norman 寫:很明顯就是你貼的漫畫是無恥下流人的回言，當然，你不知道自己看不懂自己的動作很爛，什麼就別說了。
不是，是你“瘋狗團團轉”的“老太婆包腳布”，又臭又長的，“爛”的是你弱慢族的知識、技術、及論壇。
#355 回覆: 回复: 回覆: 回复: 回覆: 太極荒島
發表於 : 週四 3月 03, 2016 10:25 pm
由 snowbender
pku 寫:用來比喻伱非常恰當，錯，應該是老麻雀得意。
我滑了三小時黑線，你當然有點酸溜溜，
No need for such harsh runs, we are enjoying near perfect “spring skiing,” sunny, warm, soft snow, and above all, “no ice”; no, I don’t envy you have to work so hard to enjoy your skiing.
I missed a statement “小麻雀的吱吱喳喳snipped”,而你回言“沒有禮貌,” and you are still as arrogant as ever.
第一，你在零G的環境下，談CG(center of gravity)，已經可見你的無知。
我可以當你說的是CM(center of mass)，來繼續這討論。
They are all the “same” point and from the true philosophy/形上學point of view, the “point” is “imaginary,” and different wording are only you lip-playing.
By the properties (“existence before being”) of the geometrical shape of donuts, and not just “donuts” but any such shapes. In 0G, there’s no movement, so there’s no CG, and the CG just “appears” as the object starts to move. Magical? No, it is called “reaction”; another example is, in a straight line movement, there is neither centrapedal force nor centrifugal force, nevertheless, once the object “turns,” both forces appear. It is these two forces determine how you can ski.
snowbender 寫:I missed a statement “小麻雀的吱吱喳喳snipped”,而你回言“沒有禮貌,” and you are still as arrogant as ever.
我的回言是用知識與事實，你覺得沒禮貌是你被事實打倒的反應。
snowbender 寫:
They are all the “same” point and from the true philosophy/形上學point of view, the “point” is “imaginary,” and different wording are only you lip-playing.
這一句再顯出你物理知識淺薄。我以前已說過兩者CG與CM是可以在不同的地點，我們一般的討論在人身體一般大小的物體，是可以把兩者位罝說成一樣，但你說怎麼 true philosophy 上是相同只是你的知識不足。
不如你試答我，人造衛星或 space shuttle 在軌道上怎樣 control 不打轉？
snowbender 寫:
By the properties (“existence before being”) of the geometrical shape of donuts, and not just “donuts” but any such shapes. In 0G, there’s no movement, so there’s no CG, and the CG just “appears” as the object starts to move. Magical? No, it is called “reaction”; another example is, in a straight line movement, there is neither centrapedal force nor centrifugal force, nevertheless, once the object “turns,” both forces appear. It is these two forces determine how you can ski.
Yes, the CG is in the middle of the center, if the donut has an evenly distributed mass. Simple enough?
這一句再顯出你物理知識淺薄。我以前已說過兩者CG與CM是可以在不同的地點，我們一般的討論在人身體一般大小的物體，是可以把兩者位罝說成一樣，但你說怎麼 true philosophy 上是相同只是你的知識不足。
不如你試答我，人造衛星或 space shuttle 在軌道上怎樣 control 不打轉？
“True phylosophy”是這個世上最大的一個學問，研究的主題包括“什麼是‘真’”，“為什麼‘真’”，什麼是“人生”等等的實際又不著邊際的問題，中國古時統稱“形上學”‧長話短說，中國前人的“形上學”發展出我們中國的傳統文化及價值—道、釋、儒三〔大〕派—而西方的“形上學”演變成宗教與科學‧而科學的知識從“定義”/definition開始，然後“証明”你說的話/“定義”存在，然後我們再看你說的對不對—true or false—那是“數學”所研究的‧不是說你能說個CG與CM它們就有意義‧從整個mass到一點不是你說說就可以到的‧也不是你能亂問問題你就有知識，你知道你問題的答案嗎？或是你可以回答同樣的問題反過問“為什麼人造衛星或 space shuttle 在軌道上要打轉”？
The “center” of gravity exists only when gravity exists, nevertheless, the “center” of mass is alrways existed as the mass in question is always existed. In the modern days quantum theory, “生” comes with the “observation”‧And that is 中國“形上學”的“念起心生”。
最後，若然你答得出 donut 的 CG 在中央，不在 donut 這物體之內，那為何當 Bob 說滑雪人能夠做某動作把CG於出體外是錯？是 Bob 的物理知識不足？看來倒是你的大學一年級物理知識不足才是真，一直左右逃避，沒有資料支持。
