Originally Posted by
alienator
I see: since I didn't expressly remind you that there were components along all spatial dimensions, that means I was situational? Sorry, but that doesn't fly. You were asked to define the dimensions, i.e. orient and name your names in space with resect to a wheel, and that is a typical question when someone hasn't already done so. See, that's why we label graphs. There is no absolute orientation of spatial coordinates.
x,
y,
z, where the bold indicates vectors (technically they're unit vectors, but I have no idea if you know what unit vectors are), and said vectors have no predefined orientation. Alas, you didn't explain to anyone anything. Just because it isn't stated that that, in this case, wheels are three dimensional, doesn't mean that isn't already understood. You'll note, for example, that laws of motion work in three dimensions but aren't necessarilly taught that way to people taking non-calculus based intro physics courses. Just because a teacher doesn't teach them vector forms of the equations doesn't mean that the teacher doesn't know that the equations have vector forms, i.e. three dimensional forms.
4D. Aha! What a critical thing you have noticed! Finally. I guess you're talking about 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. If that is the case, you should go back to one of my first posts in the thread where I discuss the time dependence and stiffness. If you think there are 4 spatial dimensions, well, you're wrong. You have the choice of three:
- Cartesian (x,y, z)
- Cylindrical (Ï, φ, z)
- Spherical (Ï, θ, φ)
That's it. You could argue that string theory suggests that there are more spatial dimensions, but since string theory cannot be proven at this point and there is no evidence of extra spatial dimensions (note however that the possible detection of other spatial dimensions is one capability of the Large Hadron Collider. Alas, they've detected no extra dimensions yet.).
It does seem as if you are confused about the right hand rule because it is a three dimensional construct. For example:
x x
y =
z, where the bold letters are vectors and the 'x' indicates the cross product (the spatial function that is described by the right hand rule). The cross product of any two vectors in 3 dimensional space is a vector perpendicular to those two vectors, and that vector is in that same 3 dimensional space. Torque,
r x
F =
T, where
T, torque, is perpendicular to the plane defined by
r, the radius at which the force,
F is applied (FYI, two vectors define a plane). Also note again the vector notation. The right hand rule requires two vector arguments and produces a third vector....uhm, as shown, again, by the vector notation.
You'll not I did not dismiss bracing angle. I've stated that as a factor in several other posts.
And that spoke? It is loaded in only one direction. It may have vibrational modes and bending modes, but those are dynamic and thus time dependent. Those modes do not influence stiffness, a static measurement.
You really are stuck on the "cut and paste" thing, but let's face it: you're not going to believe anything that I say, and that's why go on ridiculous rants and make all manner of mistakes (as indicated above). There is no need for me to derive equations for you, equations that have long been accepted to be true. No one derives accepted equations except people curious and looking for a challenge, or those doing derivations for physics homework. As for your climate change red herrings, again, if you want to discuss climate change, start a thread about climate change. Mentioning it as you do only makes you look desperate to cover up a lack of knowledge about physics. You're inability to demonstrate a working knowledge of physics only makes your climate change red herring more obvious.
Now, I'm done. You are committed to preventing any reasonable discussion, and you have yet to provide a physically credible argument of any sort.
WOW!!!
That's a pretty fascinating,
hair-on-fire rant which you obviously feel qualifies as a rational reply ...
Of course, what may be most interesting is how it is "
YOU (who) are committed to preventing any reasonable discussion, and (it is) you (who) have yet to provide a physically credible argument of any sort."
Is the term "physically credible argument" another instance where you can modify the language to suit your situational world?
What is THAT supposed to mean?!?
I can guess, but ...
But, I suppose that in your situational world, denial is how you (
were told to) cope by accusing others of what.you are doing when you are confronted with anything which challenges your dystopian world view!
FWIW. My non-clinical diagnosis is that you are a (
¿borderline?) psychopath who displays bipolar symptoms & moments of schizophrenia. OR, if you prefer, you are an individual who displays bipolar symptoms & moments of schizophrenia who may be a (
¿borderline?) psychopath. Without looking it up, based on the known-to-you-alone medication which you mentioned before, I presume it is for one of those symptoms.
Oh, wait!
Did you want to nit pick & say that you were clinically diagnosed as a sociopath & my nomenclature is wrong and so 'I' therefore don't know what I am talking about?!?
To sum up your situation in the vernacular (
if you will excuse my Welsh), you really are a
Dwsh who needs (more) help (than you are probably already getting).
Essentially, your bloviating once again proves that this formula holds true ...
FYI. You cut-and-paste formulas WITHOUT any supporting data or calculations ... so, while you are certainly argumentative, it is YOU who has not "provided a physically credible argument."
To that end, you have repeatedly cut-and-paste Hooke's Law AND you misapply it into posts as a solution for which it is not applicable. Again, it is YOU who are not providing "a physically credible argument."
In your situational world, you are now insisting that you knew that the matter of a bicycle wheel's lateral deflection was nonetheless a multi-dimenional problem despite previously offering only a linear solution in the
wrong Axis!
Denial & pretending otherwise is just laughable.
Again, this maxim holds true ...
alienator
apparently doesn't know the difference between Hooke's Law and Captain Hook.
Somehow, your inappropriate formula choice(s) without substantiation are supposed to be valid whereas you dismiss anything anyone else says if they don't have numbers which you can understand ... and,
there's the rub.
For the benefit of others, let me note that in the past you displayed an inability to comprehend the numerical information contained in either of the following matrices ...
In the past, these two matrices were deemed to be inadequate by YOU.
Are you going to say/(pretend), now, that you understand them?
I would guess that you will deny that you ever had a problem understanding them despite facts to the contrary.
Maybe your daughter who you say is going to a STEM school can explain them to you ... unless STEM is actually an acronym for School That Endures Misogynists.
BTW. My asking YOU about the KEELING CURVE is not a "red herring" and it is fundamental because it demonstrates that you apparently do not believe in the "Scientific Method" which you espouse to being of paramount importance when determining
this-or-that.
If you truly believe in the "Scientific Method" then unless you are situationally applying it as your dystopian world view dictates is appropriate then you would not accept what your ilk oxymoronically declares is "settled science"; but, your denial of a possible problem with one of the major "selling points" for so-called
Man-Made-Global-Warming shows that your posturing about the "Scientific Method" re-enforces that you are a pretender.
Your mention of "String Theory"
is a
canard -- essentially, it is yet another example of your use of
chaff.
Not that it matters, but I sincerely doubt that you know more about vectors than I know.
In fact, let me add that no matter how-much-or-how-little Physics and/or Engineering I may know, it is pretty evident that
YOU KNOW LESS ... and, if you received a degree in either discipline from an accredited University then you should probably return it.
Because, if you had ever really wanted to provide a more meaningful answer to the topic then you might have mentioned that adding
camber to the wheels will mitigate the effects of the lateral forces on the wheel to some extent. Some compromises, to be sure BUT a more meaningful observation which someone who claims to have a background in Physics & Engineering could have made instead of the specious suggestion that the solution to a better understanding of the problem is an application of Hooke's Law. However, THAT would mean that you actually understood some of the Physics & Engineering which you claim your background has.
BTW2. Does anyone who is rational really
not know that a bicycle wheel's axle is aligned in the Z-Axis relative to the rest of the bicycle's wheel?
If you really need more elaboration, then just ask.
