Hunters - What Are They REALLY All About?

[fordtraktor]

[QUOTE=RAyers;7205286]
I am sorry, but now you really are showing how little you understand Newtonian physics. The only reasons tops need to spin is the manufacturing defects the result in that CG being off center from the CM. It is VERY easy to show that a top does not need to spin if CG and CM are exactly aligned. A real world example are railroad turn tables. TONS of steel balanced on a pin bearing such that a single person can move it with a locomotive on top if it by hand.

Your first statement is true and is Newton’s First Law.[/QUOTE]

Translating that for you: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://static.topnettools.com/5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://topnettools.com/18961/10-best-sheldon-cooper-memes/&h=586&w=587&sz=92&tbnid=nfx_EAUH5LsCUM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=95&zoom=1&usg=__MlJYxaaIcJy1-3GxtMYGWZRSg70=&docid=bOjY_8yuFDdtjM&sa=X&ei=9eNWUojFNsbuyAGC0YCgDQ&ved=0CEIQ9QEwBw

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=fordtraktor;7205285]
This thread is hilarious. I advise everyone to stick to their day jobs, only one of whom’s appears to be science.[/QUOTE]

No worries, here. I gave up on physics a long time ago. Love it, but it’s just oo much math.

[Windsor1]

[QUOTE=meupatdoes;7205292]
So once again we are back at speed overcoming problems in the equilibrium to keep the poorly designed top upright anyway. If the top is perfect, it doesn’t need speed. If the top is imperfect, speed will make up the difference and help it balance.[/QUOTE]

I am not a physicist, but it seems to me that what you are missing here is that you are applying your speed-improves-balance theory over and over again to things that spin (wheels, tops, etc).

I do not have half of your riding or training experience, but I am not aware of any part of a horse’s body that spins. You’ll say that doesn’t matter, but even absent a degree in physics, I am pretty sure that it does.

Even if you were right, and I don’t think you are, you still wouldn’t be right for the reasons you have presented as evidence here.

[findeight]

Jeesh , am laid up for a few days with annual sinus flare up but on some really good stuff, don’t dare drive. Gives thus thread an almost hallucinogenic aura…

Carry on…

[fordtraktor]

RugBug, I think you and meupatdoes have taken new positions as archenemies, so that works. It’s a full time job recently.

I open COTH, suddenly see a thread with 220 plus posts, 200 of which are you two sniping at each other and the others are RAyers trying to explain physics. None of it has anything to do with what the hunters are all about. Quality entertainment when I should be renaming PDFs (doesn’t THAT sound like fun!)

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=Windsor1;7205304]
I am not a physicist, but it seems to me that what you are missing here is that you are applying your speed-improves-balance theory over and over again to things that spin (wheels, tops, etc).

I do not have half of your riding or training experience, but I am not aware of any part of a horse’s body that spins. You’ll say that doesn’t matter, but even absent a degree in physics, I am pretty sure that it does.

Even if you were right, and I don’t think you are, you still wouldn’t be right for the reasons you have presented as evidence here.[/QUOTE]

Finally, somebody who brings up a relevant challenge!
RAyer and RugBug, do you see what they did there? Rather than trying to make a rule of physics not be true, they pointed out a relevant distinction.

I think that the wheels/spinning makes it easier for the speed/balance rule to manifest itself undiluted. By this I mean I think when you have a flat surface, friction starts to play such a large role that it obscures (without making untrue) the speed/balance rule. Doesn’t make the speed/balance rule untrue, but shows that, for things such as sliding an obelisk down a hill on its base, you may want to spend more time worrying about friction than speed. (The same way as if you are wheeling a bike down a hill and suddenly there is a cliff, speed and balance continue to exist all the same, but gravity becomes the defining arbitrer of where that bike is going to go.)

I sincerely appreciate a well reasoned argument and am never unmovable in the face of sound logic. Therefore I hereby concede that, while speed/balance is still true as a law of physics and will naturally affect a horse and rider to some extent, the absence of spinning (and its contribution to angular momentum) as reasoned by Windsor probably means that other things are much more important arbitrers of a horse and rider’s balance.

[Windsor1]

[QUOTE=meupatdoes;7205318]
Finally, somebody who brings up a relevant challenge!
RAyer and RugBug, do you see what they did there? Rather than trying to make a rule of physics not be true, they pointed out a relevant distinction.

I think that the wheels/spinning makes it easier for the speed/balance rule to manifest itself undiluted. By this I mean I think when you have a flat surface, friction starts to play such a large role that it obscures (without making untrue) the speed/balance rule. Doesn’t make the speed/balance rule untrue, but shows that, for things such as sliding an obelisk down a hill on its base, you may want to spend more time worrying about friction than speed. (The same way as if you are wheeling a bike down a hill and suddenly there is a cliff, speed and balance continue to exist all the same, but gravity becomes the defining arbitrer of where that bike is going to go.)

I sincerely appreciate a well reasoned argument and am never unmovable in the face of sound logic. Therefore I hereby concede that, while speed/balance is still true as a law of physics and will naturally affect a horse and rider to some extent, the absence of spinning (and its contribution to angular momentum) as reasoned by Windsor probably means that other things are much more important arbitrers of a horse and rider’s balance.[/QUOTE]

Godd@mn. And to think I majored in English.

After reading your post mentioning angular momentum conservation, I looked it up on Wikipedia, and that was a tipoff in that again, it only applied to spinning things.

So you helped me.

[RAyers]

[QUOTE=meupatdoes;7205318]
Finally, somebody who brings up a relevant challenge!
RAyer and RugBug, do you see what they did there? Rather than trying to make a rule of physics not be true, they pointed out a relevant distinction…[/QUOTE]

Uh, Windsor1 simply put what I have been saying into a idea that you could comprehend. It is not my fault you could not comprehend the concepts I have been discussing. It doesn’t challenge a single thing I have been saying. In classic attorney speak you try to oversimplify a concept that you completely mangle your understanding. I have dealt with enough lawyers when consulting on various cases to recognize this disease.

I will not tell you how to ride or do law and you stop trying to discuss physics. As an example, you show ignorance as to the laws of physics by this statement, “I think when you have a flat surface, friction starts to play such a large role that it obscures (without making untrue) the speed/balance rule.” Friction is present on a uphill, downhill, in the air, sliding, rolling, bouncing,… It is accounted for by the coefficient of friction in the spring equation that mimics Newton’s First Law.

If you really want to learn, I suggest reading the work by Clayton that I referred to previously.

[goodlife]

OKAY, okay. I’ve got it. I finally understand the hunter division. OP, physicists, alterhorse and everyone else, listen closely, because here’s your answer.

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=RAyers;7205377]
Uh, Windsor1 simply put what I have been saying into a idea that you could comprehend. It is not my fault you could not comprehend the concepts I have been discussing. It doesn’t challenge a single thing I have been saying. In classic attorney speak you try to oversimplify a concept that you completely mangle your understanding. I have dealt with enough lawyers when consulting on various cases to recognize this disease.

I will not tell you how to ride or do law and you stop trying to discuss physics. As an example, you show ignorance as to the laws of physics by this statement, “I think when you have a flat surface, friction starts to play such a large role that it obscures (without making untrue) the speed/balance rule.” Friction is present on a uphill, downhill, in the air, sliding, rolling, bouncing,… It is accounted for by the coefficient of friction in the spring equation that mimics Newton’s First Law.

If you really want to learn, I suggest reading the work by Clayton that I referred to previously.[/QUOTE]

Windsor did indeed display an ability to write and convey concepts clearly, as well as faultless logic and reasoning(always appreciated by a lawyer). She reasoned it out and then wrote it out clearly. I did not suddenly become less stupid when she weighed in, so perhaps the quality of the writing and clarity of the reasoning made a difference.

Speaking of clarity of reasoning, you do realize that your entire paragraph on friction basically boils down to “Friction exists. You account for it with a coefficient.” Um…was I claiming that friction doesn’t exist? Am I wrong that a wheel rolling across the ground has a lower friction coefficient than a wheel being slid across the ground on its flat side? Is it in fact harder to slide a flat wheel of the same weight on the same surface than it is to roll it? Will a bike carry on down a hill upright with its wheels locked? Oh wait, I know! Friction exists!

I also don’t think it is your place to ban other people from discussing subjects. As I demonstrated, I am more than happy to discuss subjects, develop understanding, and concede points (ie LEARN) through discussions with other people. It does not have to be a zero sum game -I have conceded the point which I am always willing to do when someone makes a good one, but I have developed my understanding to a better place than it was this morning and I have learned.

I don’t see what good it does you to make sure I stop inflicting this activity on the world, or what that has to anything to do with other than a personal attack.

Interesting that an English major out-taught the science professor today though.

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=goodlife;7205397]
OKAY, okay. I’ve got it. I finally understand the hunter division. OP, physicists, alterhorse and everyone else, listen closely, because here’s your answer.[/QUOTE]

OMG! I Lurve it.

[QUOTE=meupatdoes;7205400]
I also don’t think it is your place to ban other people from discussing subjects. [/QUOTE]

What? Where did RAyers even mentioned banning someone from discussing subjects? You do this often…take a statement, twist it and run.

[axl]

First terrible writing and now physics are making my head hurt. I love good hunters, who are beautiful creatures yet undeniably pointless in the grand scheme of things. I also love good writing, and wine. If y’all (I live down south now) are gonna keep arguin’ physics, I’m gonna need some wine. Sweet tea won’t get me through this

[axl]

[QUOTE=RAyers;7205377]
I will not tell you how to ride or do law and you stop trying to discuss physics.[/QUOTE]

Oh RugBug, that was here.

Goodlife, you rock:)

[RugBug]

@axl;7205447

Oh RugBug, that was here.

Hah! I totally misread that. :eek: My bad. Proceed with your badself, meup. Although I agree with RAyers that your grasp of physics is very elementary.

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=RugBug;7205454]
Hah! I totally misread that. :eek: My bad. Proceed with your badself, meup. Although I agree with RAyers that your grasp of physics is very elementary.[/QUOTE]

What exact point do you think it scores for you to point out that my grasp of physics is elementary?

I am not wedded to my elementary concepts; if someone explains or reasons in a manner that makes logical sense a better understanding, then I am more than happy to develop my understanding and learn. I am not out there personally attacking every person who disagrees with me; if someone disagrees with me in a way that is well reasoned and clear I say “High five!” When Windsor1 piped in I didn’t attack her or divert, I just said, “Hey, good point!”

I discuss physics with my astrophysicist friend too and shockingly he can listen to my elementary understanding, ask ‘teaching questions,’ reason it out step by step, and explain stuff without being a Complete Douchebag about it. He’s not in it to win it, he’s in it to discuss it.

Meanwhile when I teach him a riding lesson I don’t actually score any points for myself by telling him, “Your understanding of dressage theory is elementary. Why don’t you read this book before you ever get on a horse again.” I don’t have to “win” my riding lessons and make my students feel like they “lost” to feel like I have accomplished something.

If we are discussing something that neither of us knows more about than the other we can still ask each other questions to consider, point out logical discrepancies, and develop our own reasoning and thinking on the subject in so doing. This is called a “discussion.” It does not have to be a war and people do not need to be experts to participate.

You are the one turning a conversation about physics into something that you want to “Win.” Other people are able to discuss topics without turning it into a zero-sum-game.

[fordtraktor]

But meup, if that friend came on here and started telling people his theory on half steps, it might become clear he hadn’t really mastered the posting trot yet. I would reckon that is what this discussion looks like to RAyers.

And If your pal did that, we would let him know he wasn’t the second coming of Podhajsky. This is not different.

[skydy]

Alterhorse, you are a master of nonsensical bombast.
I am concerned about your psychological health.

:lol::lol::lol: This is one of the funniest threads I have ever read. Seldom have I seen a thread take off in so many different directions, most of them quite unrelated to the OP.

[eclipse]

[QUOTE=fordtraktor;7205311]
RugBug, I think you and meupatdoes have taken new positions as archenemies, so that works. It’s a full time job recently.

I open COTH, suddenly see a thread with 220 plus posts, 200 of which are you two sniping at each other and the others are RAyers trying to explain physics. None of it has anything to do with what the hunters are all about. Quality entertainment when I should be renaming PDFs (doesn’t THAT sound like fun!)[/QUOTE]

I see your renaming PDFs and add OCR’ing them and pasting and reformatting into Word…now THAT is fun…NOT!!! Martini anyone?

[lockedoutalter]

[QUOTE=goodlife;7205397]
OKAY, okay. I’ve got it. I finally understand the hunter division. OP, physicists, alterhorse and everyone else, listen closely, because here’s your answer.[/QUOTE]

I am hanging that in my tackbox next to the rabid garden snail I made for CHS. PRICELESS.

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=fordtraktor;7205519]
But meup, if that friend came on here and started telling people his theory on half steps, it might become clear he hadn’t really mastered the posting trot yet. I would reckon that is what this discussion looks like to RAyers.

And If your pal did that, we would let him know he wasn’t the second coming of Podhajsky. This is not different.[/QUOTE]

A lot of people have theories on half steps and this does not mean they think they are the “second coming of Podhajsky.” I myself have theories on half steps and still don’t think I am the “second coming of Podhajsky.” You probably have some thoughts on how to ride, but this does not mean you think you are the “second coming of Podhajsky.”

A lot of people discuss riding on this board despite the fact that they aren’t Grand Prix competitors, and nobody apparently feels it is their personal mission to really, really hit home the fact that they aren’t the “second coming of Podhajsky.”

So I am wondering why it is necessary to go all “kill kill kill! You’re not Einstein!” over physics when as windsor1 demonstrated it is just as possible to be reasonable and at least if you are talking to me I will be perfectly happy to concede a point?