滑雪人論壇  

返回   滑雪人論壇 > 滑雪技術討論區 > 雙板Ski > Ski技術討論區

Ski技術討論區 管他是好咖還是怪咖,只要是咖就能發言,有任何技術問題,在此討論就對啦。

回覆
 
主題工具 顯示模式
舊 2015-03-04, 02:23 PM   #381
norman
滑雪瘋隕石級
 
norman 的頭像
 
註冊日期: 2008-09-24
文章: 12,242
發送 MSN 訊息給 norman 發送 Skype™ 訊息給 norman
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: pku 查看文章
你是模仿動作,但實質差很遠,有機會一起滑時幫你在黑缐拍一段你再比較一下。
不,你弄錯一件事,這個動作我並未模仿誰的,這是我為了加強要練一個伸縮動作的彈性及一個很特別的動作而去想出這個方法練的。

而這J.F的影片是我在去年野澤滑完雪回來後才看到他的影片,然後從中截這一個彎出來的。

我認為差不遠了,我剛順便再把我練這動作第一次拍的影片貼給你們看,這是失敗的影片,因為收縮的不夠低,沒有達到我的要求,收縮不夠低是無法形成我要練的一個特別動作的。

而我一直貼給你們看的是我第三次拍的,那時已經下午四點了,沒時間拍了,所以是最後一趟,算是勉強還稍入得眼一點而已,但拿來講已足夠了。

你看我這第一次拍的,收縮不夠,像不像這兩天貼的影片動作?


__________________
目前總滑天數80天。繼續累積中...我想滑雪。

滑雪人
norman 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-03-04, 03:10 PM   #382
norman
滑雪瘋隕石級
 
norman 的頭像
 
註冊日期: 2008-09-24
文章: 12,242
發送 MSN 訊息給 norman 發送 Skype™ 訊息給 norman
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

這動作練完後,滑起來的動作應該是像這個樣子的,但因為我才只練半天而已,又沒有個人的雪鞋及雪板,所以我只能這麼推測而已,但應該是八九不離十的。

__________________
目前總滑天數80天。繼續累積中...我想滑雪。

滑雪人
norman 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-03-04, 11:02 PM   #383
pku
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2010-05-30
文章: 3,787
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: norman 查看文章
不,你弄錯一件事,這個動作我並未模仿誰的,這是我為了加強要練一個伸縮動作的彈性及一個很特別的動作而去想出這個方法練的。

而這J.F的影片是我在去年野澤滑完雪回來後才看到他的影片,然後從中截這一個彎出來的。

我認為差不遠了,我剛順便再把我練這動作第一次拍的影片貼給你們看,這是失敗的影片,因為收縮的不夠低,沒有達到我的要求,收縮不夠低是無法形成我要練的一個特別動作的。

而我一直貼給你們看的是我第三次拍的,那時已經下午四點了,沒時間拍了,所以是最後一趟,算是勉強還稍入得眼一點而已,但拿來講已足夠了。

你看我這第一次拍的,收縮不夠,像不像這兩天貼的影片動作?

http://youtu.be/jlVHb4p68so

http://youtu.be/w2Sh2_r3Szk
你再滑多些便知沒你想那麼簡單,滑雪時當有速度時,你身體的協調性便會大大降低,就算是在綠缐冰面時,也很難控制。

我也有經常在家滑雪,但我跟你不同的地方是我在滑幾日便可在雪場實習,想的跟滑出來經常是兩回事,而你是在家滑一,兩年,才有機會到雪場實習。我現在講你是不會相信,到有機會一齊一起滑便知結果。
pku 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-03-04, 11:03 PM   #384
pku
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2010-05-30
文章: 3,787
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: norman 查看文章
這動作練完後,滑起來的動作應該是像這個樣子的,但因為我才只練半天而已,又沒有個人的雪鞋及雪板,所以我只能這麼推測而已,但應該是八九不離十的。

http://youtu.be/BASTz0J3W4M
你滑得出他那樣時,可不可以收我做徒弟
pku 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-03-04, 11:26 PM   #385
norman
滑雪瘋隕石級
 
norman 的頭像
 
註冊日期: 2008-09-24
文章: 12,242
發送 MSN 訊息給 norman 發送 Skype™ 訊息給 norman
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: pku 查看文章


你再滑多些便知沒你想那麼簡單,滑雪時當有速度時,你身體的協調性便會大大降低,就算是在綠缐冰面時,也很難控制。

我也有經常在家滑雪,但我跟你不同的地方是我在滑幾日便可在雪場實習,想的跟滑出來經常是兩回事,而你是在家滑一,兩年,才有機會到雪場實習。我現在講你是不會相信,到有機會一齊一起滑便知結果。
你很難想像我為何會有這信心,這是有原因根據的,如果下次出門滑雪,先不碰饅頭,我先花幾天的時間就專門特別練這個動作,從綠線一路練到黑線,因為又是兩年沒滑雪,我需要三天的時間適應黑線的陡度,還得先去買一副個人的滑雪裝備,這樣我們只要一起滑五天,你應該就能看到我在黑線上做出我要做的動作了。

你跟我最大的差別就是,你不會我說的「拉提收縮」的動作(不是太極提的那種假拉提收縮),如果你會的話,你就會知道為何我練這個動作沒有障礙的問題了。

所以我才會說,我的滑雪天數實在是我的硬傷,要是哪天能一口氣滑個兩三周。

而我會建議你練這個動作就是如果你能練到跟我差不多一樣的伸縮動作,你就能體會到我說的那特別的動作了,目前你應該沒辦法伸縮變化這個大,所以我才會建議一定要用正確的傾去練出來,沒有正確的傾是白搭的。所以要維持刻滑又要伸收這麼大,這真的不是容易的動作,我也知呀,所以你的努力必須是我的數倍,缺的就是關鍵竅門而已。

話說回來,下次一起滑,你應該是看到不同於跟我去年野澤一起滑的樣子了。可惜我現在無法出門滑雪證明我說的這個練習動作帶來了多大的好處。我也很期待讓你們再吃驚喔。
__________________
目前總滑天數80天。繼續累積中...我想滑雪。

滑雪人
norman 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-03-04, 11:33 PM   #386
norman
滑雪瘋隕石級
 
norman 的頭像
 
註冊日期: 2008-09-24
文章: 12,242
發送 MSN 訊息給 norman 發送 Skype™ 訊息給 norman
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: pku 查看文章
你滑得出他那樣時,可不可以收我做徒弟
沒那麼誇張吧?

不過下次出門滑雪只專練這個動作,應該是有機會逹到的,就算沒全像,八成應該是沒問題,最近老是講這個,害我腳又癢了,只好努力看看今年冬天能不能出門滑雪了。

PS. 我忘了提一件事,這是收縮釋壓的滑法喔,比伸展釋壓更難。
__________________
目前總滑天數80天。繼續累積中...我想滑雪。

滑雪人

此篇文章於 2015-03-04 11:38 PM 被 norman 編輯。
norman 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-03-05, 01:19 AM   #387
pku
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2010-05-30
文章: 3,787
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: norman 查看文章
沒那麼誇張吧?

不過下次出門滑雪只專練這個動作,應該是有機會逹到的,就算沒全像,八成應該是沒問題,最近老是講這個,害我腳又癢了,只好努力看看今年冬天能不能出門滑雪了。

PS. 我忘了提一件事,這是收縮釋壓的滑法喔,比伸展釋壓更難。
在大部分地形,雪質,都能滑得快速,暢順,身隨意轉,便是滑雪高手的境界。用什麼方法滑,我覺得不重要,

如你能滑得這個境界,我叫你一聲師父是我的榮幸

學無前後,達者為先,我不會像偽太極,整天什麼幾十年滑雪經驗,掛在咀邊

此篇文章於 2015-03-05 01:25 AM 被 pku 編輯。
pku 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-03-05, 12:34 PM   #388
norman
滑雪瘋隕石級
 
norman 的頭像
 
註冊日期: 2008-09-24
文章: 12,242
發送 MSN 訊息給 norman 發送 Skype™ 訊息給 norman
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: pku 查看文章
在大部分地形,雪質,都能滑得快速,暢順,身隨意轉,便是滑雪高手的境界。用什麼方法滑,我覺得不重要,

如你能滑得這個境界,我叫你一聲師父是我的榮幸

學無前後,達者為先,我不會像偽太極,整天什麼幾十年滑雪經驗,掛在咀邊
叫師父太沈重,因為就得負責仔細教會。

不叫師父比較輕鬆,我是很樂意分享的,看人達到什麼程度就建議方向一下,然後修行靠天份去領悟了。

今天因為你硬是把正確傾給練出來,真的不容易呀,我也提到過,本來去年回來,我的發言比較少,後來又受太極刺激才把這東西拿出來討論,但是,要是沒人會,也是鴨子聽雷,因為對不會的人來講,它是不存在的,今年你拍的新片回來,我發現你做出這個正確傾,這才使得我們能討論這個動作,如你也很清楚,這個正確傾是很難的。

而我的經歷跟你的天數累積苦練出來的正確傾是不一樣的,我是從「姿勢歸零」,然後再從「姿勢歸零」進階到「拉提收縮」,在2013年再由「拉提收縮」去練「正確傾」,所以是有步驟的,而我會建議你的高伸收滑法是為了讓你把伸展釋壓轉換成收縮釋壓的動作,這個過程是非常難的,這也是為何本來我都懶得再講技術了,我每次想到那些動作難度那麼高,我講了也沒人聽得懂,還不如等哪天有人有相同的動作後再來講好了。

今天我一直在想「拉提收縮」要用什麼來形容這個動作?剛才我想到了,「拉提收縮」就像「心臟」一樣,「心臟」是收小腦控制的,是一個自律的動作,它不需要像我們站在地上一樣站蹲才能伸展跟收縮,它可以說是懸空吊著的,但它就是能縮小放大,所以我們就知道它有個強大的肌肉群去讓它像泵輔一樣運作。

「拉提收縮」就是這樣的一個動作,你想想看,我都能隨時隨地能做像這樣懸空就能收縮的動作,我還會在乎地形跟動作變化嗎?我唯一在乎的就只有地心引力而已,我只要想辦法維持相同的壓力把動作跟刻線做出來就行了,所以接下來我就把正確傾再加入進去,所以收縮的動作再加上自身旋轉的動作,這就是我說的把雙腳收縮到極限才會產生我要練的動作,收到極限後,如果身體沒有正確傾及自轉及自主收縮,就會被甩出去(摔出去),這重心動作是變化非常快的。

待續….我等會手繪一張這個的簡易說明圖,有時我都覺得講這個就好像在講武功一樣,或是講些玄乎其玄的東西,說實在的,這些沒有從基本學起,就算用最快速度教會也是無法理解其中原理的。
__________________
目前總滑天數80天。繼續累積中...我想滑雪。

滑雪人
norman 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-03-05, 01:33 PM   #389
norman
滑雪瘋隕石級
 
norman 的頭像
 
註冊日期: 2008-09-24
文章: 12,242
發送 MSN 訊息給 norman 發送 Skype™ 訊息給 norman
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

畫來了,講這種複雜的動作真的很不好畫,因為我也想不出來要如何表示才好。

如圖,不知你們看不看得懂我的意思,想想看,如果我沒有能靠自身力量「拉提收縮」(在重心持續保持在自己身上),我要如何「同時」收腳、換往另一方向傾轉過去、收到底時,還要繼續傾轉不能中斷的換把雙腳伸出去?聽起來是不是像天方夜譚?



再看一次之前貼的,是不是跟我講的動作是一樣的,只是內在的動作對不會的人來講,它是不存在的,要如何證明,除非有天有人學會我的方法,自然就知道它是存在的。

不過說起來慚愧,雖然我會,也有方法,但現實是現實的,因為沒有實地練習,會有什麼烏用?直排輪及馬路滑雪板只能輔助自己把練習的時間再縮短而已,但速度跟傾斜角度及陡度還是要實際練習才能再往上進步,那實在不是其他方法能輔助。

不過這個「拉提收縮」的價值超乎想像,可能運用在各種運動上面,會有如神助的進步速度,因為它就是丹田發力至全身讓全身協調一致性(抱歉,我不懂武功,但我覺得也只能這樣解釋了)。

__________________
目前總滑天數80天。繼續累積中...我想滑雪。

滑雪人
norman 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-03-06, 01:52 AM   #390
lelo
滑雪瘋9級
 
註冊日期: 2008-10-08
文章: 5,341
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: norman 查看文章
「拉提收縮」就是這樣的一個動作,你想想看,我都能隨時隨地能做像這樣懸空就能收縮的動作,我還會在乎地形跟動作變化嗎?我唯一在乎的就只有地心引力而已,我只要想辦法維持相同的壓力把動作跟刻線做出來就行了,所以接下來我就把正確傾再加入進去,所以收縮的動作再加上自身旋轉的動作,這就是我說的把雙腳收縮到極限才會產生我要練的動作,收到極限後,如果身體沒有正確傾及自轉及自主收縮,就會被甩出去(摔出去),這重心動作是變化非常快的。
滑雪時有兩種縮腿動作,一種是順應地形,被雪包頂上去的被動縮腿。

一種是主動縮腿,變換鋼邊時用來釋壓的縮腿。
lelo 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-03-06, 04:40 AM   #391
B2L2
滑雪瘋3級
 
註冊日期: 2011-03-04
文章: 346
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

建議諾曼打開一個新課題
B2L2 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-03-06, 05:52 AM   #392
beg
滑雪瘋6級
 
註冊日期: 2010-07-10
文章: 2,094
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

建議新主題

吹牛成仙 VS 吸毒成仙
beg 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-03-06, 06:37 AM   #393
snowrider
滑雪瘋5級
 
snowrider 的頭像
 
註冊日期: 2009-03-27
文章: 1,329
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

說弱慢兄對於吃很有研究
這個我同意!

但是若說到他懂滑雪?
我只能說他吹牛吹得累不累呀?!

snowrider 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-03-06, 09:37 AM   #394
norman
滑雪瘋隕石級
 
norman 的頭像
 
註冊日期: 2008-09-24
文章: 12,242
發送 MSN 訊息給 norman 發送 Skype™ 訊息給 norman
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: B2L2 查看文章
建議諾曼打開一個新課題
OK
__________________
目前總滑天數80天。繼續累積中...我想滑雪。

滑雪人
norman 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-03-06, 09:38 AM   #395
norman
滑雪瘋隕石級
 
norman 的頭像
 
註冊日期: 2008-09-24
文章: 12,242
發送 MSN 訊息給 norman 發送 Skype™ 訊息給 norman
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: beg 查看文章
建議新主題

吹牛成仙 VS 吸毒成仙
切!
__________________
目前總滑天數80天。繼續累積中...我想滑雪。

滑雪人
norman 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-03-06, 09:39 AM   #396
norman
滑雪瘋隕石級
 
norman 的頭像
 
註冊日期: 2008-09-24
文章: 12,242
發送 MSN 訊息給 norman 發送 Skype™ 訊息給 norman
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: snowrider 查看文章
說弱慢兄對於吃很有研究
這個我同意!

但是若說到他懂滑雪?
我只能說他吹牛吹得累不累呀?!

就說下次真有機會一起滑不就知道了嗎?
__________________
目前總滑天數80天。繼續累積中...我想滑雪。

滑雪人
norman 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-04-24, 09:08 AM   #397
taichiskiing
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2009-02-07
文章: 3,756
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: B2L2 查看文章
Math and sci doesn't lie, so let's stick with.
Remember what you have said here, “stick with,” but you don't know what the “math and sci” methods are. You may have some “critical thinking” training, but your “critical thinking” lacks of “scientific” discipline.

引用:
So you have another definition, or something you don't understand that you need more explanation?
Asking question to pretend that you responding? 弱慢族的denials.

引用:
You quoted the very 1st formula and get it wrong. You basically lost the whole discussion already. The quoted formula describes the relation between R and V, but it didn't imply what you claimed is correct. You said "mathematically, the longer the turn radius the faster the speed" is plainly wrong, unless "centripetal acceleration is equal".
There is no such thing as “plainly wrong” in “math and sci” discipline, you either "prove" it or "disprove" it, if you cannot disprove it and insist on the wrong conclusions you are in denials, or other way of saying, you don't know what constitute a “proof,” and you don't know how to “prove” things.

引用:
I asked the question again, why and how you could assume the centripetal acceleration is equal in these two cases? Even Norman could name one thing that affects centripetal force, he named lean angle. How could you assume that the bigger turn and small turn both have the same lean angle from the skier?
Assuming “all else equal” is the “standard practice” of scientific method/discipline, one more proof that you lack of “scientific” methods/discipline.

引用:
Let's re-use your logic here.
A person height = length of lower body + length of upper body
With the person height the same, the longer his lower body, the shorter his upper body. Fair. Now I say playing soccer will make his legs longer. Putting the condition "will all else equal" (i.e. his height remains the same). Could then I conclude that playing soccer will shorten his upper body?

Is this logic make sense to anyone?

Apply this back to skiing, does it make any sense to assume the longer turn radius to have the same centripetal force as the shorter turn?
“白痴邏輯”‧ No, you play soccer may make you legs thicker, but not “longer,” and a human body does not grow as 1+1=2, your premises are wrong, and your conclusion is also wrong. And noone here has assumed what you've assumed.

引用:
In math, nobody don't care about approximate value of "a". If you want to draw a conclusion between the relation between R and V, you will have to use a constant "ac" value. Otherwise, your conclusion means nothing at all.
It may not mean anything to you, but all other “scientists” know what it means, and they have used it to sent man travels to the moon.

引用:
In math, nobody have to keep "quiet". There is only right or wrong. Even I keep quiet doesn't make your right.
And your denial doesn't make you're right, and not "keep quite" doesn't mean you are asking questions, but whining.

引用:
You're the person using the "the higher the KE gives higher performance" statement. The question should be for yourself, and I even said to stick with this for discussion. What're you whining about?
Not sure what you're whining about here.

引用:
Did the P-51 ever shot down any ME262?
The question here is not “kill ratio,” but “performance.”P-51 turns better, but Me262 has much better speed performance, and in air wars speed is the king, (and that's why in skiing downhill downhill is called the “king of the skiing,”) which is proven in Vietnam war.

引用:
Back to math for a sec. If both ME262 and P-51 carry a weight of 10,000lb, both travelling at 400mph. Using "KE=1/2* m*V*V", they both have the same KE. Is there still performance difference between the two plane? If you simply use KE for measurement for performance, at this case they have the same. This is what I disagree on using KE for performance measure.
You lack of aeronautical knowledge, and your math is just as bad. See that little “m” there in the formula? That's a “variable” that you have not accounted for, not to mention that engine power and wing design all make major difference on airplane performance, so even they have the same KE, their performance will be likely different. The relationship of the KE and performance in skiing can be easily see on a black slope, without sufficient speed (higher KE) you cannot turn well on it.

引用:
i) "angular velocity" is not "linear". When an object spin at the same spot for 360degree/min, its linear velocity = 0, its angular velocity is 6 degree/sec. Please check your definition again.

[the object also have a 0 linear KE, it's angular KE is not, please check your definition as well.]
I think that you are confused about “spinning” with “travelling in a curved path,” wrong subject, and as it is not travelling, of course it has no “linear KE,” nevertheless, do you think whether or not that spinning object has a KE?

引用:
ii) Are we talking about the ski track? The ski track left behind is clearly in a curve. I can't agree that you name it a "linear" line.
I think that you confused about “straight” with “linear” too, all “lines” are “linear,” so a curve line is “linear.”

引用:
Again, in math, no one cares about "estimate". KE is defined by the formula you quoted. If you know m and V, no one needs to estimate. If you don't know the KE, you couldn't conclude which one has higher performance (since you said higher KE equals to higher performance). If you're guessing/estimating, then you're guessing/estimating.

If you could prove one thing math/sci/physically, then the prove shouldn't required people's experience in doing the two different turns. Your question is unrelated to this math prove. If this is your way to exit your ill-prove, then said it that way.
Thanks for proving yourself are math/physics/science challenged.

引用:
Wait until you could answer the questions and finish your proof before saying this. You have so many wrong and misleading info.
Yes, I did predict that you would deny it. What you throw out just bunch of “terminology” that you “copy&paste” from somewhere, and you have no ideas how they “relate,” and your analysis method is not scientific, and all that mumble jumble just to cover that you cannot answer my simple question, “what is “higher performance” in skiing?” Yup, “shameful critic, shameful person,” wanna try [to answer] it again?

:)
IS
taichiskiing 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-04-25, 03:57 AM   #398
B2L2
滑雪瘋3級
 
註冊日期: 2011-03-04
文章: 346
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

More than half of the message is unrelated verbal bashing. Helpless.

Let continue the math and sci part since that what I'm only interested in.

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
There is no such thing as “plainly wrong” in “math and sci” discipline, you either "prove" it or "disprove" it, if you cannot disprove it and insist on the wrong conclusions you are in denials, or other way of saying, you don't know what constitute a “proof,” and you don't know how to “prove” things.
To prove you wrong, you could read: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae154.cfm

There are at least two examples there against your claimed theory of "the longer the turn radius the faster the speed".

Answered by: Yasar Safkan, Ph.D. M.I.T., Software Engineer, Istanbul, Turkey
"So, all in all, rotational motion itself does not put a constraint on how r and v are related. All it brings is one equation, which says the centripetal force is mv2/r. The second side of the equation is supplied by the nature of the force."

You could go argue over there if you want to said no.

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
Assuming “all else equal” is the “standard practice” of scientific method/discipline, one more proof that you lack of “scientific” methods/discipline.
Centripetal acceleration is in this formula, how could you consider it is "else"?

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
“白痴邏輯”‧ No, you play soccer may make you legs thicker, but not “longer,” and a human body does not grow as 1+1=2, your premises are wrong, and your conclusion is also wrong. And noone here has assumed what you've assumed
The same “白痴邏輯” applied to what you claimed.

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
You lack of aeronautical knowledge, and your math is just as bad. See that little “m” there in the formula? That's a “variable” that you have not accounted for, not to mention that engine power and wing design all make major difference on airplane performance, so even they have the same KE, their performance will be likely different. The relationship of the KE and performance in skiing can be easily see on a black slope, without sufficient speed (higher KE) you cannot turn well on it.
You're a pilot, right. Of course you should have better knowledge. I said they both carry the same weight (the sum of its own weight of the plane and extra items) . So "m" is the same for both cases.

And thanks for saying that "even they have the same KE, their performance will be likely different". This is why I said using KE as a performance measurement is not good. Any more question?

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
I think that you are confused about “spinning” with “travelling in a curved path,” wrong subject, and as it is not travelling, of course it has no “linear KE,” nevertheless, do you think whether or not that spinning object has a KE?
Maybe you're the one getting confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
I think that you confused about “straight” with “linear” too, all “lines” are “linear,” so a curve line is “linear.”
Again, you're the one getting confused. Go correct yourself by learning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvilinear_motion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_motion

Quote: "Linear motion is a motion along a straight line"

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/math/nonlinear.html
Quote: "The graph of a non-linear function is a curved line. A curved line is a line whose direction constantly changes"

Have fun and enjoy learning in your old age.
B2L2 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-04-25, 06:14 AM   #399
taichiskiing
滑雪瘋7級
 
註冊日期: 2009-02-07
文章: 3,756
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: B2L2 查看文章
More than half of the message is unrelated verbal bashing. Helpless.
That's because more than half of you post are BS, helpless indeed.

引用:
Let continue the math and sci part since that what I'm only interested in.

To prove you wrong, you could read: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae154.cfm

There are at least two examples there against your claimed theory of "the longer the turn radius the faster the speed".

Answered by: Yasar Safkan, Ph.D. M.I.T., Software Engineer, Istanbul, Turkey
"So, all in all, rotational motion itself does not put a constraint on how r and v are related. All it brings is one equation, which says the centripetal force is mv2/r. The second side of the equation is supplied by the nature of the force."

You could go argue over there if you want to said no.

Centripetal acceleration is in this formula, how could you consider it is "else"?
Don't bring in other people's works here when you cannot recite them with your own mouth, I'm not arguing with them, and they are not arguing with me, and you may not know what are they talking about. What you quote his saying has no argument related to my theory "the longer the turn radius the faster the speed". Your quote is incomplete and garble, do you know what is he talking about? I think that he is arguing on a subject that internal energy state doesn't affect the external orbit and velocity, which is correct, there's no argument. To test my theory is simple, just go out there to ski yourself (then that is real “all else are equal”), do some series“long” turns and “short” turns, see if you can tell the difference.

引用:
The same “白痴邏輯” applied to what you claimed.
Yup, “the same “白痴邏輯”.”

引用:
You're a pilot, right. Of course you should have better knowledge. I said they both carry the same weight (the sum of its own weight of the plane and extra items) . So "m" is the same for both cases.

And thanks for saying that "even they have the same KE, their performance will be likely different". This is why I said using KE as a performance measurement is not good. Any more question?
I think that you are confused about “maneuvering [skills]” with “performance,”guess that's why you couldn't answer my question, “what is “higher performance” in skiing?”You don't know the answer.

引用:
Maybe you're the one getting confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy
No, we are talking “circular motions” not “rotational energy,”so, you are the one who gets confused.

引用:
Again, you're the one getting confused. Go correct yourself by learning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvilinear_motion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_motion

Quote: "Linear motion is a motion along a straight line"

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/math/nonlinear.html
Quote: "The graph of a non-linear function is a curved line. A curved line is a line whose direction constantly changes"

Have fun and enjoy learning in your old age.
Your narrow interpretation doesn't invalidate my theory, and there are more math and physics go into those terminology than your Wikipedia.

Yup, I did learn a lot about lower end humanity here, thanks for the good examples.

:)
IS
taichiskiing 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
舊 2015-04-25, 09:28 AM   #400
B2L2
滑雪瘋3級
 
註冊日期: 2011-03-04
文章: 346
預設 回覆: Flatboarding vs. Skiing

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
Don't bring in other people's works here when you cannot recite them with your own mouth, I'm not arguing with them, and they are not arguing with me, and you may not know what are they talking about. What you quote his saying has no argument related to my theory "the longer the turn radius the faster the speed". Your quote is incomplete and garble, do you know what is he talking about? I think that he is arguing on a subject that internal energy state doesn't affect the external orbit and velocity, which is correct, there's no argument. To test my theory is simple, just go out there to ski yourself (then that is real “all else are equal”), do some series“long” turns and “short” turns, see if you can tell the difference.
It was you who claimed with all-else-equal, "the longer the turn radius the faster the speed". And people proved it wrong there.

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.

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".

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?

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
I think that you are confused about “maneuvering [skills]” with “performance,”guess that's why you couldn't answer my question, “what is “higher performance” in skiing?”You don't know the answer.
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.

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
No, we are talking “circular motions” not “rotational energy,”so, you are the one who gets confused.
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.

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
Your narrow interpretation doesn't invalidate my theory, and there are more math and physics go into those terminology than your Wikipedia.
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.

引用:
作者: taichiskiing 查看文章
Yup, I did learn a lot about lower end humanity here, thanks for the good examples.
You indeed a good example. Don't need to say thanks to yourself.
B2L2 目前離線   回覆時引用此篇文章
回覆

書籤

主題工具
顯示模式

發文規則
不可以發表新主題
不可以發表回覆
不可以上傳附件
不可以編輯自己的文章

啟用 BB 代碼
論壇啟用 表情符號
論壇啟用 [IMG] 代碼
論壇禁用 HTML 代碼


所有時間均為台北時間。現在的時間是 06:40 AM


Powered by vBulletin® 版本 3.7.4
版權所有 ©2000 - 2021,Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.