My gravity theory

Motor Daddy said:
You wouldn't "LET" me change the oil in your car???

1. I wouldn't change the oil in your car if your life depended on it.
2. When was the last time you took your car for an oil change and "let" them change your oil for you? Did you let them or did you pay them, because you are not capable of doing it yourself?
3. You are the one with "grandeur" delusions if you think your education in math and physics is worth a pot to piss in! Your education has not helped physics at all!

PS. Why should I spend a dime on trying to learn all your physics and math BS, when it is clearly shown that magical attractions and Einstein's spectacular show of light illusions is just a pile of BS? You paid top dollar to learn someone's BS. How does that make you feel?
Click to expand...

So all the physics is bs? How would you know? Lakon: This is exactly what Dunning & Kruger meant when they wrote the intro to their famous paper.

"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."

Since you seem to want to defend this Motor Daddy level of discourse perpetrated on this forum: Please explain how this is good for both the goose and the gander?
 
brucep said:
So all the physics is bs? How would you know? Lakon: This is exactly what Dunning & Kruger meant when they wrote the intro to their famous paper.

"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."

Since you seem to want to defend this Motor Daddy level of discourse perpetrated on this forum: Please explain how this is good for both the goose and the gander?
Click to expand...

Well, there you go. Lakon is one of those people that is antiauthoritarian. Their belief system is that truth is relative to the individual, even if all the individual opinions disagree. And therefore the authoritative opinion is false, no matter what the subject. Politics is probably the most popular antiauthoritarian subject but science seems to be a close second. In the sciences this manifests as pseudoscience and crankism. Lakon's opinions have nothing to do with truth nor any approximation there of. It is just against authority, esp academic knowledge. Why? Well that is probably a variable, but I think in most cases it is because they failed in "the academy".

Lakon's use of folk sayings is mainly just because he can not express himself adequately in the subject at hand.

I really wish this site had a comment rating system. Your Dunning & Kruger link was very informative. Two thumbs up.
 
brucep said:
You never read what I wrote down for you in detail? Very disappointing since I wanted to answer your question? I already knew what the phrase meant. You actually think I wouldn't know? I just want to know what you think it means with respect to the Dunning & Kruger effect? That everybody has a little of that in them? We'll there's a different effect for smart [educated] people and ignorant people. It's kind of interesting. Curious which cubby hole I'm going to put you?

?? two to many. They wouldn't let me do ?? because there wasn't enough text in the post. So I jumped on ????????. Two to many. Should have been ??????. Sorry for the confusion. You might want to digest some of the Dunning & Kruger paper before making a further comment.
Click to expand...

I did read what you wrote in your post .. it being part of the abstract of the article.

Here's the interesting ending to the abstract which you missed;

Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

Since your metacognitive competence must be abundant, so must be your recognition of your limitations. What then, are your limitations ?

Meanwhile, feel free to put me in the cubby hole of the most ignorant.
 
Lakon said:
I did read what you wrote in your post .. it being part of the abstract of the article.

Here's the interesting ending to the abstract which you missed;

Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

Since your metacognitive competence must be abundant, so must be your recognition of your limitations. What then, are your limitations ?

Meanwhile, feel free to put me in the cubby hole of the most ignorant.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the posts I wrote for you awhile back. The 'analogy'. The delta between the the local proper frame measurements and the remote coordinate frame measurements of GR. The bookkeeper measurements which account for spacetime curvature over the entire path. Limitations with respect to what? The list is to long to post in this forum. But the discussion should be about whether I acknowledge my limitations. Intellectual honesty. In physics my limitations usually show up due to my lack of formal training. Yet I've learned quit a bit informally. All the mathematics I've learned I've done on my own. GR I've learned by reading text and working the problems. But I always use the metric. I've never participated in a formal class on physics. So I'm pretty sure I understand my limitations. For the most part. Cranks don't acknowledge any limitations. Hence my post on the Dunning-Kruger effects. Look where Motor Daddy won't even fess up to the ridiculous comment about physics being bs. Really? You want to say it's ok because it's his opinion. It's ok if he wants to remain stupid.
Stupidism: The right to be stupid and remain so indefinitely. I don't have any qualms about calling him a scientifically illiterate crank when he displays his Stupism at this site. I guess that makes me a practising Stupiest. I'm all for improving skills and yes I've read the study several times since it was added to the scientific literature.
 
Cheezle said:
Well, there you go. Lakon is one of those people that is antiauthoritarian. Their belief system is that truth is relative to the individual, even if all the individual opinions disagree. And therefore the authoritative opinion is false, no matter what the subject. Politics is probably the most popular antiauthoritarian subject but science seems to be a close second. In the sciences this manifests as pseudoscience and crankism. Lakon's opinions have nothing to do with truth nor any approximation there of. It is just against authority, esp academic knowledge. Why? Well that is probably a variable, but I think in most cases it is because they failed in "the academy".

Lakon's use of folk sayings is mainly just because he can not express himself adequately in the subject at hand.

I really wish this site had a comment rating system. Your Dunning & Kruger link was very informative. Two thumbs up.
Click to expand...

The Dunning_Kruger effect is very revealing about the importance of education, IMO. The educated tend to worry about whether they are maintaining high standards in discourse and research while the uneducated tend to not care, or know, what the higher standards mean. I'm not talking strictly about higher formal education. Just a level of intellectual honesty to make good evaluation of ones self and seek improvement when needed. For 'participation' in a science discussion 'seek improvement' might include realizing you're not an 'automatic expert just because you're alive' and consider doing some level of research before disrupting the discussion with nonsense. The 'spacelike' separation between these 'effects' is scary. Though Dunning & Kruger confirm you can cross the distance by working on your education. I always know your comments will be well thought out and subsequently interesting and informative.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Did I say that? Some is some isn't. A or B?
Click to expand...

Yes this is what you said: "PS. Why should I spend a dime on trying to learn all your physics and math BS, when it is clearly shown that magical attractions and Einstein's spectacular show of light illusions is just a pile of BS? You paid top dollar to learn someone's BS. How does that make you feel?"

"All the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools". Don Henley.

Motor Daddy's is a spectacular display of ignorance and pretense.
 
brucep said:
"All the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools". Don Henley.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight:

I am dumb. You are smart. I used what little knowledge I had and solved major issues in your field. You have tons of knowledge and solved nothing.

So the way I see it, the quote you provided is referring to you, the fool.
 
Motor Daddy said:
I am dumb. You are smart. I used what little knowledge I had and solved major issues in your field. You have tons of knowledge and solved nothing.
Click to expand...

As I see it, you've created some imaginary solutions for non-issues. When you rail against the evils of Einstein's relativity, you're not "solving major issues" in the field. The debate you want to have was settled by the scientific community over 100 years ago. And the succeeding 100 years have only strengthened the evidence that the solution is correct.
 
Motor Daddy said:
I used what little knowledge I had and solved major issues in your field. You have tons of knowledge and solved nothing.
Click to expand...
You have solved no major issues. You are still lost trying to understand how to do the math, and if you think you solved anything it was by failing to understand what the issues actually are. So far all or most of the formulations and solutions I've seen you do are wrong, or if they are right you seem confused by what they mean.

Motor Daddy said:
Two identical cars (except for engine and gears, same weight) are moving along at a steady 24 mph in second gear side by side. They both punch it at the same exact time. Which one will pull ahead immediately, and get to 67 mph the soonest, and cover the greatest distance in the same time period? The one with the greatest engine TORQUE, or the one with the greatest engine HP??
Click to expand...

Torque by itself does not have units of power; you have to know the angular velocity to compare it to power. The question of who wins is answered by who has more power at the wheels. Since wheel size is the same, the angular velocities are the same for the same vehicular speeds. Therefore it's fair to compare them by their rear wheel torques to ascertain which has more power. By your data, that would be B.

Wheel torque is proportional to engine torque by the net gear ratio. Therefore it's fair to compare them by their engine torques, factoring for each net gear ratio, but that will give the same results as above since you gave us redundant information.

As for comparing by horsepower, this is a true power measurement, so it need not take into account the angular velocity of the crankshaft. If the cars were lossless, and there were no reactances in the engines, drivetrains or chassis, we could judge by horsepower alone. However, you could have left the hp numbers out and I could have filled them in for you, since your numbers assume no losses; by simply multiplying engine torque by angular velocity of the crank I got your hp numbers. Therefore this criteria also follows the same results as above.

SI units simplifies this. I converted your numbers to SI, and noticed you lost some accuracy by limiting your hp numbers to 3 digits of precision. This is also a problem in measurement, when high accuracy may not be possible due to instrument and test fixture limitations. It would tend to suspect a dyno that claims to be better than 3 digits, so maybe that was the source of the error. Here are my SI numbers.


_crank_|_eng trq|_eng pwr|_speed__| rw trq | error
rad/s__|__N•m___|___W____|__m/s___|__N•m___|__W__
(A)
209.44 | 629.10 | 131243 | 10.729 | 4022.7 | 515
261.80 | 653.50 | 170765 | 13.411 | 4178.6 | 322
314.16 | 672.49 | 211033 | 16.540 | 4300.7 | 235
366.52 | 692.82 | 253538 | 19.223 | 4430.8 | 395
418.88 | 686.04 | 287094 | 21.905 | 4387.4 | 275
471.24 | 652.15 | 307228 | 24.587 | 4170.5 | 89
523.60 | 578.93 | 302754 | 27.269 | 3701.4 | 375
575.96 | 492.16 | 283366 | 29.952 | 3146.9 | 99
(B)
241.80 | 555.89 | 134226 | 10.729 | 4105.4 | 186
302.33 | 583.00 | 175985 | 13.411 | 4304.7 | 271
362.75 | 623.68 | 225947 | 16.540 | 4605.7 | 291
423.17 | 630.46 | 266215 | 19.223 | 4655.9 | 577
483.70 | 630.46 | 304246 | 21.905 | 4655.9 | 706
544.12 | 603.34 | 328108 | 24.587 | 4455.2 | 183
604.55 | 528.77 | 319160 | 27.269 | 3904.8 | 506
665.08 | 447.42 | 297534 | 29.952 | 3304.1 | 34



In short your question asked us whether we understand that angular velocity divides by gear ratio, and does power, and does torque multiply, and the answer is: yes, we do.
 
Aqueous Id said:
In short your question asked us whether we understand that angular velocity divides by gear ratio, and does power, and does torque multiply, and the answer is: yes, we do.
Click to expand...

In short, you're wrong. You have failed to demonstrate that you have the sufficient knowledge to attempt to analyze this problem accurately. I suggest you learn what torque is and try again once you think you have sufficient knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top