Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Is it hard to get full blown schematics ?

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Is it hard to get full blown schematics ?

Old 02-25-21, 06:00 PM
  #26  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 25,131

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 136 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4793 Post(s)
Liked 2,347 Times in 1,387 Posts
Originally Posted by unterhausen View Post
That's pretty funny, so they give you an exploded drawing of all the spare parts they have no intention of providing for you should you need them.
But you can marvel at their engineering!
__________________
Stuart Black
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
cyccommute is offline  
Old 02-25-21, 10:50 PM
  #27  
Gresp15C
Senior Member
 
Gresp15C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,761
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Liked 582 Times in 377 Posts
Originally Posted by Wildwood View Post
Let me re-phrase = You massively overestimate Human Knowledge, but not Human Self-Pride.

Believing everything you can theorize, is the first step to delusion and entitlement.
It's not pride. In fact, humility is a foundation of science. When a scientist says that they believe something, it only means that they accept it on a tentative basis, until proven wrong. A scientist gets used to being proven wrong, over and over again. Looking for ways to disprove widely accepted theories is an ongoing effort within science, and a fruitful source of new discoveries. A scientist can "believe" without discomfort because beliefs are malleable.

With that said, the humility of science has led to the development of theories that are robust enough that you can really hang your hat on them for all intents and purposes.

So far the search for "hard" matter that isn't in the periodic table has uncovered all kinds of interesting stuff, but has only reinforced the theory that matter is mostly composed of those elements. I'm talking about things like muons, neutrinos, neutron stars, and so forth.
Gresp15C is offline  
Likes For Gresp15C:
Old 02-25-21, 11:20 PM
  #28  
Darth Lefty 
Disco Infiltrator
 
Darth Lefty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 12,752

Bikes: Stormchaser, Paramount, Timberjack, Expert TG, Samba tandem

Mentioned: 67 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2679 Post(s)
Liked 1,490 Times in 973 Posts
If you are working at a company that designs bikes, yes you can get access to real CAD parts. Probably they don’t show the internal workings or tell you anything about the metallurgy or layup etc. In other words entirely sufficient to check fit and make renderings. But they’re not just on the Internet waiting for anybody. They also share compatibility info and call it “standards” though they don’t seem to be handled through a joint organization like ASME. What in my business we call an interface control drawing. If you have a caliper and some CAD skill you can make a reasonable facsimile.
__________________
Genesis 49:16-17
Darth Lefty is online now  
Old 02-26-21, 08:22 AM
  #29  
Gresp15C
Senior Member
 
Gresp15C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,761
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Liked 582 Times in 377 Posts
In terms of CAD models, there's a growing open-source CAD community, revolving around free software and shared designs. I only looked into this briefly, and don't remember any of the sites, but I did notice that a lot of the designs seemed to be bike related, including fancy stuff like custom chainwheels, but also useful stuff like a bracket that goes from A to B for holding some nonstandard thing on a bike. I'm into open source, but primarily from the electronics and computer related side of it.
Gresp15C is offline  
Old 02-26-21, 09:00 AM
  #30  
mack_turtle
n00b
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,398

Bikes: Surly Karate Monkey, Twin Six Standard Rando

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 427 Post(s)
Liked 466 Times in 273 Posts
justinschulz9 I know you got a lot of snarky answers because your question was not specific enough, but I'm really curious about what you really are looking for. can you provide more specifics?
mack_turtle is offline  
Likes For mack_turtle:
Old 02-26-21, 11:19 AM
  #31  
unterhausen
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 22,525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 2,087 Times in 1,486 Posts
Originally Posted by Gresp15C View Post
In terms of CAD models, there's a growing open-source CAD community, revolving around free software and shared designs. I only looked into this briefly, and don't remember any of the sites
grabcad maybe?
unterhausen is offline  
Likes For unterhausen:
Old 02-26-21, 03:27 PM
  #32  
Gresp15C
Senior Member
 
Gresp15C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,761
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Liked 582 Times in 377 Posts
I''m completely drawing a blank. Will ask my colleagues if they remember.
Gresp15C is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 07:24 PM
  #33  
justinschulz9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 56

Bikes: diamondback century 1, cannondale synapse, giant talon, fuji absolute

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Liked 8 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
justinschulz9 I know you got a lot of snarky answers because your question was not specific enough, but I'm really curious about what you really are looking for. can you provide more specifics?
i know i havent been on in awhile(covid kept me home luckily) but my logic behind the question was to find small parts that may be missing. or say if someone lost a specific part to their bike we as mechanics can find said part... also i do understand that a better or clearer idea of engineering will help me in this scenario. i was hoping that there was a schematic site for things of this nature.
is it really true that some parts are obsolete and will never be made again?
justinschulz9 is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 07:27 PM
  #34  
justinschulz9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 56

Bikes: diamondback century 1, cannondale synapse, giant talon, fuji absolute

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Liked 8 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
A lot of Shimano components have exploded drawings. Is this something you want?
yes this would be exactly what im talking about. just in the bottom bracket section, or particularly for only replaceable parts.
justinschulz9 is offline  
Old 03-20-21, 09:29 PM
  #35  
Darth Lefty 
Disco Infiltrator
 
Darth Lefty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 12,752

Bikes: Stormchaser, Paramount, Timberjack, Expert TG, Samba tandem

Mentioned: 67 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2679 Post(s)
Liked 1,490 Times in 973 Posts
Originally Posted by BobbyG View Post
I don't see drillium and unobtainium on the chart.
Or Nobendium.

I've got this one on my cubicle wall. Personal favorite is upsidaisium, with corbomite a close second. Flubber does not qualify, it's not an element.
The Periodic Table Of Imaginary Elements ? Russell Walks Illustration
__________________
Genesis 49:16-17

Last edited by Darth Lefty; 03-20-21 at 09:32 PM.
Darth Lefty is online now  
Likes For Darth Lefty:
Old 03-20-21, 10:13 PM
  #36  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 14,269

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7735 Post(s)
Liked 4,720 Times in 2,724 Posts
Originally Posted by justinschulz9 View Post
yes this would be exactly what im talking about. just in the bottom bracket section, or particularly for only replaceable parts.
bottom brackets are designed and made differently though. They vary in seals, bearing size, number of balls, spindle size, internal or external placement, threaded or press fit, etc.
You want designs for all these?
mstateglfr is offline  
Likes For mstateglfr:
Old 03-20-21, 10:21 PM
  #37  
Aroyobob
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Arizona
Posts: 46

Bikes: Trek 460, Trek 1420, Schwin High Sierra

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times in 11 Posts
Your best bet is to watch Youtube videos of people taking apart and overhauling various parts of bicycles. Or look for sites like Sheldon Brown's.

"Is it really true there are parts that are no longer made?" Of course. Many.
Aroyobob is offline  
Old 03-21-21, 12:37 AM
  #38  
Camilo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,388
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 554 Post(s)
Liked 381 Times in 253 Posts
Originally Posted by justinschulz9 View Post
...is it really true that some parts are obsolete and will never be made again?
Did you think that every little part ever used on a bicycle is still made? Is that true for any manufactured product?
Camilo is offline  
Old 03-21-21, 09:06 AM
  #39  
dedhed
SE Wis
 
dedhed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 8,812

Bikes: '68 Raleigh Sprite, '02 Raleigh C500, '84 Raleigh Gran Prix, '91 Trek 400, 2013 Novara Randonee, 1990 Trek 970

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2049 Post(s)
Liked 1,990 Times in 1,238 Posts
Originally Posted by justinschulz9 View Post
yes this would be exactly what im talking about. just in the bottom bracket section, or particularly for only replaceable parts.
Kind of depends what kind of bottom bracket you're talking about.
Cup & cone, sealed cartridge, external bearing, PF, PF30, Octalink, Ashtabula, Thun Thompson, and any number of new and old variants.
​​​​​​https://www.google.com/search?q=bott...w=1366&bih=617
dedhed is offline  
Old 03-22-21, 06:06 PM
  #40  
wilson_smyth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked 44 Times in 20 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
Again, yes we can. “Matter” is the material substance of the observable universe. Another way of describing it is that it is a substance which has mass and volume. Everywhere you look, there is matter and all of it is composed of the elements of the periodic table. If you know of some material that isn’t on the periodic table, please present evidence of it and how it fits in the current table. There may be some elements off the end of that table but they are going to be rare enough to ignore. They are likely too unstable to exist outside of a very brief period of time.

Even subatomic particles are part of the periodic table since protons, neutrons, and electrons are taken into account. Protons are the atomic number, neutrons (along with protons) are responsible for the atomic weight, and electrons (equals to protons) are responsible for the atom’s interaction with other atoms.

But, outside of a few ephemeral heavy elements, all matter in the Universe is contained within that table. All kinds of combinations of those elements can result in some very strange bits of matter but that doesn’t invalidate the elements in the periodic table. The weird bits are still made of the known bits.
4 new elements were added to the periodic table in 2016, only 4 years ago. Prior to that, would you have thought the table contained all elements in the universe?

The table contains all common elements we are currently aware of, but it's arrogant to think we've discovered them all. Even at that it doesn't contain all elements so the initial comment is incorrect.

We know a lot more now than we did 250 years ago, when the table contained no elements as it didn't exist. Imagine what will be known in the next 250 years.
Imagine the new elements that will be discovered in conditions we don't yet know exists. Imagine some of those super unstable elements with tiny half lives may become useful in tech we have not even imagined yet.

Tldr:the original statement that thr periodic table Contains all elements in the universe is incorrect.
​​​

​​​​
wilson_smyth is offline  
Old 03-22-21, 08:06 PM
  #41  
Homebrew01
Super Moderator
 
Homebrew01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ffld Cnty Connecticut
Posts: 21,717

Bikes: Old Steelies I made, Old Cannondales

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1103 Post(s)
Liked 627 Times in 431 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
....Every bit of matter in the universe is on that schematic.....
Dark matter may not be on that schematic, and that's a significant component of the universe. Periodic table elements are only about 5% of the universe. The other 95% is a mystery....Dark matter (27%) & dark energy (68%).

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter
__________________
Bikes: Old steel race bikes, old Cannondale race bikes, less old Cannondale race bike, crappy old mtn bike.

FYI: https://www.bikeforums.net/forum-sugg...ad-please.html

Last edited by Homebrew01; 03-22-21 at 08:22 PM.
Homebrew01 is offline  
Old 03-22-21, 08:31 PM
  #42  
spelger
Senior Member
 
spelger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: reno, nv
Posts: 1,398

Bikes: yes, i have one

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 675 Post(s)
Liked 680 Times in 400 Posts
Originally Posted by Moe Zhoost View Post
Here you go:


i think a spoke is missing.
spelger is offline  
Old 03-22-21, 09:49 PM
  #43  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 25,131

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 136 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4793 Post(s)
Liked 2,347 Times in 1,387 Posts
Originally Posted by Homebrew01 View Post
Dark matter may not be on that schematic, and that's a significant component of the universe. Periodic table elements are only about 5% of the universe. The other 95% is a mystery....Dark matter (27%) & dark energy (68%).

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter
Current periodic table elements might make up only 5% of the universe. If more elements are out there, they can be added to the periodic table. There isn’t going to be anything shoehorned into the existing table, however. There are no half protons.

And I don’t know that I would put all my stock in dark matter and dark energy yet. It’s all completely theoretical (and not a small bit speculative). We haven’t found any yet. It’s more a bookkeeping technique than anything real at this time.
__________________
Stuart Black
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
cyccommute is offline  
Old 03-22-21, 09:54 PM
  #44  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 25,131

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 136 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4793 Post(s)
Liked 2,347 Times in 1,387 Posts
Originally Posted by wilson_smyth View Post
4 new elements were added to the periodic table in 2016, only 4 years ago. Prior to that, would you have thought the table contained all elements in the universe?

The table contains all common elements we are currently aware of, but it's arrogant to think we've discovered them all. Even at that it doesn't contain all elements so the initial comment is incorrect.

We know a lot more now than we did 250 years ago, when the table contained no elements as it didn't exist. Imagine what will be known in the next 250 years.
Imagine the new elements that will be discovered in conditions we don't yet know exists. Imagine some of those super unstable elements with tiny half lives may become useful in tech we have not even imagined yet.

Tldr:the original statement that thr periodic table Contains all elements in the universe is incorrect.
I have never said that the periodic table is written in stone. It is a living tool that has constantly been added to since before it was even conceived. It contains all the material we know and it has the ability to contain all the material we don’t. We could even predict the properties of elements we don’t know. Dmitri Mendeleev, who developed the periodic table, predicted 3 elements in 1869...gallium, scandium, and germanium and their properties...before they were found. They were found within 20 years of his predictions and had almost exactly the properties he predicted. In total, he predicted at total of 10 elements. We can still use the periodic table to predict elements and what their properties are.

And those 4 elements added 4 years ago were decades in the making. They didn’t just “find” 4 new elements in 2016. Experiments demonstrated that the elements existed but none of the experiments nor the elements that were made were simple nor easy to perform nor interpret. And while there many be examples of these elements (as well as others) in the universe, the conditions under which they exist are going to be very different from what we experience.

Nor, for various reasons, are superheavy elements going to account for the gravitational problem for which dark matter is postulated. You might find these kinds of elements in very dense stars with huge gravitational wells but those kinds of stars aren’t prevalent enough to fit the dark matter model. We don’t see the kinds of gravitational lensing to account for a whole bunch of super heavy stars.


Tldr: the original statement is absolutely correct.
__________________
Stuart Black
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.

Last edited by cyccommute; 03-22-21 at 10:19 PM.
cyccommute is offline  
Old 03-22-21, 09:59 PM
  #45  
veganbikes
Clark W. Griswold
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: ,location, location
Posts: 9,704

Bikes: Foundry Chilkoot Ti W/Ultegra Di2, Salsa Timberjack Ti, Cinelli Mash Work RandoCross Fun Time Machine, 1x9 XT Parts Hybrid, Co-Motion Cascadia, Specialized Langster, Phil Wood Apple VeloXS Frame (w/DA 7400), R+M Supercharger2 Rohloff, Habanero Ti 26

Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2792 Post(s)
Liked 1,952 Times in 1,291 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
The periodic table is written in stone.
Kidding kidding but technically true.

I always feel in my element when discussing the periodic table but the big problem is you can't talk about it always only periodically.
veganbikes is offline  
Old 03-23-21, 02:18 AM
  #46  
wilson_smyth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked 44 Times in 20 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
Wood and bamboo are on that schematic. Every bit of matter in the universe is on that schematic. Wood and bamboo...chemically identical for all practical purposes...is just carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Some assembly required.
This is what you said. Note the word every.
You already backtracked and said some elements with a very short half life are not here.
We also discussed how 4 elements were added as recently as 2016 so to think thats it, all matter, there are no more elements to discover is foolish.
Finally, its a periodic table of the elements, it doesn't describe all matter.
It doesnt describe the most of the various elementary particles besides protons, neutrons & electrons. This is all based on an antiquated model of how we once thought matter was represented.
There are a whole range of subatomic particles not represented here at all.
A lot of holes have been found in this model, so although it works at a coarse level, we know it to be incorrect, similar to Newtonian physics vs Relativity.
wilson_smyth is offline  
Old 03-23-21, 09:55 AM
  #47  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 25,131

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 136 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4793 Post(s)
Liked 2,347 Times in 1,387 Posts
Originally Posted by wilson_smyth View Post
This is what you said. Note the word every.
Yes. Every bit of matter in the Universe is contained on that schematic. The Periodic Table isn’t a static tool. You could, theoretically, map out every element out to an infinity of protons and probably predict each one’s properties. Just because an element haven’t been observed yet doesn’t mean it won’t fit on that template. The Periodic Table has predictive properties and is not a set in stone.

You already backtracked and said some elements with a very short half life are not here.
The short half life elements (just about everything above atomic number 92) haven’t been found yet. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have a place on that table nor that they will violate the rules of that table.

We also discussed how 4 elements were added as recently as 2016 so to think thats it, all matter, there are no more elements to discover is foolish.
I never said that there aren’t more elements for discover. I’ve specifically said that any more elements to be discovered will fit within the Periodic Table. There will not be any elements that can be shoe horned into the table between the elements that we already know. Pick any two elements and you will never find an element that will fit between them. You won’t find an element that fits between aluminum (13 protons) and silicon (14 protons) or between silver (79) and mercury (80). There are no 13.5 or 79.5 proton elements

Finally, its a periodic table of the elements, it doesn't describe all matter.
It doesnt describe the most of the various elementary particles besides protons, neutrons & electrons. This is all based on an antiquated model of how we once thought matter was represented.
There are a whole range of subatomic particles not represented here at all.
A lot of holes have been found in this model, so although it works at a coarse level, we know it to be incorrect, similar to Newtonian physics vs Relativity.
All those subatomic particles are derivatives of protons, electrons, and neutrons. The plethora of subatomic particles below the level of those three basic subatomic particles don’t exist outside of those particles. Point to a single “hole” in the periodic table. The whole of quantum theory fits in Periodic Table. The electronic configuration of the elements fits in the Periodic Table. You can build the electronic configuration of each element from the previous elements based only on their position in the periodic table. The 4 new elements that you keep thinking makes your point fit in that same table in exactly the position we would predict they would fall.

Finally, Newtonian physics isn’t “incorrect”...go have someone throw a baseball at your head and report back to us if it is a particle or wave...nor is Relatively “correct”. One is built on the other and the former can be used to describe the later. In fact, the former was used to discover and describe the later.
__________________
Stuart Black
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
cyccommute is offline  
Old 03-23-21, 10:25 AM
  #48  
wilson_smyth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked 44 Times in 20 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post

Finally, Newtonian physics isn’t “incorrect”...go have someone throw a baseball at your head and report back to us if it is a particle or wave...nor is Relatively “correct”. One is built on the other and the former can be used to describe the later. In fact, the former was used to discover and describe the later.
Newtonian physics is incorrect, its not how the universe works. Its good, in so far as it provides formulas that can explain forces acting on matter. Its not correct though, as was proven when relativity was used to calculate with much higher precision the positions of stars behind the sun during a solar eclipse.
Newtonian physics is still useful, as long as what one is trying to achieve does not require higher precision, but its based on a model that is inherently incorrect.
To take your baseball scenario, the accuracy required is coarse enough that Newtonian physics can be used to do the maths, but if you want to get the accuracy higher, Newtonian physics breaks down.


Im not going to try to convince you otherwise on the periodic table. you said what you said, its there to be read. Ignore it or pretend it meant something else if you must.
wilson_smyth is offline  
Old 03-23-21, 12:50 PM
  #49  
Sal Bandini
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 243

Bikes: 2017 Sirrus Sport

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Wildwood View Post
Bike frames are made of
Aluminum, Titanium, Iron, Carbon (fibre), Magnesium, wood, or bamboo.
Maybe this helps

Wood and bamboo aren't on this schematic. The metals are also alloys. The carbon frames use numerous other ingredients to hold it together. But this is a starting point of basic ingredients.
Where's unobtanium on that table? Everything I want is made from that, apparently.
Sal Bandini is offline  
Old 03-23-21, 02:51 PM
  #50  
cyccommute 
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 25,131

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 136 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4793 Post(s)
Liked 2,347 Times in 1,387 Posts
Originally Posted by wilson_smyth View Post
Newtonian physics is incorrect, its not how the universe works. Its good, in so far as it provides formulas that can explain forces acting on matter. Its not correct though, as was proven when relativity was used to calculate with much higher precision the positions of stars behind the sun during a solar eclipse.
Newtonian physics isn’t “incorrect”. It’s incomplete. If you want to measure something, you can use a yardstick to get close. If you want to measure something more precisely you can use a micrometer. But there are places where the yardstick is good enough and places where the micrometer can’t be used. Newtonian physics is the yardstick. It works well enough for gross measurement...and not to badly for precise measurements. Relativity is like the micrometer. It works really well for a high degree of precision but you wouldn’t want to use it for everyday measurements.

Further, if Newtonian physics is wrong, why is it taught in every introductory physics course taught. I took physics in high school in the early 70s and in college in the late 70s. That that’s roughly 60 years after the discovery of relativity when I took physics and we are now 100+ years afterward. Why would we continue to teach an incorrect system?

Newtonian physics is still useful, as long as what one is trying to achieve does not require higher precision, but its based on a model that is inherently incorrect.
Again, not “incorrect”. That implies that it is wrong and can’t be used for anything. If you say that the value of pi is 3.14, that is not “wrong”. It’s just not precise enough for some applications. Generally, however, it’s close enough.

The model isn’t “inherently incorrect” either because it can be used to make fairly good predictions. Trajectories, impact forces, frictional forces, etc that all come from Newtonian physics are close enough for most applications. If Newtonian physics were “wrong”, it wouldn’t be used.

To take your baseball scenario, the accuracy required is coarse enough that Newtonian physics can be used to do the maths, but if you want to get the accuracy higher, Newtonian physics breaks down.
How far do they “break down”? If a baseball is thrown at your head, being off by a few femtometers isn’t going to make that much difference.

Im not going to try to convince you otherwise on the periodic table. you said what you said, its there to be read. Ignore it or pretend it meant something else if you must.
What I said was meant mostly as a joke but has spiraled way out of control. I still stand by what I said in my first post and every post since. The elements in the periodic table...both known and unknown...make up the material of the Universe.
__________________
Stuart Black
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.

Last edited by cyccommute; 03-23-21 at 02:57 PM.
cyccommute is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.