No one has proved me wrong, (actually, no one can, as my theory is correct,) so, that is your shameless lie.B2L2 寫:It was you who claimed with all-else-equal, "the longer the turn radius the faster the speed". And people proved it wrong there.
You are wrong again, I've said that you can only prove the “true” knowledge in two ways: by Math/Sci way or holistic way, and you know neither ways.And it was also you who claimed that you could prove all your knowledge/theory correct by Math/Sci. And I said if one could be proved by Math/Sci, I don't need to go experience that myself.
Maybe that's your “turn skiing” have ways to scrap the speed during the turns, but no, to narrow down the variables, just say to ski the fastest way you can on both long turns and short turns, your long turn speed will be faster than your short turn's. Your inept doesn't shed the light.And just to answer your question, I could ski a short radius turn fast and slow and I could also ski a long radius turn fast and slow. And in each turn, the centripetal force is different, yes. But no where I could draw a BS conclusion like you and simply said "the longer the turn radius the faster the speed".
What you choose to quote [to show off] is to base on your knowledge, so when you quote a wrong subject it does mean that you either don't know or don't understand the subject enough. I don't put people in doubt, I always double check my words, and I always have proofs to what I say, and you are in my proof.You just like to keep whining. When we said our words/knowledge, you said we are wrong. When we quote other people words/knowledge, you complained we quoted our people's knowledge. Why you always put other people in doubt and never (never ever) put doubt in yourself?
If you don't know your definition, that is to say, you don't know the answer neither, then how can you prove me wrong? No, you can't; you don't know what you are talking about, then my theory is not reachable by your thinking, so you cannot prove either way. If you think that you're doing it, you are bullshiting yourself.I'm not here to answer this question. I'm here to prove you wrong. But knowing what's my definition didn't make your theory right. We could make a new topic for that when I feel like it.
No, that is not an answer, but your plagiarizing other's materials, and you fail to mention the “circular motion.”You asked "whether or not that spinning object has a KE", you forgot? And that's my answer to your question. Rotational energy could also be called as angular kinetic energy.
Yes, in math, linear is one dimensional; nevertheless, the question is, have you figure out what “one dimension” means? All objects travel in this universe are considered as “linear montion,” and yes, even it is as "wide" as the earth orbit. Your small domain (Wikipedia) is inadequate.Have you figured out what is linear and what is non-linear yet? If you don't know and understand common teams, you don't have much room to prove yourself right.
You still cannot pin point what's wrong with my interpretation. And Wikipedia isn't mine.
Yup, no need to thank me, you are what you do, so being called.You indeed a good example. Don't need to say thanks to yourself.
:)
IS
