> > > you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
> > > apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
> > > both mathematically and empirically.
>
> > > Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
> > > your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
> > > presented?
>
> > Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He
> > needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep
> > it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend
> > indefensible positions.
>
> > I'd just let it go.
>
> > Bob Schwartz
>
> I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like
> picking a scab.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



OK Magilla, build your velodrome in straight line, if you think it is
a better idea.
I'll keep building them oval and let the market decide.
P.J.
 
Bob Schwartz wrote:

> Scott wrote:
>
>> I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
>> you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
>> apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
>> both mathematically and empirically.
>>
>> Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
>> your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
>> presented?
>
>
> Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He
> needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep
> it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend
> indefensible positions.
>
> I'd just let it go.
>
> Bob Schwartz


Yeah, good advice, Bobby. Bobby Brady.


Magilla
 
Scott wrote:

> On Dec 3, 7:30 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>>I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
>>>you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
>>>apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
>>>both mathematically and empirically.
>>
>>>Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
>>>your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
>>>presented?
>>
>>Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He
>>needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep
>>it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend
>>indefensible positions.
>>
>>I'd just let it go.
>>
>>Bob Schwartz
>
>
> I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like
> picking a scab.


I'll see you at the cafe in Saulsalito too - 3:00 p.m. this Friday.

Be there.

Magilla
 
[email protected] wrote:

> On Dec 3, 10:49 am, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 3, 7:30 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
>>>>you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
>>>>apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
>>>>both mathematically and empirically.
>>
>>>>Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
>>>>your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
>>>>presented?
>>
>>>Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He
>>>needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep
>>>it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend
>>>indefensible positions.
>>
>>>I'd just let it go.
>>
>>>Bob Schwartz
>>
>>I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like
>>picking a scab.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
>
>
> OK Magilla, build your velodrome in straight line, if you think it is
> a better idea.
> I'll keep building them oval and let the market decide.
> P.J.


If you are in fact a hamster wheel builder, you should take home from
this debate that you should build the largest velodrome oval you can get
away with under the rules if you want your track to set records.

So drop your cute attitude before I wipe the taste out of your mouth.

Magilla
 
On Dec 3, 3:43 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 10:49 am, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 3, 7:30 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>Scott wrote:
>
> >>>>I'm just curious, but what is it about this topic that so captivates
> >>>>you? You're the only person to ever bring this concept up AND you're
> >>>>apparently the only person who tries to refute what has been proven
> >>>>both mathematically and empirically.
>
> >>>>Is this the ultimate troll for you or are you just unwilling to change
> >>>>your mind no matter how much evidence to the contrary of your view is
> >>>>presented?
>
> >>>Magilla has a trolling style that depends on volume. He
> >>>needs to constantly pick at the troll in order to keep
> >>>it bleeding. One technique he uses is to doggedly defend
> >>>indefensible positions.
>
> >>>I'd just let it go.
>
> >>>Bob Schwartz
>
> >>I was just trolling the troll, to see how he'd respond. Sort of like
> >>picking a scab.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > OK Magilla, build your velodrome in straight line, if you think it is
> > a better idea.
> > I'll keep building them oval and let the market decide.
> > P.J.
>
> If you are in fact a hamster wheel builder, you should take home from
> this debate that you should build the largest velodrome oval you can get
> away with under the rules if you want your track to set records.
>
> So drop your cute attitude before I wipe the taste out of your mouth.
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



I have built a few velodromes, see: www.junek-velodromes.com
First two with my own money to provide a facility for St. Catharines
C.C.(Ont.,Canada), where Gord Singleton, Steve Bauer and many other
good ones came from. I know a bit about the mechanics of velodrome
riding and I am also racing on them for last 50 years. We are talking
here about fairly insignificant technical details, conditions are the
same for everybody racing on each particular velodrome, or piece of
road, what is the problem?
The only significant difference between straight road and oval
velodrome is factor of leaning for timed distance records.
For 1 hour record, for instance, rider's center of gravity would
travel 177.2 meters shorter distance on 250 meters velodrome, because
of leaning. Shorter the track, more lean and shorter the distance
which will rider's center of gravity travel. Somewhere around 200
meters track, physiological effect of increased G forces may start to
be negative. Trust me on this, I know how it feels, have raced on
velodromes from 120m to 500 meters, including pro six day races.
Your theory about longer the track the better is not correct, in this
respect.
Peter Junek
 
On Dec 3, 11:09 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> 2) Also do this easy experiment when you get the chance:
>
> Remove a wheel and hold it perpendicular to the ground (the same as if
> it were mounted on your bike). Spin it as fast as you can and then
> suddenly bank the wheel at a 40-degree angle. That tremndous resistance
> you feel is a negative effect that increases with the speed of your
> wheel and only exists in a turn and serves to bleed energy along with
> friction, increased rolling resistance, and negative physiological
> effects (both circulatory and vertigo).

I do find it interesting that you don't understand gyroscopic
precession and how it applies to a wheel.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> Remove a wheel and hold it perpendicular to the ground (the same as if
> it were mounted on your bike). Spin it as fast as you can and then
> suddenly bank the wheel at a 40-degree angle. That tremndous resistance
> you feel is a negative effect that increases with the speed of your
> wheel and only exists in a turn and serves to bleed energy along with
> friction, increased rolling resistance, and negative physiological
> effects (both circulatory and vertigo).

Once again, force perpendicular to the velocity does no work.
Study dynamics. Do not lecture those who know.

What you write is cargo cult physics. You know nothing.
You string words and phrases dropped by those who know
into bright plausible spangly icons of the original.
You know nothing. Those who give you the benefit of
the doubt can interpret some of your constructions as
being sort of true in a good light with a following wind.
The big giveaway is that you cannot discriminate what
is true in the replies you get.

--
Michael Press
 
Michael Press wrote:
>> What you write is cargo cult physics.

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Wow, Michael, there's probably 4 people here who understand that.

http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.php

But of course you're one of those who wouldn't get it even if
you did read the whole thing since all your "science" is
based on right wing idealogy.
 
On Dec 5, 3:17 am, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> >> What you write is cargo cult physics.
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Wow, Michael, there's probably 4 people here who understand that.
>
> http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.php
>
> But of course you're one of those who wouldn't get it even if
> you did read the whole thing since all your "science" is
> based on right wing idealogy.

dumbass,

according to koach kunich science was invented in the 1850s, roughly
120 years after the death of issac newton.
 
On Dec 4, 7:08 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Remove a wheel and hold it perpendicular to the ground (the same as if
> > it were mounted on your bike). Spin it as fast as you can and then
> > suddenly bank the wheel at a 40-degree angle. That tremndous resistance
> > you feel is a negative effect that increases with the speed of your
> > wheel and only exists in a turn and serves to bleed energy along with
> > friction, increased rolling resistance, and negative physiological
> > effects (both circulatory and vertigo).
>
> Once again, force perpendicular to the velocity does no work.
> Study dynamics. Do not lecture those who know.
>
> What you write is cargo cult physics. You know nothing.
> You string words and phrases dropped by those who know
> into bright plausible spangly icons of the original.
> You know nothing. Those who give you the benefit of
> the doubt can interpret some of your constructions as
> being sort of true in a good light with a following wind.
> The big giveaway is that you cannot discriminate what
> is true in the replies you get.
>
> --
> Michael Press

Thanks Mike, I could not have answered like this myself. Closest I was
to Oxford was driving by, once.
In my last reply to Magilla, which did not show up here, I was trying
to explain the acceleration when entering turn comparing it to
piruette balet dancers or figure skaters can perform by pulling arms
in. Corellis (?) effect, I think it was called.
It is practically negligible riding on velodrome, riders are more
likely to feel slightly higher pedaling rpms, but only on small
tracks. I don't want to get into explaining that, now.
Peter Junek
 
[email protected] wrote:

> On Dec 3, 11:09 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>2) Also do this easy experiment when you get the chance:
>>
>>Remove a wheel and hold it perpendicular to the ground (the same as if
>>it were mounted on your bike). Spin it as fast as you can and then
>>suddenly bank the wheel at a 40-degree angle. That tremndous resistance
>>you feel is a negative effect that increases with the speed of your
>>wheel and only exists in a turn and serves to bleed energy along with
>>friction, increased rolling resistance, and negative physiological
>>effects (both circulatory and vertigo).
>
>
> I do find it interesting that you don't understand gyroscopic
> precession and how it applies to a wheel.

-----

I see no measurable influence of this phenonmenon related to a bicycle
wheel in a velodrome turn. I like how you just throw the term out there
and expect people to make the link when it's obvious you can't even
articulate one yourself.

Magilla
 
Michael Press wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Remove a wheel and hold it perpendicular to the ground (the same as if
>>it were mounted on your bike). Spin it as fast as you can and then
>>suddenly bank the wheel at a 40-degree angle. That tremndous resistance
>>you feel is a negative effect that increases with the speed of your
>>wheel and only exists in a turn and serves to bleed energy along with
>>friction, increased rolling resistance, and negative physiological
>>effects (both circulatory and vertigo).
>
>
> Once again, force perpendicular to the velocity does no work.
> Study dynamics. Do not lecture those who know.
>
> What you write is cargo cult physics. You know nothing.
> You string words and phrases dropped by those who know
> into bright plausible spangly icons of the original.
> You know nothing. Those who give you the benefit of
> the doubt can interpret some of your constructions as
> being sort of true in a good light with a following wind.
> The big giveaway is that you cannot discriminate what
> is true in the replies you get.
>

-------
In a turn those forces are no longer perpendicular. They are
pependicular in a straightaway though.

Magilla
 
On Dec 3, 8:30 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I'd just let it go.

I would, too, but it's so much fun to see him repeatedly make a fool
of himself.

Andy Coggan
 
"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Dec 3, 8:30 am, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I'd just let it go.
>
> I would, too, but it's so much fun to see him repeatedly make a fool
> of himself.
>
> Andy Coggan

Don't encourage Mr. Magoo, he thrives on controversy and division.
 
In article
<[email protected]
egroups.com>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Dec 4, 7:08 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >
> > MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Remove a wheel and hold it perpendicular to the ground (the same as if
> > > it were mounted on your bike). Spin it as fast as you can and then
> > > suddenly bank the wheel at a 40-degree angle. That tremndous resistance
> > > you feel is a negative effect that increases with the speed of your
> > > wheel and only exists in a turn and serves to bleed energy along with
> > > friction, increased rolling resistance, and negative physiological
> > > effects (both circulatory and vertigo).
> >
> > Once again, force perpendicular to the velocity does no work.
> > Study dynamics. Do not lecture those who know.
> >
> > What you write is cargo cult physics. You know nothing.
> > You string words and phrases dropped by those who know
> > into bright plausible spangly icons of the original.
> > You know nothing. Those who give you the benefit of
> > the doubt can interpret some of your constructions as
> > being sort of true in a good light with a following wind.
> > The big giveaway is that you cannot discriminate what
> > is true in the replies you get.
>
> Thanks Mike, I could not have answered like this myself. Closest I was
> to Oxford was driving by, once.
> In my last reply to Magilla, which did not show up here, I was trying
> to explain the acceleration when entering turn comparing it to
> piruette balet dancers or figure skaters can perform by pulling arms
> in. Corellis (?) effect, I think it was called.
> It is practically negligible riding on velodrome, riders are more
> likely to feel slightly higher pedaling rpms, but only on small
> tracks. I don't want to get into explaining that, now.

I read with interest your article on the varieties
of velodromes. The increase pedal speed tells me
that the geometric-kinematic effect is manifest:
the effect of the difference in path lengths between
the center of mass and the contact patch.

--
Michael Press
 
On Dec 5, 1:28 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Dec 5, 3:17 am, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > >> What you write is cargo cult physics.
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > Wow, Michael, there's probably 4 people here who understand that.
>
> >http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.php
>
> > But of course you're one of those who wouldn't get it even if
> > you did read the whole thing since all your "science" is
> > based on right wing idealogy.
>
> dumbass,
>
> according to koach kunich science was invented in the 1850s, roughly
> 120 years after the death of issac newton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes
 
"MagillaGorilla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> I do find it interesting that you don't understand gyroscopic
>> precession and how it applies to a wheel.
>
> I see no measurable influence of this phenonmenon related to a bicycle
> wheel in a velodrome turn. I like how you just throw the term out there
> and expect people to make the link when it's obvious you can't even
> articulate one yourself.

Thanks for admitting that you have no idea what's being referenced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Re: Analytical Nonsense
Replies
0
Views
388
Road Cycling
sergio
S
W
Re: Analytical Nonsense
Replies
0
Views
235
Road Cycling
William Asher
W
A
Re: Analytical Nonsense
Replies
0
Views
374
Road Cycling
Andy Coggan
A
M
Re: Analytical Nonsense
Replies
0
Views
303
Road Cycling
Michael Press
M
B
Re: Analytical Nonsense
Replies
0
Views
260
Road Cycling
Bob Schwartz
B
Top Bottom Back