Whirling around vs controlled spin

On Dec 15, 7:35 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:

Before I continue, let me do a roll call, how many of you support Alan
Baker argument?

Well certainly, all the people who understand physics.

So, there's no one to support your argument? How about you, Richard
Henry, you seem to claim that you know something about how other
people don't know physics. C'mon, gappers, don't you want to support
your comrades? So, who are "the people who understand physics"? Let's
have some names.

No, "all the people who understand physics" will not support your
argument.

I don't know who you think you are quoting.

The Flatboarding theory.

LOL

Yup, Mr. boring cheap LOL.


IS

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia

On Dec 15, 11:34 am, "Bob F" wrote:
taichiskiing wrote:

Before I continue, let me do a roll call, how many of you support Alan
Baker argument?

Just the ones that know basic physics.

The question is *who*? Will you say that "I'm Bob F/YOUR NAME, I
support Alan Baker's argument that "Centrifugal force DOES NOT EXIST"?
Just "yes" or "no," let's see how you gappers going to weasel out this
one.

No, no ones that know basic phsics would agree with Alan Baker's
argument.

The Flatboarding theory.

Whatever that is.

So it goes,
IS

On Dec 16, 2:48*pm, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 15, 11:34 am, "Bob F" wrote:

taichiskiing wrote:
Before I continue, let me do a roll call, how many of you support Alan
Baker argument?

Just the ones that know basic physics.

The question is *who*? Will you say that "I'm Bob F/YOUR NAME, I
support Alan Baker's argument that "Centrifugal force DOES NOT EXIST"?
Just "yes" or "no," let's see how you gappers going to weasel out this
one.

Before you start you should state whether you've ever admitted having
been wrong on this forum. As far as I can recall you have been quilty
of weaseling out yourself...

On Dec 16, 5:48*am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 15, 11:34 am, "Bob F" wrote:

taichiskiing wrote:
Before I continue, let me do a roll call, how many of you support Alan
Baker argument?

Just the ones that know basic physics.

The question is *who*? Will you say that "I'm Bob F/YOUR NAME, I
support Alan Baker's argument that "Centrifugal force DOES NOT EXIST"?
Just "yes" or "no," let's see how you gappers going to weasel out this
one.

No, no ones that know basic phsics would agree with Alan Baker's
argument.

The Flatboarding theory.

Whatever that is.

So it goes,
IS

I have training in more than basic physics. I was an honors student
enrolled as a college physics major, completing courses such as
Theoretical Mechanics, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, Vector
Calculus, Advanced Calculus, Differential Equations - but enough of my
qualifications. Baker is correct - there is no formal concept known
as Centrifugal Force. That is a misconception given to the illusion
of a force felt by humans undergoing a continuing acceleration usually
caused by the application of a centripetal force applied to the human
directly or indirectly through the object to which the human is
attached.

I also took courses in psychology, which makes you interesting in a
different way.

On Dec 16, 8:15*am, Richard Henry wrote:

I also took courses in psychology, which makes you interesting in a
different way.

Shame that you won't look at yourself. Compulsive, pathological liar,
psychopath, stalker, craven coward, manipulative freak: you are a
poster child in an abnormal psychology class.

On Dec 16, 8:10*am, Evojeesus wrote:
On Dec 16, 2:48*pm, taichiskiing
wrote:

On Dec 15, 11:34 am, "Bob F" wrote:

taichiskiing wrote:
Before I continue, let me do a roll call, how many of you support Alan
Baker argument?
Just the ones that know basic physics.
The question is *who*? Will you say that "I'm Bob F/YOUR NAME, I
support Alan Baker's argument that "Centrifugal force DOES NOT EXIST"?
Just "yes" or "no," let's see how you gappers going to weasel out this
one.

Before you start you should state whether you've ever admitted having
been wrong on this forum. As far as I can recall you have been quilty
of weaseling out yourself...

Weaseling is the RSA ethos. Funny that you never call your buddies
out on this issue, when they lie their sick asses off, but pile on
Toecheese.
Irony meter goes flat skiing.

On Dec 16, 10:03*am, twobuddha wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:15*am, Richard Henry wrote:

I also took courses in psychology, which makes you interesting in a
different way.

Shame that you won't look at yourself. *Compulsive, pathological liar,
psychopath, stalker, craven coward, manipulative freak: you are a
poster child in an abnormal psychology class.

Show the post, Scott.

Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 16, 5:48 am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 15, 11:34 am, "Bob F" wrote:

taichiskiing wrote:
Before I continue, let me do a roll call, how many of you support Alan
Baker argument?
Just the ones that know basic physics.
The question is *who*? Will you say that "I'm Bob F/YOUR NAME, I
support Alan Baker's argument that "Centrifugal force DOES NOT EXIST"?
Just "yes" or "no," let's see how you gappers going to weasel out this
one.

No, no ones that know basic phsics would agree with Alan Baker's
argument.

The Flatboarding theory.
Whatever that is.
So it goes,
IS

I have training in more than basic physics. I was an honors student
enrolled as a college physics major, completing courses such as
Theoretical Mechanics, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, Vector
Calculus, Advanced Calculus, Differential Equations - but enough of my
qualifications. Baker is correct - there is no formal concept known
as Centrifugal Force. That is a misconception given to the illusion
of a force felt by humans undergoing a continuing acceleration usually
caused by the application of a centripetal force applied to the human
directly or indirectly through the object to which the human is
attached.

I also took courses in psychology, which makes you interesting in a
different way.
I do data acquisition on race cars and spend my time working with
equations related to vehicle motion and Baker and Henry are correct.
Do I have to list all the books?
There has been no proof in any of the books I use that flatboarding
theory can fly or works.


michael alfano

"downhill" wrote in message
...



No, no ones that know basic phsics would agree with Alan Baker's
argument.

The Flatboarding theory.
Whatever that is.
So it goes,
IS

I have training in more than basic physics. I was an honors student
enrolled as a college physics major, completing courses such as
Theoretical Mechanics, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, Vector
Calculus, Advanced Calculus, Differential Equations - but enough of my
qualifications. Baker is correct - there is no formal concept known
as Centrifugal Force. That is a misconception given to the illusion
of a force felt by humans undergoing a continuing acceleration usually
caused by the application of a centripetal force applied to the human
directly or indirectly through the object to which the human is
attached.

I also took courses in psychology, which makes you interesting in a
different way.

I do data acquisition on race cars and spend my time working with
equations related to vehicle motion and Baker and Henry are correct.
Do I have to list all the books?
There has been no proof in any of the books I use that flatboarding theory
can fly or works.


The flatboarding "Theory" is not ready for the proof stage yet.
He has yet to even define it. One week you use edges, the next week you
don't. Whne he shows videos there are no differences from run of the mill
intermediate skiing sans poles.
If Itchie ever makes up his mind then perhaps it can move on to testing and
eventually to proving true or false, but so far its just a word he invented.

Norm wrote:
"downhill" wrote in message
...



No, no ones that know basic phsics would agree with Alan Baker's
argument.

The Flatboarding theory.
Whatever that is.
So it goes,
IS

I have training in more than basic physics. I was an honors student
enrolled as a college physics major, completing courses such as
Theoretical Mechanics, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, Vector
Calculus, Advanced Calculus, Differential Equations - but enough of
my qualifications. Baker is correct - there is no formal concept
known as Centrifugal Force. That is a misconception given to the
illusion of a force felt by humans undergoing a continuing
acceleration usually caused by the application of a centripetal
force applied to the human directly or indirectly through the
object to which the human is attached.

I also took courses in psychology, which makes you interesting in a
different way.

I do data acquisition on race cars and spend my time working with
equations related to vehicle motion and Baker and Henry are correct.
Do I have to list all the books?
There has been no proof in any of the books I use that flatboarding
theory can fly or works.


The flatboarding "Theory" is not ready for the proof stage yet.
He has yet to even define it. One week you use edges, the next week
you don't. Whne he shows videos there are no differences from run of
the mill intermediate skiing sans poles.
If Itchie ever makes up his mind then perhaps it can move on to
testing and eventually to proving true or false, but so far its just
a word he invented.

The day he ever accurately documents what his "superior" technique is, is not
likely to come. He has never responded with any real information to large
numbers of questions in this forum. Plenty of us have tried to get real info
from him. Not one has succeeded. All they get is putdowns and insults.
He's here to boast and insult - not to communicate.
He is a legend in his own mind.