[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Sloping terrain Re: Woman against Abelisaur

On 7/25/2011 2:03 PM, Habib, Michael wrote:

I can describe that all in mathematical terms, of course, but I'm not sure 
anyone here wants to read that...
>  Mike, w/ all due respect, you have assured me that your calculations
>  indicate that "assisted running" is not possible -- empirical evidence
>  contradicts that.

Not sure if it's worth getting back into this again, but just to clarify, my rough 
calculations (over a year ago) indicated that steady state maximum running speeds were 
unlikely to be effectively assisted with wings.  They also indicated that assisted 
running in the sense of augmented burst accelerations, leaping distance, leaping height, 
and turning radius should all be possible.  There have as yet been no published data to 
contradict either of these suppositions, and several published datasets supporting the 
"agility" factor augmentation.  If you know of force-measurement studies 
showing otherwise, please let me know - it's not as if I don't make mistakes.  I may have 
made an error in my calculations, but I haven't found one so far.  With all due respect, 
as well, observations of baby birds flapping while running is not empirical evidence of 
assisted running in the sense I think you mean it.

Heh. No, I have not offered my qualified observations of baby birds as quantified empirical fact.

I was referring to "assisted running" as it is currently practiced by humans in track training, and as it appears in peer-reviewed lit.

You stated that such a thing was not possible to do -- yet it is an empirical fact.

Regardless, there is a difference between distrust in the mathematician and 
distrust of math.

How could someone "distrust math"?

I just become skeptical when a mathematician predicts a reality does not exist, and then ignores it when it does.