In the humberverse less than 50% is called a "majority". And somehow he can conclude that pushing is like towing.
In the humberverse the best way to put an exclamation point on a false statement is to follow it up with "that's a fact"
Split Thread The validity of classical physics (split from: DWFTTW)
- Thread starter Dan O.
- Start date
- Status
In the humberverse less than 50% is called a "majority". And somehow he can conclude that pushing is like towing.
In the humberverse the best way to put an exclamation point on a false statement is to follow it up with "that's a fact"
Keep it up. The more you do that, the more you expose the tin god.
As you know, I own you every time you try to do otherwise.
You wouldn't know, as you are incapable of seeing beyond the superficial.
Like I said, your are half-baked. Square that, and you get even less.
No publication other than a fanzine is going to publish you. That is a fact.
Nothing wrong with equivlance of course, just the way you misconstrue it, and misapply it.
You need a technical dictionary, and probably one dedicated to automotive engineering, not a speak 'n' spell.
It is a common expression, and essential to wheeled travel. Your remark has all the bluff of "given a belt of infinite length" and "boundary conditions" and other buzzwords, that rattle off your tongue, only to fall stillborn to the ground.
Anybody can go to a hobby shop, buy some wheels and prop, and make it go quite fast in the wind. However, unless unlucky, they would not design it in such such a way that it would be most likely to suffer binding at the gears, as you have done.
If you were a bit taller, perhaps you could peek over the fence.
You know that is true, as your attempts to brow-beat not only academics, but all who would contradict you. When that fails, and it does fail, you label them as idiots. Now it's your turn.
Why, when I have you as a text-book example?
I think you will need to restock your bag of 'idiocy'. Like you, almost all used up in one post.
Last edited:
You have a degree? In aeronautics? So you know of counter-rotating props?
Two engaged wheels counter-rotate.
Pretty bold stuff coming from the only person I know that has a 97 page thread dedicated entirely to his astonishing misunderstanding of basic physics.
No, I am claiming that I designed a 3-axis accelerometer, capable of detecting 0.1 degrees of inclination up to a working temperature of 160 degrees C.
Now, you can put away your manicured claws.
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
If the only thing i knew about a statement was that Humber had appended "That is a fact." to it. I would lay 10 to 1 that the statement is false.
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
Could somebody please explain beveled gears to Humber (and maybe basic geometry too)? I don't have the patience.
Last edited:
Ahh... Cinderblock, again, this will be easy.
I was right. The mass is the air mass. Do you have another in mind?
Quite so, but one will process will fail if there is not enough energy to maintain it. So either way. the cart stays still on the belt, or fails to hold its place on the belt.
You will need more than a rabbit's foot is you follow Spork down the long and tedious road to the vanishing point.
Take the shaft attached to the bevel gear, and see if you can make it turn the same way as the crown. They counter-rotate, and so so their torques.
BTW, there is a means by which you can avoid running out of gas. Can anyone explain the dashboard to CORed? You will need crayons.
ETA:
Make that two packs of crayons.
Last edited:
I beat you every time, Spork.
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
Even I took the friggin gears out, I couldn't make the wheels and the prop rotate in the same direction because the shafts are at a 90 degree angle to each other. They can't counter rotate and they can't rotate in the same direction because the shafts are not parallel.
The last time I ran out of gas was something like 25 or 30 years ago, so I don't think I'm doing too badly. You can save your crayons for drawing pictures of bunnies that fail to prove what you think they prove.
Last edited:
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
In Humberese "beat" means, "made a complete laughingstock of myself".
Last edited:
Ah.....
That would be why everyone keeps saying "You know, Humbers right about that Spork"
Or maybe it's just the voices in your head doing that.....
I don't "Thin" any such thing- It's you saying wheels can't work by pulling.
Two things can't "Cunterrotate" if they are 90deg to each other, now can they....
Or perhaps "Cunterrotating" is the name of a Dutch film you've seen....
Last edited:
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
Actually, it's a trick that Humber's favorite window girl in the Amsterdam Red Light District does. I think it involves a ceiling fan.
Despite being less (after training, alcohol testing and of course, more automisation) the error rate has fallen to less than 50%, but it is still the single largest contributing factor.
Your numeracy needs some work
Actually it's definitive. Meaning that you would only make a fool of yourself by contradicting it.
See? Contra-rotation.
Attachments
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
Congratulations. You've just proved that you don't know what "counter-rotate" (or "contra-rotate") means.
The Red light District is quite fun. Do you know what that is?
I have been there many times, suggesting that the spelling mistake may not be quite so innocent..
The torques are in opposition. This is the basis of
(a) The differential in your car
(b) The way reverse gear (th' towin' one to you) works.
The shafts have opposing torques. You had better hope that is so, or the cart would not work in wind.
- Status