Re: fast tires

On 6/19/2025 6:21 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:06:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 6/19/2025 4:34 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:03:46 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

On 6/19/2025 3:50 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:20:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

On 6/19/2025 2:57 PM, Catrike Ryder 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.
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
Both can be true, and usually are.
>
Without a grounding in principle, the things you observe
(for technical problems) have no meaning.

>
I have a good memory and I can recite stuff I learned many years ago,
but analyzing that stuff to know what it means is another thing.
>
Hint: A few romantic lines from Chaucer's "Knight's Tale" or the first
few lines from the Cantebury Tales are pretty good for convincing a
fair young maiden to have another glass of wine.  I've had more than
one fair lady (including my wife) look at me in awe when I expained it
was Chaucer. Of course you have to do it in old english.
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
+1
No less complex than basic physics, computer code in various
languages or drug interactions for a pharmacist...

>
I disagree. There's no complexity in that at all. It's no different
than "roses are red, violets are blue...." It's no different than
playing or singing music. I have no idea where and how it's stored,
but when I lay my hands and fingers on the keyboard, they know where
to go. Strange thing is that I can't play the keyboard or the guitar
and sing at the same time. I've been told that both functions use the
same little chunk of brain. That has limited my entertainment value.
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
>
Memorizing physics formulae or a part in a Shakespeare play
or Indy winners in order by year or the infield fly rule or
your favorite music for keyboard or Japanese kana are all,
literally, the exact same thing; rote memory.

 No argument there.. Some aspects of computer programming depends on
rote knowlege, too, but writing software, IOW, problem solving,
generally requires analytical ability and what they call meaningfull
learning.
--
C'est bon
Soloman

Yes that's true.
But Fermi couldn't advance knowledge without first understanding basic physics.
You'll counter that John Lenin never learned music theory and could neither read nor write musical notation all his short life. That's also true.
But learning basic theory and principle helps immensely for those of us who are not geniuses.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971