B2L2 寫:Funny why you are so proud of yourself and claimed the leader of gappers' leader pride about your skiing. I remember you call him a true master that time.
He is a true master “skier” alright, but not a master “physicist.”
小女孩真的要多讀書學好英語，人家說 "mobile" 你就説成 "stationary"，真怪。
Yes, all the video and graphs you show, CG are shown “stationary.”
you should learn how to read and get the proper meaning on what you read, whinning little girl.
重點又不是討論CG是否move，係可否離身嗎，跟著又是不知所為 post 個 wrong clip 就又算了。來來去去，左右逃跑。
The clip is correctly shown that “a body always fall with its CG,”and it is not because you little knowledge’s denial it becomes ‘wrong.”“來來去去，左右逃跑” is you Whistler Group’s specialty, and all my questions to you gappers still remain open.
你話BB的 physics 太差，那他們的 physics 又可不可以？好可能想當年，你的 professor 都是用他們的書來教你
----------------
"The centre of mass of an object need not lie within the object.There is no dough at the centre of mass of a doughnut,and no iron at the centre of mass of a horseshoe."
Source(s): Fundamentals Of Physics - David Halliday,Robert Resnick,Jearl Walker.
Not really, the book’s narrow interpretation does not shed the “whole” truth about CG. From BB’s statement (close enough fact),“[CG] this is the point at which all the mass of an object or system of objects acts as if it were concentrated,” as CG is only about a “point” inside the object where the “average” mass of the object is “considered” as concentrated, but did not require there’s mass at that point. The center of a doughnut “hole” or the horseshoe center is all a part and inside of the object with an “average” mass, need not have to have the substance of the mass. The theory is still valid.
you should learn how to read and get the proper meaning on what you read, whinning little girl.
The clip is correctly shown that “a body always fall with its CG,”and it is not because you little knowledge’s denial it becomes ‘wrong.”“來來去去，左右逃跑” is you Whistler Group’s specialty, and all my questions to you gappers still remain open.
Not really, the book’s narrow interpretation does not shed the “whole” truth about CG. From BB’s statement (close enough fact),“[CG] this is the point at which all the mass of an object or system of objects acts as if it were concentrated,” as CG is only about a “point” inside the object where the “average” mass of the object is “considered” as concentrated, but did not require there’s mass at that point. The center of a doughnut “hole” or the horseshoe center is all a part and inside of the object with an “average” mass, need not have to have the substance of the mass. The theory is still valid.
既然你不認同 Encyclopedia of skiing 同 Fundamentals Of Physics 兩書所說的，那你拿出支持你的 theory 有關的學術資料，我們再談吧。
