Recent content by YellowTaxi

Jeff that's funny. Modified Porsches can pull more than 1.5G and they're modified for precisely that reason - they would would tip if they weren't modified. Even a stock porsche 911 will pull well over 1G on a race circuit, since there's more grip on a racing track than out on the street. ps...

You said said the bike has around 1/5 or 1/6 the contact patch area of a car tyre. And I said the car has around 5 or 6 times the weight of the bike all balancing on 2 wheels just like a bike. Therefore the 'loading per unit area' is the same... Mentioning that adding stickier tyres gives...

It says the lateral force, also known as friction, is prop to load^0.8 well, Friction = Coef x Load .'. Coef of friction is prop to Friction/Load. ie [load^0.8]/[load] ie Coef is prop to load ^ -0.2 OK ?

that wiki article you quote says that coef is proportional to load ^-0.2 therefore it agrees with me entirely. I don't understand your 'argument' here, you are in agreement with my previous statements. Of course its only an approximation, and factors like tyre geometry and stickiness of the...

I don't think that's true kev. You could video tape (or digitally record) the action going on inside a close to c spaceship then examine it later when the ship is back on earth. Or transmit the digital data as a short burst of information (to avoid doppler complication). The ticking of time...

grief that's obvious. But roughly speaking almost all the grip is coming from the 2 outside tyres at and above 1G. There is precisely 100% load transfer (not weight transfer btw) just when the car tips onto its side. Weight transfer is due to body roll which we are not considering in this...

I think you'll find its: coef of friction is proportional to load ^ -0.2. So a bike at 1/5 the weight of a porsche 911 has 1.4 times the amount of grip if using identical tyres (identical size, and same compound)

Jeff, you seem to forget that a car can't use all 4 tyres in a curve. That would be against the laws of physics as I'm sure you're aware. In corners at 1G and above the car's only really using the 2 wheels on the outside. So it's just a very heavy motorbike really. A porsche 911 for example...

I'm not sure what you mean by 'coordinate-dependent' Do you mean frame dependent ?

I can't do the maths myself but this wiki article seems to answer your question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time

So he's saying that SR is an illusion ?

It was posted by Mentz on here recently, I wanted to ask what he meant but doubted that I'd be able to attract his attention. So I put it up here for debate - hoping that you guys could shed some light on it for us. It seems an intersesting statement but I can't make head or tail of it myself...

I read this somewhere on a physics forum recently What is meant by this statement? I spent a short while thinking about it but can't follow what the person is going on about. Maybe I misunderstood him, but he seems to be claiming that time dilation is actually an illusion.

Observer B feels himself pressed against the back of his pilot's seat when his ship accelerates. Observer A doesn't feel himself pressed against the back of his pilot's seat. Because his ship doesn't move at all. In other words A and B are not interchangeable. Simple as that really. B...

- including the constancy of any observer's value of c But the difference between the 2 versions IMHO is just an argument of semantics. Neither is superior or more logical than the other. Until somebody can give a logical reason for the constancy of c. Or show that an ether does exist. Are...