Feed aggregator

Re: My "friend's bike" turns into 6 year ban

Cycling UK Forum - Racing - 27 April 2016 - 9:41am
Si wrote:reohn2 wrote:NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
Mechanical doping...........six years...
So Medical doping gets you what...........a smack.........

Explain?

I think that he means that the sentences are disproportionate: they are both cheating but using drugs is much more harmful* yet often only brings a ban of a couple of years.


*i.e. not only can it harm the health of the taker but can encourage others to follow suit and become harmed.

I see,feeling a bit dopey this morning..... ....that's dopey,not doped you understand

Re: Large mystery animal

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 27 April 2016 - 9:39am
rualexander wrote:iviehoff wrote: ....... For example the lion caught in Scotland........
Which lion was this?
Felicity. Mountain lion rather than lion, I now realise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_b ... nd_remains
http://scotcats.online.fr/abc/photoalbum/cannich.html
It remains the only very large cat taken from the wild in Britain, ie bigger than a lynx, whose physical substance has ever been available for examination, dead or alive, excluding known short term escapes from zoos and circuses. As it notes above, there is clear evidence of prior domestication. There have been a few others, but they have been "medium-sized" such as lynxes.

Concepts such as the "Surrey puma" do not refer to a specific animal known to exist. Rather they summarise a collection of alleged sightings in one geographical area, often over many decades. As I said, most are misinterpretations due to situations resulting in natural optical illusions causing the size of the animal to be overestimated. Nearly all footprints are too small. Nearly all hair samples are shown to be fox or dog. Nearly all maulings of deer and livestock can be shown to be fox or dog. Foxes can look odd if they are melanistic, or suffering from mange: then you just need an optical illusion to get the size wrong.

Re: Poor maintenance

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 27 April 2016 - 9:30am
I can get halfway up the stairs at the Trafford Centre with my walking stick before needing to stop for a rest so my legs can recover.
A 50 mile ride however is perfectly doable even having been off the bike for 2-3 weeks.

Re: My "friend's bike" turns into 6 year ban

Cycling UK Forum - Racing - 27 April 2016 - 8:55am
reohn2 wrote:NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
Mechanical doping...........six years...
So Medical doping gets you what...........a smack.........

Explain?

I think that he means that the sentences are disproportionate: they are both cheating but using drugs is much more harmful* yet often only brings a ban of a couple of years.


*i.e. not only can it harm the health of the taker but can encourage others to follow suit and become harmed.

Re: Back to Winter weather here on Skye - 25th April

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 27 April 2016 - 8:51am
Return to Winter or rather descended into winter weather in Lancs these last few days, I swear it was warmer in December.... snow and hail has not been unusual here either... with the northerly winds I would any E2E-ers would be best starting at JOG.

Re: Cycle Path Etiquette in the North East (and UK)

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 27 April 2016 - 8:48am
RickH wrote:an almost continuous two way cycle lane, separated by curbs & bollards from the main carriageway, much of which was contraflowing on the right of one way streets


That is a physically separated cycle path, as opposed to a lane which is demarcated by a painted line.

Re: My "friend's bike" turns into 6 year ban

Cycling UK Forum - Racing - 27 April 2016 - 8:14am
NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
Mechanical doping...........six years...
So Medical doping gets you what...........a smack.........

Explain?

Re: Poor maintenance

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 27 April 2016 - 8:11am
sjs wrote:Lance Dopestrong wrote:A 10 mile walk is no more physically onerous than a 10 mile bike ride.
What?


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Quite!
Due to an arthritic hip I can walk about a mile and a half on a good day,but I can cycle about 30 or more.

Re: Poor maintenance

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 27 April 2016 - 8:09am
Vorpal wrote:Topic has been split, and off-topic discussion moved to viewtopic.php?f=15&t=105564

Thanks for that ,there's something like a stuck record for some folk on here

Re: Wild camping in France

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 27 April 2016 - 7:26am
We've done it ok, but we were in a position of no choice. Up the west coast there are a lot of campsites and not so much wild land.

Done the ferry, which is fine. Don't think we've cycled through Bordeaux although we have visited but I think your main problem is going to be routing, not traffic. Try going though during lunch hour which tends to be quieter?

Re: Any such thing as an easyish N Portugal cycle camping to

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 27 April 2016 - 7:22am
Madeleine wrote:Thanks for the helpful replies. I have indeed been looking at pedalportugal, but Huw doesn't think this tour is a great idea in August because of the heat, and campsites being full. We are debating whether to approach Galicia from the east instead...

I've cycled a fair bit around the cantabria/Asturias mountains, Picos etc. I agree with the view that staying on the northern side of the mountains will help temperatures. Actually staying in the mountains may be the best idea- but I don't know whether your kids would enjoy that. Galicia can be very cool compared to elsewhere in Spain but it depends, when we were there in September a few years ago it was low thirties and ok for cycling.

Re: Poor maintenance

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 27 April 2016 - 6:51am
Topic has been split, and off-topic discussion moved to viewtopic.php?f=15&t=105564

Re: Poor maintenance

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 27 April 2016 - 12:22am
Samuel D wrote:Manc33 wrote:The usual answer to why planes aren't ending up in space when maintaining altitude is that "gravity" (what else) can intelligently keep that plane "level"…
But why do you believe in aeroplanes?

Or maybe it's that "level" isn't a perfectly straight line...
They follow a great circle path...

Re: Poor maintenance

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 27 April 2016 - 12:20am
NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
Hows your sanity [XAP]Bob
Better than Manc's

Re: Poor maintenance

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 27 April 2016 - 12:20am
Manc33 wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:I must have missed that press release from the teams involved - as did the rest of the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srVlo1Ez5fk

That's a mumbling anonymous youtuber - not exactly a press release.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Ok, on earth the vacuum won't be very substantial for long - due to the rocket exhaust - but the thrust is demonstrably present in a vacuum.

Yes but in a vacuum on Earth, it still has the ground to push against.

Er - how? It can be pointed towards the ground, it doesn't matter - the thrust is generated as the result of momentum exchange between the rocket motor and the fuel/exhaust.

[XAP]Bob wrote:There are such things as telescopes you know. Besides the visual acuity test doesn't require points of light against a dark background to have any defined angular size.

Those lights in the sky are so far away you can't determine if they are satellites but because it all matches up with some electronic device saying that is where the satellite is, you assume what you're seeing has to be the satellite, I get that but it isn't necessarily really a satellite, it can be rigged that way.

Who said anything about an electronic device. I can calculate orbital periods quite happily.
And I can see that they are satellites - I just point my 'scope in the correct direction and see them [url="https://www.google.ie/search?q=backyard+telescope+image+of+the+iss&espv=2&biw=1440&bih=808&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj73pzOr63MAhWqB8AKHYCXAQ0QsAQIIg"]like any of these[/url]...

[XAP]Bob wrote:I can't see them occlude the moon without a 'scope, but I can see them traverse the night sky quite easily - and in exactly the direction and time predicted by orbital mechanics...

If they are put up there for display purposes they are also going to be made to be passing by at the exact right times.

Put where?

[XAP]Bob wrote:Of course not - but If I pushed up and you pushed down then you would move up. If we were in water then you'd move up and I'd move down.
If we were on ice, or wheels or any low friction scenario, and I punched you in the face then we'd move away from each other - You being the exhaust and me being the rocket... The rocket doesn't push on the exhaust when it's exhaust, but to make it into exhaust.

Air isn't there in a vacuum for any of this "pushing against" to be occurring.

You said it yourself, its solid matter hitting solid matter that causes movement, you can't have solid matter pushing on nothing and moving somewhere.

No need for it to be solid - I could spray you with a fire extinguisher - it would just give me less pleasure.
Does a sailing boat need to push against a solid to get thrust? The rocket exhaust pushes on the rocket motor - meaning that one accelerates in one direction and the other in the opposite direction.

[XAP]Bob wrote:So there is a net change in momentum. Hmm - I should probably have added the phrase "conservation of" to each of the properties mentioned. You can magically throw the gas backwards and not experience a reaction force...

Nothing is "magic" about the gas force not pushing the rocket, the force is 100% there as I have already said, the vacuum of space gets it all with a gas cloud floating away forever.

But you said there is no vacuum?
And how can I push a vacuum, I can't possibly apply any force, it isn't solid...

[XAP]Bob wrote:Wait - what?
Shielding to tolerate single atom/molecule impacts at 17k mph - that's tiny energy...

It isn't just atom sized chunks though.

There's chunks of space rock 1mm wide going at 17,000 MPH (the purported speed of the ISS).

Whipple shields are really good:

[XAP]Bob wrote:And when did anyone mention convection/conduction - to dissipate heat in space you use radiators.
Heat cannot "dissipate" in space with a radiator, or anything else. Even a fan can't work because no air would blow.

Convection and conduction has to be mentioned because it is a requirement.
NASA just lies and says they have magic "water cooled" space suits - when water boils at 100C and they are in environments reaching 2,500C?

Again just like with the equipment, there's no way to throw the heat off, water cooling isn't even coming close.

Why can't you radiate heat - it is after all how the energy from the sun reaches the earth - sorry you don't believe in either of those things.
It's how the heat from my garage halogen radiator gets to me...

[XAP]Bob wrote:Didn't mention gravity
You said "There is no "atmosphere edge", but the atmosphere peters out... the reason for this is gravity, and it's easily observed by..."

So I did - but the observation doesn't rely on it - the atmosphere can be observed to be petering out. Of course it's just that it's heavier when it's nearer the earth - magically.

[XAP]Bob wrote:They aren't axioms. They're not mathematical constructs of any sort.

An axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established that it is accepted without controversy or question. This can include some maths but doesn't always need to.

NO - an axiom is more than that in Maths.
It is an assumption - it is the basis on which the remainder of the subject hinges. For instance in algebra there are four or five (depending on whether you count the multiplicative axiom separately from the additive axiom).

[XAP]Bob wrote:Maths, and theoretical physics, makes predictions. Those predictions are then tested, and if, as with gravitational waves, they are found to be accurate predictions then our confidence in the model that led to the prediction increases. If they don't then we look at the model and improve it.

Mayans could predict eclipses and so on but they didn't have or need a theory of gravity to do that.

So it isn't true that because of gravity we can predict these things, they were being predicted centuries ago.

Now you're going to say they were observing gravity without even knowing it?

Thats not enough proof for me, I need to see a machine that is stopped and starts moving due to gravity, no such machine exists, with the excuse being "Gravity is far too weak" - but thats not right if it holds the ocean to the Earth. It is motor-mouth lies from these saps, they just tell people what they want to hear for the most part. Does it need gravity? Right then it exists. Nothing even proves it and the way the cosmos moves doesn't prove why objects stick to the ground here on Earth, it is barely a tenuous link.

OK - stop a tennis ball and then let it go - gravity will cause it to start moving. Better yet find a piano and a crane, then stand under the piano when the crane driver releases the piano. Since gravity can't cause the piano to move you'll be fine.

Eclipses can be predicted because the orbits of the bodies in the solar system follow a few simple rules - and whether or not you understand the rules you can observe their effects, and extrapolate future alignments.

[XAP]Bob wrote:There is a difference between a theory and a fact.
This is what I have been telling you.

No - you've been saying that a theory cannot be fact.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Because we don't generally operate within situations where the effects deviate significantly from Newtonian physics.
Newtonian physics took something real (the acceleration rate of a falling object) and added something unverified to it (gravity). The two things are cleverly tied together, but one is real and one isn't. Objects really accelerate when they fall but gravity doesn't need to be there.

As I have already pointed out this "G" isn't a constant anyway either, because objects of different densities fall at different speeds in water tanks. So it isn't even right that it is a constant either, on top of it not ever being proven.

Er - of course they will, that'll be due to the other forces at work in the situation...


"Why don't you jump out of a building and you'll soon find out what gravity is" they say, but I won't, I will find out my body has way more density than the air has and the air cannot possibly support me or even get close to supporting me with those differences in density. Why add gravity to that? I might as well have a phone in my hand and say the phone is making me fall, there's as much proof for that as there is "gravity" doing it.

Why would the air need to support you if there was no gravity?

It "has to be gravity" because it is claimed we live on a spinning ball, no other reason.

Huh?

[XAP]Bob wrote:Re Tesla: I was wrong - Tesla was brilliant, but also unwilling to countenance the theories being developed at the time. He wasn't alone in that belief, but it doesn't make him right.
He was a real scientist.
Yes - and? So was Einstein, and Hawking, and Newton, and ...
Science is always building on earlier theories - refining them and improving our understanding of the world around us.
The current understanding of the world is based on a curvature of space-time, and you know what. It works really damned well.
The gravitational lensing it predicts was observed in 1919, confirmed in 1922 and several times since. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury is correctly accounted for, Gravitational redshift has been measured, the Sharipo delay...

Re: banned for having an electric motor and blue tooth swit

Cycling UK Forum - Racing - 27 April 2016 - 12:11am
I wonder how durable those BB motors are? would have to stand up to a lot of punishment over thousands of miles to be of any value?

Re: banned for having an electric motor and blue tooth swit

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 27 April 2016 - 12:11am
I wonder how durable those BB motors are? would have to stand up to a lot of punishment over thousands of miles to be of any value?

Re: My "friend's bike" turns into 6 year ban

Cycling UK Forum - Racing - 27 April 2016 - 12:05am
Hi,
Mechanical doping...........six years...
So Medical doping gets you what...........a smack.........

Re: Poor maintenance

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 11:50pm
Manc33 wrote:The usual answer to why planes aren't ending up in space when maintaining altitude is that "gravity" (what else) can intelligently keep that plane "level"…
But why do you believe in aeroplanes?
Syndicate content
 
  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cycling UK is a trading name of Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC) a company limited by guarantee, registered in England no: 25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales charity no: 1147607 and in Scotland charity no: sco42541. Registered office: Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, Surrey GU2 9JX.

Copyright © CTC 2016

Terms and Conditions