Originally Posted by alienator
More B
Mate, you clearLy have not paid attention to what I've written. After all, you have yet to respond to actual technical arguments. Note that quoting Alfeng is not a respOnse. He doesn't respond either. Rather, he tries to argue climate change in a discussion about wheels. So if you've got an actual argument on the physics and engineering of wheels, proVide it. Otherwise, you can quote alfeng and scream "troll" until the ****ing cows come home and cop a squat, and it will in no way validate your argument or prove anything that alfeng claims. My technical arguments stand fine on their own. If you don't get them, go to school and leArn something.
Alas, there's no need to answer alfeng's posts. He gets the science wrong. He gets The math wrong. He gets vectors wrong (The right hand rule implies a fourth dimension? That's rich and mathematically hysterical). Then, when he's flummoxed by the math and science, he throws out red herrings about politics, climate change, health care, or whatever else makes his finger stinky. Why the red herrings? Because he cannot argue the points at hand. Nothing he says about my daughter is going to prove his technical points worthy.
Here have a look. Does the right hand rule imply a fourth dimension? Well let's see. We have a vector A = a1x + a2y + a3z and another vector B = b1x + b2y + b3z, where a1, a2, a3, b1, b2, and b3 are scalar coefficients of the unit vectors x, y, and z (the unit vectors each point along the respective axis and are....wait for it.....one unit long). The mathematical operation defined by the right hand rule is the cross product: A x B = C, where A, B, and C are vectors and C is perpendicular to the two other vectors. The operation is defined as follows:
A x B = (a2*b3 - b2*a3)x - (a1*b3 - b1*a3)y + (a1*b2 - b1*a2)z = C.
Why lookee there: we started with two vectors three dimensions (x,y,z) and ended up with another vector in the same damned three dimensions (x,y,z). You know what? That's what you get every time you do such a cross product. You don't get that fourth dimension BS. Nope you just get a vector in the same dimensions with which you started, and every single time the new vector is perpendicular to the other two. Just more proof of alfeng talking out of his ass, very possibly the same ass you're talking out of.
So, unless you've actually got a statement of technical merit, I suggest you work on your flexibility so that you can find a new way pleasuring yourself.
!!!
OMG!!!
That seems like a lot of
hand waving ranting in what I am presuming is an attempt to excoriate
me & to dismiss my challenge of YOUR "
listening" ability + YOUR absence of an ability to use "
critical thought" and "
reason" ...
While it may be sufficient to simply reply with Nader's Law:
Let me repeat, for the record:
I have presented the "math" which has been distilled into a matrix ... but, you are apparently incapable of comprehending matrices AND SO you dismiss it as not existing ...
Until recently, YOU have merely presented formulas AND then when you did provide some numbers (
i.e., "
50 units" & "
100 units") it re-enforced
my observation that you are a pretender who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Once again, for the record:
You are an advocate for the "scientific method" and yet you are incapable of following it because you begin with false premises and in other instances you are apparently willing to accept falsified data if it fits your dystopian world view ...
- in both the former & latter instance, the matter of so-called "man-made Global Warming" AND your failure to deny it shows that you lack "critical thought" ... which almost makes your arguments moot IF you insist that "man-made Global Warming" is based on science and/or "reason" because it shows that you do not know what either WORD means ...
- OR, that your science is situational-at-best
- AND, as I pointed out, YOU persist in your argument about a wheel's lateral stiffness by your unilateral statement that "that spokes with greater tension don't decrease how much a wheel deflects ..." which is NOT how the scientific method is applied
The problem for YOU is that
we do read what you write ... AND, despite whatever the voices in your head are saying to you about the efficacy of re-posting formulas in the belief that you are making a "technical" argument, the specific argument which you are making is almost meaningless because it is addressing the question solely in the wrong axis ...
In other words, inserting an incorrect formula in an argument limits the value of the formula ...
For example, by MY preliminary, independent analysis, the following line is a
part of a larger formulation:
1. I glorify Agni, the high priest of the sacrifice, the divine, the ministrant, who presents the oblation (to the gods), and the possessor of great wealth. [
Rig Veda, First Ashtaka, First Adhyaya, Anuvaka I, Sukta I, Mandala I, Line 1 / (Wilson, 1866)]
Applicable?
I will admit that it is NOT directly applicable to the immediate analysis of a bicycle wheel ...
But, when taken in context with a number of the subsequent
Hymns + in
the-grand-scheme-of-things it may be MORE applicable than your insistence on Hooke's Law as the sole basis for your argument regarding what affects a bicycle wheel's stiffness!!!
So, while you may be conditionally correct when you say that your "technical arguments stand fine
on their own" it is
NOT CORRECT to say that your "technical arguments stand fine" as a part of a valid analysis of a bicycle wheel's ability to withstand a lateral force
!!!
YOU are the one who gets the "science" wrong.
YOU are the one who gets the "math" wrong.
YOU show a lack of an ability to "
reason" when you say ...
"You'll note that you cannot find a single instance in which I minimized the influence of bracing angle.
It is MORE THAN an inference that you have "minimized the influence of bracing angle" b
ecause to continually insist on an application of Hooke's Law in the wrong axis to the exclusion of other factors in the analysis of a bicycle wheel IS a
repeated minimization of the
influence of the bracing angle; but, if you don't understand that then you lack an understanding of the English language as it is used in the
Real World ...
AND it further proves that
this maxim holds true ...
alienator
apparently doesn't know the difference between Hooke's Law and Captain Hook.
And, again we see that YOU cannot read (aka "
listen") if you insist on revisiting what I said regarding MY knowledge of vectors. No problem. Here it is ...
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.
'I' will stand by the statement(s) ... plus, simply knowing MORE than YOU know is not a declaration that I have "a massive knowledge of vectors ..." Talk about "willful misreading" ...
UNLESS, I suppose you were projecting that 'I' must know more than YOU since you apparently have a very limited knowledge so ANY GREATER knowledge must seem "massive" to you!
BTW. Do you really not understand the RIGHT HAND THUMB RULE as a concept? Is it a "willful misreading" or a lack of comprehension?
Do I need to explain to you how when a bike is rolling DOWN THE ROAD that it theoretically becomes FOUR DIMENSIONAL?
I know THAT is probably harder to wrap your head around than the fact that analysis of a bicycle wheel is not linear
in the wrong axis!
BTW2. I think that a lot of us are waiting for YOU to provide "
a statement of technical merit"!
