I wanted to see you formalise the system in the way say a 16 year old high school would doing a mechanics problem. Let's see you formalise and model the problem and we'll go from there. I want to see you do this because it will demonstrate that you are capable of grasping the mechanics of things like torque. If you cannot model the system, using your own mechanical models or mainstream models, then it will demonstrate you lack the ability to comprehend any kind of mathematical response I or anyone else gives to you. I ask because thus far you have shown you don't understand any of the relevant mathematics people, including myself, have done which prove various claims of yours mistaken. I want you to demonstrate you're capable of understanding the sorts of responses you demand. If you cannot do it then simply admit it and we'll go from there. I notice you ignored my second point about how you have provided no evidence for your claims to show reality actually works as you claim. Do you confirm you have no evidence reality works as you claim? If you want me to work through your example then it is necessary you respond to what are pretty simple and relevant questions. /edit And let me be more specific about what I mean by 'formalised' since in this post you claim you have 'formalised' it. The original post, this one, lists the various engine properties. What I want to see you do is formalise the relationship between those engine parameters and the acceleration of the vehicle. Torque on the wheels causes them to change rotation speed, which causes the speed of the car to change. I want to see you attempt to formalise that relationship in an algebraic manner so that we can all see that you are capable of doing it. I ask because any attempt you've done at mathematics shows you are unfamiliar with even basic mathematics pertaining to mechanics. If you're incapable of understanding a response I give involving mathematical methods then it is a waste of my time to do it. I want you to demonstrate you're capable of understanding. Ideally you will demonstrate the relationship between torque, vehicle velocity, wheel size, angular and linear momenta and vehicle acceleration. Do that and you'll have shown you are capable of engaging in discussion about the quantitative side of mechanics. Fail to do it and you'll demonstrate that it is pointless for anyone to respond to your posts with any mathematics as you are too ignorant to grasp it.
AN, All the information is there. I am not going to answer the question for you. If you need more information then you need to clearly ask me for the specific information you are missing. There is a direct relationship between velocity and force. There is a direct relationship between MPH and RPM. There is a direct relationship between torque and HP. There is a direct relationship between torque and gear ratio. There is a direct relationship with the diameter of a tire and its circumference. There is a direct relationship between the circumference of a tire and the distance the axle travels down the road (assuming constant traction at all times). There is a direct relationship between RPM and distance traveled per unit of time. There is a direct relationship between revolutions of the crankshaft and time. FIGURE THE DAMN PROBLEM OUT AND TELL ME YOUR ANSWER!!! Do you know how to obtain the torque numbers for an engine as measured on a dyno? Do you understand how a dyno works?
Wrong answer, you lose. If the rocket stops accelerating then it must have started accelerating, right? If it started accelerating and it stopped accelerating then it must have accelerated for a duration of time. Do you know what that duration of time is?
You're asking the question because you think it leads to some result which supports your views. You admit that you think I can do the mathematics and I've shown time and again I am able to do kinematics stuff. However, time and again you've shown you don't understand it when I do. The time has come for you to show you understand this stuff, enough is enough. If you're unable to do it then you should be honest enough to admit it. I didn't say anything of the sort. This isn't about a lack of information at my end, it is about a lack of understanding at yours. I am asking you to demonstrate you understand this stuff. I've shown plenty of times I can do kinematics. I have not seen any evidence you can, rather a lot of evidence to the contrary. If you don't want to show you can do the quantitative description for that example would you prefer if I defined one for you to do? One which I'd expect a high school student to have no trouble with, just so you can illustrate you have a working understanding of kinematics on a quantitative level? Yes, there are all of those relationships, quantitative ones. I have yet to see any reason why I or anyone else should think you know how to apply them to practical use. You repeatedly post things like the SUVAT equations but I don't see you make use of them yourself. Non-slip rotation turning into linear motion is high school level stuff, it is hardly unreasonable for me to ask you to illustrate you know how to do it. After all, if I were to post a load of mathematics now, even basic stuff, and it is something you don't understand then it is a waste of time for everyone. You have been whining about various areas of physics for years. Time enough for you to show you understand kinematics on a working level but you haven't done so. Now I'm asking you to do so. In the last week I've done plenty of posts involving mathematics in response to posts of yours, I've stepped up when needed. I'm asking you to do it once. This is not an unreasonable request. If you don't know basic kinematics then it would help everyone, including yourself, in further discussions if you made us aware of it. If you have a demonstrable grasp of the details then we can rest assured that we're not going over your head when mathematical methods are used. I find it humorous that you get irate and demand things of me, demanding I do another mathematical analysis of some situation you've described, but you refuse to respond likewise even once. We are not here at your beck and call. You frequently demand things of people and almost invariably you get a response. How many threads of yours have people like myself or James or others responded to in detail? A lot. In fact it is that fact, that you still continue to rehash the same tired arguments, which makes me ask you to demonstrate you can actually do it. If you could do this high school level mathematics you wouldn't be saying some of the things you say. But perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps you do know, but until you demonstrate it I have no reason to think otherwise. I'm familiar with rotation kinematics as used to drive vehicles. Basic classical dynamics is something taught to every mathematical physicist. The problem is I don't see any reason to think you are, beyond perhaps a bit of practical experience rather than mathematical modelling. I am not asking anything unreasonable and I am not asking anything you haven't already demanded from myself and others many times over the years and very many times you've gotten responses. I've done it plenty of times this week already. If you're unwilling to do an example to show you understand this stuff why should I do another one? Are you unwilling to do things you repeatedly demand of others? If not then should anyone repeatedly jump through hoops for you? Honest discussion is a matter of give and take. You demanded multiple responses from me over the last week or so and I complied. Now I'm asking you to do likewise just once. If you cannot do the mathematics then man up and say so.
AN, I asked a question in that example before any of this conversation occurred. I want you to give me your answer, and then we can discuss it in as great as detail as you like. I once debated a mathematician not unlike yourself about torque and HP for a couple years, and when I designed this example, he was done!! He had nothing to say to me anymore and he refused to talk to me anymore. I wonder why? He was willing to degrade me and talk crap as long as he thought he was correct, using the accepted mathematical method. When I gave him this example he had nothing to say. See, he didn't really understand what he was talking about, he was only parroting what he was trained to do. When I explained the truth it left him in shock.
So you believe some result in contradiction to 'the accepted mathematical method' occurs. In that case show it. I cannot read your mind to see what you think happens. If you cannot actually go through how you think the system works then we have nothing to discuss. As for whether I'm just repeating things I'm taught I've responded to every other one of your attempts at constructing some mathematical counter example to mainstream physics, each and every time showing you to be mistaken. Not to mention my job is to develop new mathematical methods for solving real world problems. Your attempt to present me as someone running away from the discussion is laughable, I have a clear track record of moping the floor with you while on the other hand you have zero track record of showing any quantitative grasp of physics. If you've previously debated a mathematician on this then you don't even need to do any work, you can just recount your mathematical methods from that discussion. Better yet, if it was done on a forum please link to the thread. The reason people give up talking to you is your deliberate dishonesty and ignorance. You demand things of people and then refuse to do anything asked of you, as you now illustrate. Do you think I'm asking something unreasonable? Please explain why everyone has to jump through every hoop you ask of us but when we ask you to do one thing you refuse. Do you think that is a very honest way to discuss things?
So all the other times I responded in detail don't count for anything and your integrity is fine even though you refuse to demonstrate you can do this stuff even once? You hypocrite. You obviously don't want a discussion, you just want to keep spewing "Well what about this!" until people are fed up with you. You can't do it once and yet you complain when someone does it half a dozen times but then has had enough of your dishonesty? You don't even know what integrity means.
If you were to answer the question with some integrity you would prove to yourself that you have been mistaken. Once you find out you were mistaken, go back and reread my comments and your comments. You will find that if you apply your newfound information that you were the one that was incorrect all along. Your dishonesty is preventing you from knowing the truth.
You specifically said in a previous post your conclusion was different from (and I quote) "the accepted mathematical method". If that is the case then applying 'the accepted mathematical method' will yield a result which you disagree with. How is me doing the 'accepted mathematical method' going to conclude what you have concluded? If I were to do a calculation about motion using relativity I will not conclude something about your notion of absolute motion, will I? The same applies here. You claim you have something which contradicts 'the accepted mathematical method' but you refuse to show it. You also refuse to show you can do the 'accepted mathematical method'. Since you have never shown you know how to calculate anything using 'the accepted mathematical method' I have no reason to think you know how to compute anything from 'the accepted mathematical method'. The only way you can demonstrate your claims is for you to show your result, obtained by not using 'the accepted mathematical method'. But you refuse to do anything which requires you demonstrate any mathematical competency. I've shown my mathematical competency hundreds of times. I'm asking you to show it once and you refuse. And you call me dishonest and say I lack integrity? I can only assume you're just trolling now. You have tried the 'Gish Gallop' method, where you constantly spew out things for other people to take their time to refute while simultaneously refusing to demonstrate the validity of your claims. You repeatedly ignore my question about admitting you have no experimental evidence while you complain that supposedly others do not. More trolling and hypocrisy. You can't even do one thing yet you complain about me after I repeatedly step up and mop the floor with you? You've demanded things of myself and others repeatedly and gotten plenty of responses. I'm now asking for you to do something in return. If you refuse then you are demonstrating you aren't after a discussion and are trolling.
I asked you a question. What is your answer? If you choose not to answer because the answer goes against everything you believe in, then say so. If you don't know how to figure the answer out then say so. If you find a mistake in the information given to you then let me know. If you need clarification let me know. If you need more information let me know. If you are just too damn dishonest to answer the question then please, by all means, just say so.
It is clear to even the most casual observer that you are the dishonest one in this exchange, motor daddy. The only one that you are persuading (deluding) otherwise, is yourself.
..and why do you think I would present you that problem, AN? You, as the mathematician that you are. Why would I be so willing to discuss a complicated subject like torque and HP with you, you the mathematician?? You know why, AN? Because I KNOW I am right, because I KNOW how it works. There is not one doubt in my mind that I am exactly 100% correct. Would you like to discuss it in terms that we learned when we were in grade school? Let's talk about the teeter totter!!!!! Such a simple design, surely you know how it works?
I agree with the numbers in the example. There is no error in the numbers as shown, there is an error in your understanding of what happens in reality. I would venture to say that you are part of the "torque wins" crowd?
By the way, I would venture to say that Newton invented the totter and Einstein never got to try one out in reality. There is no possible way Einstein could have ever understood how a totter works. NO POSSIBLE WAY could he describe to me how a totter works. Not if his life depended on it!
Doesn't matter. A=0, thus distance=0. (Unless of course you consider all sorts of messy things like reality and other equations - and I know how you hate that.)
Why are you trying to say that a 14mm wrench is useless just because it doesn't fit a 10mm bolt? You are trying to say that equation is useless and I am trying to show you that if you knew the time then the equation is perfect. You don't know the time and you are blaming the equation. WTF?? There is a time and I know it, so are the laws of physics the same or not? I know it and you don't.
?? I'm not. Just as you are saying the Lorentz transform is useless, and others are trying to show you that it isn't. Actually I am using the equation like a crutch when it is not suited to the system. Then I just repeat that one equation over and over. Since this is your favorite tactic I figured you'd recognize it. You have both admitted you don't understand much about physics and you are unwilling to learn, so I'm not too worried.
