|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker!
It's not surprizing that you keep changing the subject, each time you lose the argument. Sincce mountain bikers go faster, they have greater momentum & hence exert greater force on the trail -- hence more erosion. Then multiply by how much farther they travel, and it becomes obvious (to any HONEST person, which doesn't include mountain bikers) that mountain bikers do FAR more damage than hikers. Vandeman still 1000, mountain bikers ZERO. Go ahead, change the subject again. It only proves that you lost the argument, and can't face the music, COWARD.
One, I'm not changing the subject at all. Two, you've made this same statement three times now, in this thread, and I've refuted it every time with the equations, and the maths. You just keep restating the same ... without justifying it. I think you lose. If you were right, you would have to violate the conservation of energy ... and in this universe you can't do that. |
Ads |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker!
On Monday, July 15, 2013 5:01:07 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
It's not surprizing that you keep changing the subject, each time you lose the argument. Sincce mountain bikers go faster, they have greater momentum & hence exert greater force on the trail -- hence more erosion. Then multiply by how much farther they travel, and it becomes obvious (to any HONEST person, which doesn't include mountain bikers) that mountain bikers do FAR more damage than hikers. Vandeman still 1000, mountain bikers ZERO. Go ahead, change the subject again. It only proves that you lost the argument, and can't face the music, COWARD. One, I'm not changing the subject at all. Two, you've made this same statement three times now, in this thread, and I've refuted it every time with the equations, and the maths. You just keep restating the same ... without justifying it. I think you lose. If you were right, you would have to violate the conservation of energy .... and in this universe you can't do that. Irrelevant. You are assuming that they travel the same route, when in fact, mountain bikers travel several times as far as a hiker. Vandeman still 1000, mountain bikers ZERO. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker!
Irrelevant. You are assuming that they travel the same route, when in fact, mountain bikers travel several times as far as a hiker. Vandeman still 1000, mountain bikers ZERO. Where do I make that assumption Michael ? Answer ... I don't. I assume the same power output for the hiker and the biker and I assume the same time spent conducting the activity. Since the biker WILL travel further than the hiker, for the same energy input, it is clear that LESS energy is lost to friction with the trail, per metre, than for the hiker. Since this is axiomatically how a bicycle works it should come as no surprise to anyone. You are OUT ... provide some equations and maths to backup your proposition.. You are looking like a fool. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker!
He won't provide jack. He doesn't care about rationality or logic. The only thing he cares about is his own views. Everything else is irrelevant. His responses are pretty standard if you provide evidence up the contrary. He resorts to abuse in capitals letters or uses the pathetic line starting with 'thanks for demonstrating'....etc.
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker!
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 5:44:12 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote: I have challenged you before to provide peer reviewed scientific evidence that mountain biking in damaging NZs natural environment. You have come up with nothing to support your claims. There are reason for this. Yeah, the reason is that no one in New Zealand CARES enough to study the negative impacts of mountain biking. All you care about is MONEY! By the way, how are the moa and thylacine doing lately? Learn something about your own endangered species: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10797165 You have not done any science nor do you understand our environmental issues. Your lack of understanding has been the source of amusement for many mountain bikers in New Zealand (including myself). My advice to you is simple: keep up your poorly thought out statements and sadistic promotion of other people's pain. You are doing a great job in promoting our areas for mountain biking and making yourself look stupid in the process.
|
#126
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker!
On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:32:42 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
Irrelevant. You are assuming that they travel the same route, when in fact, mountain bikers travel several times as far as a hiker. Vandeman still 1000, mountain bikers ZERO. Where do I make that assumption Michael ? Answer ... I don't. I assume the same power output for the hiker and the biker Bas assumption. It takes more energy to propel the bike & to travel farther.. and I assume the same time spent conducting the activity. So they are travelling different routes, making them incomparable. Since the biker WILL travel further than the hiker, for the same energy input, it is clear that LESS energy is lost to friction with the trail, per metre, than for the hiker. The energy input can't be the same, since the biker has more weight to carry, & farther to travel. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, which is blatantly dishonest. No surprise there! That's what mountain bikers ALWAYS do. Vandeman STILL 1000, mountain bikers ZERO. Since this is axiomatically how a bicycle works it should come as no surprise to anyone. You are OUT ... provide some equations and maths to backup your proposition. You are looking like a fool. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker!
Where do I make that assumption Michael ? Answer ... I don't. I assume the same power output for the hiker and the biker
Bas assumption. It takes more energy to propel the bike & to travel farther. No Mike, basic fact. That is how bicycles work. They translate more energy into forward motion than walking so you can travel further for the same amount of energy. The power source is one person; whether walking or riding. Sure, the rider may be fitter and produce a bit more; but it's not the orders of magnitude you're constantly trying to push. So they are travelling different routes, making them incomparable. Complete non sequitur; we're discussing impact. The energy input can't be the same, since the biker has more weight to carry, & farther to travel. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, which is blatantly dishonest. No surprise there! That's what mountain bikers ALWAYS do. Vandeman STILL 1000, mountain bikers ZERO. Grow up. Read a physics book. Learn something. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker!
Lol. thylacine? That's the Tasmanian devil which is in Australia. In case you were wondering Australia is not New Zealand just like the USA is not part of Cuba or Mexico. Clearly your knowledge of geography is as limited as your scientific knowledge. Maybe you got your phd from a cereal box?
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker!
On Saturday, July 20, 2013 4:38:38 AM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 5:44:12 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote: I have challenged you before to provide peer reviewed scientific evidence that mountain biking in damaging NZs natural environment. You have come up with nothing to support your claims. There are reason for this. Yeah, the reason is that no one in New Zealand CARES enough to study the negative impacts of mountain biking. All you care about is MONEY! By the way, how are the moa and thylacine doing lately? Learn something about your own endangered species: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10797165 You have not done any science nor do you understand our environmental issues. Your lack of understanding has been the source of amusement for many mountain bikers in New Zealand (including myself). My advice to you is simple: keep up your poorly thought out statements and sadistic promotion of other people's pain. You are doing a great job in promoting our areas for mountain biking and making yourself look stupid in the process. Hey Vandeman the thylacine or tasmanian tiger was never a New Zealand native species. It was from Australia. By the way it's extinction was caused by hunting and habitat loss rather than mountain biking...You really don't help yourself old chum.... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker! | Blackblade | Mountain Biking | 17 | May 15th 13 12:22 PM |
WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker! | Mike Vandeman[_4_] | Mountain Biking | 1 | February 1st 13 03:34 PM |
WHOOPS! Another Dead Mountain Biker! | Mike Vandeman[_4_] | Mountain Biking | 1 | December 18th 12 04:52 AM |
WHOOPS, ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker! | Mike Vandeman[_4_] | Mountain Biking | 3 | August 29th 12 02:45 AM |
Whoops, ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker! | Mike Vandeman[_4_] | Mountain Biking | 0 | May 12th 12 05:01 PM |