Seat Bounce

FreshTopEnd
Posts
12985
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Sacramento, CA US
1/8/2013 2:55pm
The only emotion operating there is despair at getting sucked into this thread. It was a coincidence that you resurfaced the issue and I listened to...
The only emotion operating there is despair at getting sucked into this thread. It was a coincidence that you resurfaced the issue and I listened to the Thede podcast about a week before that, and I tossed that in there. I didn't expect it to rise to the level of me spinning shit against someone else's opinion for the sake of showing them up or some other sport on the forums. Believe me, I regret the waste of time. I don't care.
TFS wrote:
Yeah but you keep doing what you said you regretted. When challenged, you said something like "I'll take Thede's word over....." That's textbook appeal to authority...
Yeah but you keep doing what you said you regretted.

When challenged, you said something like "I'll take Thede's word over....." That's textbook appeal to authority. Then you said you were not being argumentative and just wanted to discuss.

Smile
Let's put it in economic terms, my interest reached the point of diminished marginal return when the discussion shifted from how seat bounce works to personalities and how supposedly I employed rhetorical devices to spin a point.

There's nothing wrong with saying someone with experience reached a particular conclusion. It's not like pulling it out as a hole card to play on an argument I already was committed to (when, in fact, up until then I was in agreement with you and Nerd). If to you that's the collapse of free thought and honest discourse, fine. I don't have anything vested in this discussion but the relationships , and that vesting is as thin as the good will returned to me.
72kiteboarder
Posts
4645
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
90 MILES SOUTH-ISH, FL US
1/8/2013 3:08pm
dkg wrote:
Thank you (and Nerd also). Does this mean that in the event (taking the car example) that at the speed of light the occupants of the...
Thank you (and Nerd also). Does this mean that in the event (taking the car example) that at the speed of light the occupants of the car would be in a similar newtonian frame of reference and experience light travelling within the car normally as well as experience normal time within the car?
jtomasik wrote:
Events and observations require time. Since the speed of light is not relative to frames of reference (like our plane or car), time and distance (which...
Events and observations require time. Since the speed of light is not relative to frames of reference (like our plane or car), time and distance (which comprise velocity...the scalar used for the speed of light) must change accordingly, depending on your relative travel. Time stops, and direction of travel length compresses to zero when the velocity of light is achieved. So, since events and observations require time, and time stops at the speed of light, so do the events and observations. Weird shit. But, unfortunately, it both experimentally and mathematically makes sense. Since we live in a world of relative velocity (which light isn't subject to), it's tough to comprehend. The deeper ya' dig into it, the weirder it gets, and the less our world analogies apply.
Nerd wrote:
You're the only one stuck on requiring observation. I'm saying that regardless of observation, it's true. Schrodinger's Cat anyone?
So now you agree that physics is not all white/black. Yes/no 0/1?
sean
Posts
349
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Lake City, FL US
1/8/2013 3:43pm
This debate and the two stroke vs four stroke debate are everlasting. Good job Nerd!
Doogan551
Posts
142
Joined
8/15/2007
Location
Yadkinville, NC US
1/8/2013 4:01pm
Ok, so in closing this thread we're all in agreement .

Seat Bouncing disproves the Theory of Relativity....

The Shop

smeg
Posts
1096
Joined
2/13/2011
Location
Washington, DC US
1/8/2013 4:08pm
So Nerd, your contention is that if someone was in a car going 185999 miles per second in a car and turned the headlights on then the light would race away in front of the car at 1 mile per second. Is that what you are saying? Because it was yesterday and I am wondering if you have changed you mind about that?????
yosmithy
Posts
770
Joined
10/29/2006
Location
Austin, TX US
1/8/2013 4:43pm
smeg wrote:
So Nerd, your contention is that if someone was in a car going 185999 miles per second in a car and turned the headlights on then...
So Nerd, your contention is that if someone was in a car going 185999 miles per second in a car and turned the headlights on then the light would race away in front of the car at 1 mile per second. Is that what you are saying? Because it was yesterday and I am wondering if you have changed you mind about that?????
psst...he thought the plane wouldn't take off
smeg
Posts
1096
Joined
2/13/2011
Location
Washington, DC US
1/8/2013 4:59pm
Yea I know..........lol........ But I found a cartoon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thought that might make it easier for him...... hehehehe



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ


And the greatest "pot-head" ever in astrophysics.... the late great Carl Sagan...... (just skip to about the 6 minute mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pEiA0-r5A8
1/8/2013 5:14pm Edited Date/Time 1/8/2013 5:17pm
forensic wrote:
i posted on this subject about 8-9 yrs ago as well! and back then I said "seat bouncing" is about the trajectory of the c.g.'s of...
i posted on this subject about 8-9 yrs ago as well! and back then I said "seat bouncing" is about the trajectory of the c.g.'s of bike and rider off the jump face. I'm a professional engineer with 20 yrs of seat-bouncing experience...
Yes. With that in mind, then a softer rear spring on otherwise identical parameters would result in slightly more of the "seat bounce effect" since it would compress deeper into the travel and give the front of the bike a slightly more upward angle and be even closer to the same angle as the jump face?

I get this out of it, in layman's terms:

Suspension trys to absorb bumps, and a jump is a bump, technically. When a bike hits a jump at speed, the suspension absorbs some of that bump (jump) and the bike leaves the lip of the jump at a shallower angle than the actual jump face. By mashing the bike into the face of the jump, you are giving the suspension less travel so that it absorbs less of the jump and gets the trajectory steeper at takeoff (which is closer to the actual angle of the jump face) ?

edit: Which is also why you need heavy doses of throttle on the jump face while seat bouncing, to keep you from getting kicked forward and possibly endoing...and why you need a smooth face on the jump, the g-forces involved in a pothole kicker on the face of a jump increase dramatically...
yosmithy
Posts
770
Joined
10/29/2006
Location
Austin, TX US
1/8/2013 5:30pm
smeg wrote:
Yea I know..........lol........ But I found a cartoon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thought that might make it easier for him...... hehehehe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ And the greatest "pot-head" ever in astrophysics.... the...
Yea I know..........lol........ But I found a cartoon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thought that might make it easier for him...... hehehehe



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ


And the greatest "pot-head" ever in astrophysics.... the late great Carl Sagan...... (just skip to about the 6 minute mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pEiA0-r5A8
heh, I had and electro physics prof, that said "who ya gonna believe about conductivity, someone with a calculator, or someone that got shocked a few times?"
TFS
Posts
375
Joined
6/3/2010
Location
Memphis, TN US
1/8/2013 5:34pm Edited Date/Time 1/8/2013 5:35pm
forensic wrote:
i posted on this subject about 8-9 yrs ago as well! and back then I said "seat bouncing" is about the trajectory of the c.g.'s of...
i posted on this subject about 8-9 yrs ago as well! and back then I said "seat bouncing" is about the trajectory of the c.g.'s of bike and rider off the jump face. I'm a professional engineer with 20 yrs of seat-bouncing experience...
thephoenix wrote:
Yes. With that in mind, then a softer rear spring on otherwise identical parameters would result in slightly more of the "seat bounce effect" since it...
Yes. With that in mind, then a softer rear spring on otherwise identical parameters would result in slightly more of the "seat bounce effect" since it would compress deeper into the travel and give the front of the bike a slightly more upward angle and be even closer to the same angle as the jump face?

I get this out of it, in layman's terms:

Suspension trys to absorb bumps, and a jump is a bump, technically. When a bike hits a jump at speed, the suspension absorbs some of that bump (jump) and the bike leaves the lip of the jump at a shallower angle than the actual jump face. By mashing the bike into the face of the jump, you are giving the suspension less travel so that it absorbs less of the jump and gets the trajectory steeper at takeoff (which is closer to the actual angle of the jump face) ?

edit: Which is also why you need heavy doses of throttle on the jump face while seat bouncing, to keep you from getting kicked forward and possibly endoing...and why you need a smooth face on the jump, the g-forces involved in a pothole kicker on the face of a jump increase dramatically...
Yes and no.

It works without suspension too. The suspension is getting people off track. Note that in previous pages people mentioned that it also works for wake boarding or BMX where you use your legs both for suspension and for moving your CG.

Back when we were doing mini bike nationals, about 2004, we are at Binghamton racing after Saturday practice, and I'm on a DRZ110. I'm like 300 fucking lb back then, and the bike has no power. There is a steep tabletop that is pretty high, but if I stand or sit still and hit it pinned, the landing sux. Seat bounce fussing is going on all the time, and I think, ah do the opposite. I pin it toward the jump sitting and a bit too fast and just at the face, I stand up. No need to hit the brakes, the bikes momentum is killed by my huge ass standing up just as the bike starts to climb, so I get over the jump with still good momentum and not too much air. Grant Langston is standing right there and he comes over after I got fucking last and goes "nice style!"

True story..Smile
Nerd
Posts
6155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
1/8/2013 6:10pm
smeg wrote:
So Nerd, your contention is that if someone was in a car going 185999 miles per second in a car and turned the headlights on then...
So Nerd, your contention is that if someone was in a car going 185999 miles per second in a car and turned the headlights on then the light would race away in front of the car at 1 mile per second. Is that what you are saying? Because it was yesterday and I am wondering if you have changed you mind about that?????
That wasn't my contention yesterday. Yesterday it was, and it still is, that time slows down for the person in the car, so the light in front of the car would appear to work normally.

It's AT the speed of light that this ceases to be true, theoretically.
smeg
Posts
1096
Joined
2/13/2011
Location
Washington, DC US
1/8/2013 6:39pm Edited Date/Time 1/8/2013 6:41pm
Nerd wrote:
Very nearly the speed of light? Correct.

AT the speed of light? No. No light going forward from you AT the speed of light.
APLMAN99 wrote:
You missed the important parts.....
Nerd wrote:
From the article you quoted: In 1905 he realised how it could be that [b]light always goes at the same speed no matter how fast you...
From the article you quoted:

In 1905 he realised how it could be that light always goes at the same speed no matter how fast you go. Events that are simultaneous in one reference frame will happen at different times in another that has a velocity relative to the first. Space and time cannot be taken as absolute. On this basis Einstein constructed the theory of special relativity, which has since been well confirmed by experiment.

Light speed isn't relative to your speed, only your observation is relative. Light speed is constant. Thus AT the speed of light, light cannot emit forward from your car because it's going the same speed.

If you're traveling 30 mph, and your friend is next to you going 30 mph, you can't see him in front of you, either.
"Thus AT the speed of light, light cannot emit forward from your car because it's going the same speed."

Nice revisionist history. You never mentioned time until it was brought to your attention by jtomansik.

smeg, out
Nerd
Posts
6155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
1/8/2013 7:30pm
APLMAN99 wrote:
You missed the important parts.....
Nerd wrote:
From the article you quoted: In 1905 he realised how it could be that [b]light always goes at the same speed no matter how fast you...
From the article you quoted:

In 1905 he realised how it could be that light always goes at the same speed no matter how fast you go. Events that are simultaneous in one reference frame will happen at different times in another that has a velocity relative to the first. Space and time cannot be taken as absolute. On this basis Einstein constructed the theory of special relativity, which has since been well confirmed by experiment.

Light speed isn't relative to your speed, only your observation is relative. Light speed is constant. Thus AT the speed of light, light cannot emit forward from your car because it's going the same speed.

If you're traveling 30 mph, and your friend is next to you going 30 mph, you can't see him in front of you, either.
smeg wrote:
[b]"Thus AT the speed of light, light cannot emit forward from your car because it's going the same speed."[/b] Nice revisionist history. You never mentioned time...
"Thus AT the speed of light, light cannot emit forward from your car because it's going the same speed."

Nice revisionist history. You never mentioned time until it was brought to your attention by jtomansik.

smeg, out
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I always considered time slowing down. I was making a distinction between NEAR the speed of light and AT the speed of light.

But YOU were saying that the SPEED OF LIGHT IS RELATIVE, which it is not. Space and time are, but the speed of light is a constant.
72kiteboarder
Posts
4645
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
90 MILES SOUTH-ISH, FL US
1/8/2013 8:11pm
The speed of light being a constant is an assumption based on what we know now. But it is not a proven fact.

Is the speed of light constant at or near the event horizon of a black hole?
APLMAN99
Posts
12148
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR US
Fantasy
1/8/2013 8:48pm
Nerd wrote:
From the article you quoted: In 1905 he realised how it could be that [b]light always goes at the same speed no matter how fast you...
From the article you quoted:

In 1905 he realised how it could be that light always goes at the same speed no matter how fast you go. Events that are simultaneous in one reference frame will happen at different times in another that has a velocity relative to the first. Space and time cannot be taken as absolute. On this basis Einstein constructed the theory of special relativity, which has since been well confirmed by experiment.

Light speed isn't relative to your speed, only your observation is relative. Light speed is constant. Thus AT the speed of light, light cannot emit forward from your car because it's going the same speed.

If you're traveling 30 mph, and your friend is next to you going 30 mph, you can't see him in front of you, either.
smeg wrote:
[b]"Thus AT the speed of light, light cannot emit forward from your car because it's going the same speed."[/b] Nice revisionist history. You never mentioned time...
"Thus AT the speed of light, light cannot emit forward from your car because it's going the same speed."

Nice revisionist history. You never mentioned time until it was brought to your attention by jtomansik.

smeg, out
Nerd wrote:
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I always considered time slowing down. I was making a distinction between NEAR the speed of light...
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I always considered time slowing down. I was making a distinction between NEAR the speed of light and AT the speed of light.

But YOU were saying that the SPEED OF LIGHT IS RELATIVE, which it is not. Space and time are, but the speed of light is a constant.
No, you weren't considering time when you made those statements, or else you don't understand the concepts involved.

Stop for a second and think about the effect of time slowing down given how speed is measured....
Nerd
Posts
6155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
1/8/2013 9:03pm
smeg wrote:
[b]"Thus AT the speed of light, light cannot emit forward from your car because it's going the same speed."[/b] Nice revisionist history. You never mentioned time...
"Thus AT the speed of light, light cannot emit forward from your car because it's going the same speed."

Nice revisionist history. You never mentioned time until it was brought to your attention by jtomansik.

smeg, out
Nerd wrote:
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I always considered time slowing down. I was making a distinction between NEAR the speed of light...
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I always considered time slowing down. I was making a distinction between NEAR the speed of light and AT the speed of light.

But YOU were saying that the SPEED OF LIGHT IS RELATIVE, which it is not. Space and time are, but the speed of light is a constant.
APLMAN99 wrote:
No, you weren't considering time when you made those statements, or else you don't understand the concepts involved. Stop for a second and think about the...
No, you weren't considering time when you made those statements, or else you don't understand the concepts involved.

Stop for a second and think about the effect of time slowing down given how speed is measured....
Explain how you figure that, because I've understood that time slows down as you speed up since I was in grade school and learned about clocks coming back a few minutes behind on the space shuttle.
jemcee
Posts
12520
Joined
8/11/2008
Location
AU
1/8/2013 9:14pm
1/8/2013 10:40pm
Nerd wrote:
"since the speed of light is constant regardless of the observer's velocity, then the light would move away from you at one light second per second...
"since the speed of light is constant regardless of the observer's velocity, then the light would move away from you at one light second per second if you were in the vehicle traveling the speed of light. It has to."

This is actually the simplest part, and I don't understand how you don't get it.

If light travels at 186,282 miles per second, and you're traveling 186,282 miles per second, light cannot emit forward from your position. Period.

And AT the speed of light, even on board the vehicle, where you're traveling the speed of light, you would not be able to see light in front of you, regardless, because of the point I just made AS WELL AS the fact that time stops. No, you won't feel as if time has stopped, obviously, but it will have stopped, and that's yet another reason why light cannot emit forward from your vehicle.

This is true.
If you are going at 186,281 miles per second, and you turn on the lights...then that light takes off forward from you, at 186,282 miles persecond.

With your reasoning, the light would only go forward from you at the differential of 1 mile per second.


Not true, ergo, you are wrong.

Since nobody can go (at least with our current physics model) the speed of light...you can never get that last .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % of speed to get there.

And NOBODY knows what would happen AT the speed of light, because WE CAN"T DO IT.
tunedlength
Posts
2776
Joined
12/9/2006
Location
Ontario, CA US
1/8/2013 10:58pm
Nerd wrote:
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I always considered time slowing down. I was making a distinction between NEAR the speed of light...
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I always considered time slowing down. I was making a distinction between NEAR the speed of light and AT the speed of light.

But YOU were saying that the SPEED OF LIGHT IS RELATIVE, which it is not. Space and time are, but the speed of light is a constant.
APLMAN99 wrote:
No, you weren't considering time when you made those statements, or else you don't understand the concepts involved. Stop for a second and think about the...
No, you weren't considering time when you made those statements, or else you don't understand the concepts involved.

Stop for a second and think about the effect of time slowing down given how speed is measured....
Nerd wrote:
Explain how you figure that, because I've understood that time slows down as you speed up since I was in grade school and learned about clocks...
Explain how you figure that, because I've understood that time slows down as you speed up since I was in grade school and learned about clocks coming back a few minutes behind on the space shuttle.
pecu_83
Posts
347
Joined
10/27/2010
Location
Parola FI
1/8/2013 11:01pm
Has somebody proven that lightspeed is a constant? The soundbarrier has been broken, why not lightbarrier? I believe in WARP speed! Smile And what about wormholes, how do you define speed going trough them?
Nerd
Posts
6155
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
US
1/8/2013 11:06pm
Nerd wrote:
"since the speed of light is constant regardless of the observer's velocity, then the light would move away from you at one light second per second...
"since the speed of light is constant regardless of the observer's velocity, then the light would move away from you at one light second per second if you were in the vehicle traveling the speed of light. It has to."

This is actually the simplest part, and I don't understand how you don't get it.

If light travels at 186,282 miles per second, and you're traveling 186,282 miles per second, light cannot emit forward from your position. Period.

And AT the speed of light, even on board the vehicle, where you're traveling the speed of light, you would not be able to see light in front of you, regardless, because of the point I just made AS WELL AS the fact that time stops. No, you won't feel as if time has stopped, obviously, but it will have stopped, and that's yet another reason why light cannot emit forward from your vehicle.

This is true.
thephoenix wrote:
If you are going at 186,281 miles per second, and you turn on the lights...then that light takes off forward from you, at 186,282 miles persecond...
If you are going at 186,281 miles per second, and you turn on the lights...then that light takes off forward from you, at 186,282 miles persecond.

With your reasoning, the light would only go forward from you at the differential of 1 mile per second.


Not true, ergo, you are wrong.

Since nobody can go (at least with our current physics model) the speed of light...you can never get that last .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % of speed to get there.

And NOBODY knows what would happen AT the speed of light, because WE CAN"T DO IT.
You're misrepresenting what I said. Please quote me directly.

It would move away at that speed, but time for you would be so slow that it would APPEAR to be normal.

Like I said, quote me directly.
jtomasik
Posts
12895
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO US
1/9/2013 4:40am Edited Date/Time 1/9/2013 8:46am
Nerd wrote:
You're misrepresenting what I said. Please quote me directly. It would move away at that speed, but time for you would be so slow that it...
You're misrepresenting what I said. Please quote me directly.

It would move away at that speed, but time for you would be so slow that it would APPEAR to be normal.

Like I said, quote me directly.
The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time passes (to the outside observer), and the smaller distance gets, until you reach the speed of light and time stops, so NO EVENT OCCURS, because 'reporting' the event to the outside world with a stopped clock, never happens. Until that happens, light ALWAYS moves away from you at the speed of light, and nothing less. You never see yourself achieving the speed of light.

It's like the very common limit used in the creation of differentiation in Calculus. Take the value 1/x. Now, take the limit as x approaches zero. X never reaches zero, because if it does, the result is infinity, which is undefined. You can continually make smaller and smaller numbers for x, and the result of the function is a larger and larger value, but x never can be zero. It's the same with the speed of light. You can go faster and faster and faster, your clock to the outside world of your progress gets slower and slower and slower, and all the while your observation of light is that light remains going light speed. If you could ever reach light speed, your clock to the outside world would stop, and the event of your observation can't occur.

Fuck, you are a stubborn, back-pedaling dipshit. You always have been. Just man-up when you're WRONG.
1/9/2013 5:21am Edited Date/Time 1/9/2013 6:09am
The year is 1831. The setting: the antebellum South. An early morning sun silhouettes the figures of two men, obviously gentlemen, standing back to back in an open field. A voice from the shadows calls, “One, two, three.” The men pace forward. “Five, six, seven.” Each man involuntarily tightens his grip on the dueling pistol carried at his side. “Nine, ten.” The two men pivot toward each other. They fire.

Was the duel fought over a matter of honor, always a sensitive matter in the Old South, or a slight to a young woman’s reputation? No, nothing so mundane. This deadly confrontation resulted from one man’s fiery insistence that three spoons of sugar instead of two was the correct measurement for the perfect mint julep.



*call me crazy if you want but it wasn't me that argued for 11 pages over nothing.
ChingLongBing
Posts
196
Joined
6/15/2011
Location
San Luis Obispo, CA US
1/9/2013 7:17am
How has this not come up? "They've gone to plaid"

88sdad
Posts
2677
Joined
2/4/2007
Location
Poeville, NV US
1/9/2013 9:08am
Ahh the classics! Whistling
I thought this was about tractors.
1/9/2013 9:20am
So I read the first couple pages days ago and just came back... Very confused.

If I seat bounce on a woods bike with a headlight at the speed of light how does the spring rate affect the ability to hear my motor in the dark?
jtomasik
Posts
12895
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Golden, CO US
1/9/2013 9:33am
So I read the first couple pages days ago and just came back... Very confused. If I seat bounce on a woods bike with a headlight...
So I read the first couple pages days ago and just came back... Very confused.

If I seat bounce on a woods bike with a headlight at the speed of light how does the spring rate affect the ability to hear my motor in the dark?
Is the airplane on a treadmill?

Post a reply to: Seat Bounce

The Latest