1980squatch Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 A physics teacher thinks mass x velocity = Force? No wonder we are in bad shape education wise. It would help to show the details. A 700lb BF has a mass of 21.9 slugs, calculated from weight = mass * acceleration, with the acceleration being 32ft/sec squared. Cotter has it running at 20mph which needs conversion to 29.3ft/sec. The energy of the running BF is then = 1/2 * mass * velocity squared, so that ends up at 9422 ft*lbs. The tree then absorbs all that energy over a 1.5 ft distance with a force of 6256 lbs (energy is also force * distance, 6256*1.5061 = 9422). That force times the lever of 45 ft produces the torque Cotter calculated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Are you serious? Have you ever seen a car hit a tree at 30 mph? The tree almost always wins. Well it's always gonna win with a steel roll cage built around the trunk of the tree!!!!!! Really Drew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Wait, nobody mentioned there would be math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) You would have a splatted Bigfoot face and a tree still sitting there. A tree trunk that can handle 50 mph winds in the canopy, and not break the trunk, is not going to be moved by a 700 pound creature at 20 mph Edited July 9, 2014 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 This is the problem. When you present something like that as fact that is not a fact and is only your opinion, then that ignites debate with skeptics. You love to talk about science. A preponderance of anecdotes is a fancy way of saying a pile of unconfirmed stories. Basically you want to re-write the rules of scientific evidence to suit your needs and then enforce them on to the discussion here? Wow. Really, just wow. I never said fact. That was you that did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 You would have a splatted Bigfoot face and a tree still sitting there. A tree trunk that can handle 50 mph winds in the canopy, and not break the trunk, is not going to be moved by a 700 pound creature at 20 mph How bout an orang at 2 mph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Hi David: I can assure you, you will be treated fairly. Even the admin/mods get warnings occasionally. So, if it violates the rules, report away. ::whistling past the graveyard:: Currently sitting upon two warning points. ::treads softly:: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) Sportin' one myself, and also biting my lip. Edited July 10, 2014 by Rockape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) I never said fact. That was you that did. How does the following not appear as a statement of fact? "The preponderance of the evidence at this stage of investigation points to the existence of an unclassified, bipedal animal of unknown nature and origin, and of which we have limited knowledge of morphology, habitat preferences, diet, behavior, mating/reproductive requirements and capacity for communication." I see no subjective conditional on there anywhere. You call it a premise when it is more a conclusion. Explain, please, how you did not state this as fact. Edited July 10, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 No, it isn't. If you can't parse the difference between fact and a premise, we might have just explained a lot. Look, you would be the last person I would expect to accept my proposition. That is just who you are, and I won't try. You draw something from such an oppositional stance that is beyond my understanding, as much as I've tried to gain insight into your motivations. Whatever they may be, you've invested a great deal in this stance. That you and some others are permitted to do that, and it makes you feel...i dunno exactly...is none of my business at all. I do have a personal distate for stridency out of proportion to the stakes, and the results that come from that. I can smash crockery with the best of them, believe me, but I don't confuse that with anything productive. My greater point is that it might be time for the BFF to grow some and address this. From the recent developments I've been informed of, it looks like this might be happening, and I for one am encouraged. Out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 And, hopefully that's the end of that. I was starting to think the tangent was getting off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) No, it isn't. If you can't parse the difference between fact and a premise, we might have just explained a lot. Look, you would be the last person I would expect to accept my proposition. That is just who you are, and I won't try. You draw something from such an oppositional stance that is beyond my understanding, as much as I've tried to gain insight into your motivations. Whatever they may be, you've invested a great deal in this stance. That you and some others are permitted to do that, and it makes you feel...i dunno exactly...is none of my business at all. I do have a personal distate for stridency out of proportion to the stakes, and the results that come from that. I can smash crockery with the best of them, believe me, but I don't confuse that with anything productive. My greater point is that it might be time for the BFF to grow some and address this. From the recent developments I've been informed of, it looks like this might be happening, and I for one am encouraged. Out. It seems you are the one that can't parse a premise from a fact as your reluctance to explain demonstrates. Also, I don't question your motives for being here. I may question your conclusions on things, but this is a discussion board after all,so that is bound to happen. And I certainly don't hint at abnormal kicks to explain your behavior like you did in the bolded text, and then say it is none of my business after the intimation is made. It's not the BFF that needs to grow some.. Let me help you with the word logic. A premise is a proposition helping to support or supporting a conclusion. So in your case, the premise would be that unclassified, bipedal animals could exist in North America. The conclusion would be the evidence you mentioned points to this premise being true. Do you now understand the difference between premise, conclusion and fact? You stated a conclusion as a fact and then called it a premise. Edited July 10, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 MODERATOR STATEMENT I know that in lieu of recent events there will be discussion that includes aspects of proponents v. skeptics, existence v. non-existence, BUT.... that's not the topic of this thread. This thread is the NAWAC thread! And, there was an earlier Mod Statement asking that everyone remember not to let it get personal. This is notice that if it does... It likely will be a 2 point offense for rule violation and disregarding a Mod Statement. I felt maybe I should emphasize this! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Taking a "break" from the tree episode, while examining the NAWAC report regarding Echo Incident, a disturbing question keeps emerging within the thought process. That is, why would you abandon the search (within a few hours) when you "knew" you had just shot and killed/wounded possibly the greatest anthropological discovery of the last 100 years? IMO, it does not appear to add up that you'd simply pack up and go home (the very next day) in lieu of calling in the entire resources of NAWAC for the search, moving heaven and earth to locate the subject. Especially, given the fact ~10 years of time and treasure had been invested into the endeavor, at that point in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 If I have the events correct to memory - Maybe, because one of your members just scared the daylights out of a relative of the property owner, causing them to flee for their lives thinking someone was shooting at them, and then wrecking their vehicle in the process? May have been a bit tense. Don't know - that's just what I thought when I read your question and it's the only answer I could come up with when I heard about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts