ZooTech wrote:sv-wolf wrote:
Nice try, Sev! I hear the rankles, but it's the issue I'm interested in. Wriggles just don't cut the mustard.
Sincerely sorry, Zoo if you thought this was wrapped up in unecessarily complex language. But you know, that was the way this conversation was pitched from the start. You made it quite clear earlier that you have some sort of personal issue going on about 'academia'. Maybe that is something you have to deal with yourself. In the meantime, all kinds of conversations are possible If you are not interested in this one, then you could leave the nerdy conversation for the nerds and have one of your own?
It's not that I'm not interested, I just hate it when an honest discussion gets sidetracked to quibble over details. If someone says, "The centrifigal forces created by the spinning wheels..." we all know what that means, so there's no reason to confuse the issue by debating the meaning of the word or how academia treats it. Just get back to the discussion at hand and argue whether or not the "forces" generated by the spinning wheels contribute to the bike's steering. As soon as you start arguing over semantics you end up misquoting other people (like you did with Sev) and then the nice, interesting discussion gets ugly.
OK Zoo. If I misunderstood you I'm sorry.
But in my view this discussion is not just about semantics. It is about what turns a bike and what keeps it from high siding. In my view, if the forces at work on a bike behaved the way Sev claims (at least as far as I understood him) then the poor guy would be covered from head to toe in road rash by now.
The semantic problem only comes about because the term 'centrifugal force' is used in so many different ways (three have been mentioned in this thread) there is an ongoing problem of communication.
I'm not aware of misquoting Sev, except once. That was just sloppiness on my part, I will admit, but had I been more precise about what he was saying, it would still not have resolved the issue between us. He clearly states that he believes there has to be a 'centrifugal force' (albeit not a 'true force') that acts as a balancing force acting on a bike to prevent it from 'going over the other way'. Adrian Z has done better than any of us and has got it right very simply in his recent post.
Look, I'm lousy at graphics but I'll try to do something on Word and then import it in here. That will be my last word. You can then argue about it or ignore it as you see fit.
Phew! How the hell did we get into this in the first place.
