Re: fast tires

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
>

On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

(...)

IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."

>
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.

>
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously.  Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same.  Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.

>
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.

>
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive.  Do you memorize everything?  I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations.  If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.

>
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.

>
I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is
learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and
paste or copying out of a book?  That seems to me like an attempt to
change the topic.
>
Ok, I'll bite.  Rote is just one of many ways people learn.  We all
did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of
things, etc.  We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a
good way to begin learning.  I still learn by rote today.  For
example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality.
I make no attempt to understand those facts.  Some might be true, but
most are false.  I do some research and develop some understanding.
Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little.  If you've read my
comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results
of that research.
>
Do you have any proof of your claims?  If Frank had copied from a book
or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that
match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds
mass.  I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the
grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook.
Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a
book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing.  One
from the book and the other from the writer.
>
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how
things work BEFORE you could learn something.  If that's what you're
doing, it's rather self contradictory.  If not, how is it possible for
you to know how things work without first knowing first learning?

>
https://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/

>
Yes, that's fine background information.  You were the one who
introduced rote learning to this discussion.  I'm trying to determine
why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of
pounds force and pounds mass.
>
Here are two of my questions that you ignored.  I obviously can't
demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide.
That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions,
beliefs, opinions etc.  I do care how they derived or calculated those
convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
>
1.  Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by
cut and paste or copying out of a book?  That seems to me like an
attempt to change the topic.
>
2.  If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know
how things work BEFORE you could learn something.  If that's what
you're doing, it's rather self contradictory.  If not, how is it
possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first
learning?

I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back
when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just
quoted the researcher's conclusions.

--
C'est bon
Soloman