View Poll Results: Who won the debate: MK (HP) or VR (Torque)
Mk won with a simple to understand concept that HP determines torque at the wheels at any speed.
25
17.48%
MK won: When comparing equal HP cars, the one with less torque COULD be better on the road course.
6
4.20%
VR won: When comparing equal HP cars, the one with more torque is better on a road course.
44
30.77%
Neither, as physics dont apply to race cars
18
12.59%
I don't want to open this can of worms again!
50
34.97%
Voters: 143. You may not vote on this poll
Poll: Who won the HP vs Torque debate?
03-17-2009, 02:47 PM
#76
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Poor little guy doesn't even understand when people are laughing at him and voting for anything BUT him in order to yank his chain! Sure is entertaining!
When wondering what others would like to discuss, I would suggest a look at the other 386 threads on this Forum for a clue, then look at other RL Forums for further insight.
When wondering what others would like to discuss, I would suggest a look at the other 386 threads on this Forum for a clue, then look at other RL Forums for further insight.
03-17-2009, 02:49 PM
#77
Mr. Excitement
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
You are all wrong. It is steam that is causes the popcorn to pop. Yes the steam creates internal pressure but without the steam + heat component the hard starch shell would only split open and vent. The internal water heats to the point that some boils and generates added pressure. This increased pressure increases the boiling point of the remaining water. When the pressure gets high enough the hard non porous starch hull ruptures and the remaining superheated water contained in the soft starch of the kernel flashes into steam causing the mass of to expand. The heat and evenly distributed superheated water flashing into water vapor is needed for the starch to expand into a soft mass rather than just parching into a tooth cracker.
Can't say about the rest, sounds like pissing up a tree to me.
Can't say about the rest, sounds like pissing up a tree to me.
03-17-2009, 02:49 PM
#78
Drifting
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here, is this good enough for you?
You have questions, I have answers!
Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include (depending on translation) text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc.[86]
You have questions, I have answers!
Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include (depending on translation) text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc.[86]
2) You realize that the Bible is written in many different forms of writing, right? Letters, poetry, historical, short story, parable. Do you read a science text the same way that you read a poem? Do you read a history book the same way you read a parable? When Micheal Jackson sings "I'm bad", does he mean that he's bad or that he's good? When the Bible says "Thy two breasts are as two twin fawns, that feed among the lilies.", should we read that as her two breasts literally being deer?
3) When you say that the sun rises, are you yourself also implying that the earth is still?
You're reading your own interpretation into words that aren't meant to be read literally. If you say that your company is built on a "firm foundation", do you actually mean that your company can never move?
It's hilariously funny (yes, it takes repetition to describe just how funny this is) that someone who has used this thread and about 5 others lately to lecture about people arguing things they may not understand would get into an argument about Biblical truths and then go searching around Google to "prove" his point.
Last edited by Bryan Watts; 03-17-2009 at 03:18 PM.
03-17-2009, 03:01 PM
#80
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
What you said = pressure pops the Kernal. Water, air , DNA, waste, etc, it all is at a pressure, if the differential pressure is great enough, it will crack the shell and make popcorn! 
mk
mk
You are all wrong. It is steam that is causes the popcorn to pop. Yes the steam creates internal pressure but without the steam + heat component the hard starch shell would only split open and vent. The internal water heats to the point that some boils and generates added pressure. This increased pressure increases the boiling point of the remaining water. When the pressure gets high enough the hard non porous starch hull ruptures and the remaining superheated water contained in the soft starch of the kernel flashes into steam causing the mass of to expand. The heat and evenly distributed superheated water flashing into water vapor is needed for the starch to expand into a soft mass rather than just parching into a tooth cracker.
Can't say about the rest, sounds like pissing up a tree to me.
Can't say about the rest, sounds like pissing up a tree to me.
03-17-2009, 03:02 PM
#81
Drifting
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-17-2009, 03:12 PM
#83
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
You further make my case Bryan. I get the bible. Geez, isn't a wonder that most of the bible was translated from ancient Greek, ancient armeic, and ancient Hebrew, that people make sense of it at all?? One translation that really gets folks, is the mother Mary. Do you know that the Hebrew word for young girl is the same for virgin? Wouldn't that toss a gear into church if we could interpret without guidance.
You are missing the point. Its not what the bible says it is how it was interpreted by those of the day. My analogy was that equal to VRs claim to higher torque engines being better than lower torque engines for the same HP based on his beliefs, not physics. This the exact same battle Galileo fought and I am fighting with his followers. (or any follower of pseudo science).
You are right, VR could be talking about higher torque at the rear wheels, just as the bible could have been speaking of the sun rising from our vantage point. (Galileo's defense by the way). However, it doesn't matter, because if we are talking about the same thing, "Torque at the rear tires" then, vr is still wrong, because an equal HP car with the same HP curve, can make the same torque at the rear wheels at any vehicle speed, anywhere on the track.
So, there is no argument here of biblical truths, but interpretation of the bible by many of the past. There interpretation was in fact, incorrect, as the earth does revolve around the sun, and the interpretation could be that the sun just rises from our perspective. So, in the end, if the "masses" understood this, Galileo would have been honored in his dying days, not accused of heresy. It had nothing to do with the Bible, and everthing to do with reality and science.
mk
You are missing the point. Its not what the bible says it is how it was interpreted by those of the day. My analogy was that equal to VRs claim to higher torque engines being better than lower torque engines for the same HP based on his beliefs, not physics. This the exact same battle Galileo fought and I am fighting with his followers. (or any follower of pseudo science).
You are right, VR could be talking about higher torque at the rear wheels, just as the bible could have been speaking of the sun rising from our vantage point. (Galileo's defense by the way). However, it doesn't matter, because if we are talking about the same thing, "Torque at the rear tires" then, vr is still wrong, because an equal HP car with the same HP curve, can make the same torque at the rear wheels at any vehicle speed, anywhere on the track.
So, there is no argument here of biblical truths, but interpretation of the bible by many of the past. There interpretation was in fact, incorrect, as the earth does revolve around the sun, and the interpretation could be that the sun just rises from our perspective. So, in the end, if the "masses" understood this, Galileo would have been honored in his dying days, not accused of heresy. It had nothing to do with the Bible, and everthing to do with reality and science.
mk
1) You're relying on translation into English from Greek and Latin that is meant to convey meaning and may not be a literal translation of the original language.
2) You realize that the Bible is written in many different forms of writing, right? Letters, poetry, historical, short story, parable. Do you read a science text the same way that you read a poem? Do you read a history book the same way you read a parable? When Micheal Jackson sings "I'm bad", does he mean that he's bad or that he's good? When the Bible says "Thy two breasts are as two twin fawns, that feed among the lilies.", should we read that as her two breasts literally being deer?
3) When you say that the sun rises, are you yourself also implying that the earth is still?
You're reading your own interpretation into words that aren't meant to be read literally. If you say that your company is built on a "firm foundation", do you actually mean that your company can never move?
It's hilariously funny (yes, it takes repetition to describe just how funny this is) that someone who has used this thread and about 5 others lately to lecture about people arguing things they may not understand would get into an argument about Biblical truths and then go searching around Google to "prove" his point.
2) You realize that the Bible is written in many different forms of writing, right? Letters, poetry, historical, short story, parable. Do you read a science text the same way that you read a poem? Do you read a history book the same way you read a parable? When Micheal Jackson sings "I'm bad", does he mean that he's bad or that he's good? When the Bible says "Thy two breasts are as two twin fawns, that feed among the lilies.", should we read that as her two breasts literally being deer?
3) When you say that the sun rises, are you yourself also implying that the earth is still?
You're reading your own interpretation into words that aren't meant to be read literally. If you say that your company is built on a "firm foundation", do you actually mean that your company can never move?
It's hilariously funny (yes, it takes repetition to describe just how funny this is) that someone who has used this thread and about 5 others lately to lecture about people arguing things they may not understand would get into an argument about Biblical truths and then go searching around Google to "prove" his point.
03-17-2009, 03:20 PM
#85
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Can anyone offer one shred of evidece to support your vote for option 3?
One shred! Or are you all just lambs to VR?
Is there anyone that disputes the fact that power available at any speed determines vehicle acceleration?
Is it possible that two same cars , one with an engine with less torque than another, but the same peak HP, could create better acceleration than the other with more engine torque? If so, you voted wrong!
mk
One shred! Or are you all just lambs to VR?
Is there anyone that disputes the fact that power available at any speed determines vehicle acceleration?
Is it possible that two same cars , one with an engine with less torque than another, but the same peak HP, could create better acceleration than the other with more engine torque? If so, you voted wrong!
mk
03-17-2009, 03:21 PM
#86
Drifting
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here, is this good enough for you?
You have questions, I have answers!
Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include (depending on translation) text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc.[86]
KAPOW!!!!!!
You have questions, I have answers!
Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include (depending on translation) text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc.[86]
KAPOW!!!!!!
03-17-2009, 03:24 PM
#87
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Perfect!
"Bandwagon Fallacy
..... Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea, then, is no guarantee of its truth."
I cant find a better sentence to describe the 22 voters or many of the posters here.
mk
"Bandwagon Fallacy
..... Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea, then, is no guarantee of its truth."
I cant find a better sentence to describe the 22 voters or many of the posters here.
mk
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/bandwagon.html
Bandwagon Fallacy
Explanation
The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. They take the mere fact that an idea suddenly attracting adherents as a reason for us to join in with the trend and become adherents of the idea ourselves.
This is a fallacy because there are many other features of ideas than truth that can lead to a rapid increase in popularity. Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea, then, is no guarantee of its truth.
The bandwagon fallacy is closely related to the appeal to popularity; the difference between the two is that the bandwagon fallacy places an emphasis on current fads and trends, on the growing support for an idea, whereas the appeal to popularity does not.
Example
(1) Increasingly, people are coming to believe that Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner being.
Therefore:
(2) Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner being.
This argument commits the bandwagon fallacy because it appeals to the mere fact that an idea is fashionable as evidence that the idea is true. Mere trends in thought are not reliable guides to truth, though; the fact that Eastern religions are becoming more fashionable does not imply that they are true.
Bandwagon Fallacy
Explanation
The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. They take the mere fact that an idea suddenly attracting adherents as a reason for us to join in with the trend and become adherents of the idea ourselves.
This is a fallacy because there are many other features of ideas than truth that can lead to a rapid increase in popularity. Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea, then, is no guarantee of its truth.
The bandwagon fallacy is closely related to the appeal to popularity; the difference between the two is that the bandwagon fallacy places an emphasis on current fads and trends, on the growing support for an idea, whereas the appeal to popularity does not.
Example
(1) Increasingly, people are coming to believe that Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner being.
Therefore:
(2) Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner being.
This argument commits the bandwagon fallacy because it appeals to the mere fact that an idea is fashionable as evidence that the idea is true. Mere trends in thought are not reliable guides to truth, though; the fact that Eastern religions are becoming more fashionable does not imply that they are true.
03-17-2009, 03:25 PM
#88
Drifting
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone offer one shred of evidece to support your vote for option 3?
One shred! Or are you all just lambs to VR?
Is there anyone that disputes the fact that power available at any speed determines vehicle acceleration?
Is it possible that two same cars , one with an engine with less torque than another, but the same peak HP, could create better acceleration than the other with more engine torque? If so, you voted wrong!
One shred! Or are you all just lambs to VR?
Is there anyone that disputes the fact that power available at any speed determines vehicle acceleration?
Is it possible that two same cars , one with an engine with less torque than another, but the same peak HP, could create better acceleration than the other with more engine torque? If so, you voted wrong!
http://www.buckwildkettlekorn.com/
03-17-2009, 03:30 PM
#89
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Arent things that are written (unless physics) all interpretations? you asked me where it was written, and I showed you. You think you would just thank me and be on your way!
You are taking things out of context. The point was, and the analogy still stands, what was written, (or interpreted) was used against a scientist of the day, to discount proven theories and to propagate their possibly, misinterpreted understanding of the bible. If the bible cannot be wrong, then it was misinterpreted in the day. (not taking sides here) And, if physics prevails, then VR is wrong.
mk
You are taking things out of context. The point was, and the analogy still stands, what was written, (or interpreted) was used against a scientist of the day, to discount proven theories and to propagate their possibly, misinterpreted understanding of the bible. If the bible cannot be wrong, then it was misinterpreted in the day. (not taking sides here) And, if physics prevails, then VR is wrong.
mk
My bad...my reading comprehension must suck. I could have sworn you said that IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE...
...and then went on to provide quotes from the Bible to prove your point, including a KAPOW at the end as if you had won the argument. Oh wait...
Seriously, nice try at backing yourself out of that one though. A+ for effort. P- for popcorn!
...and then went on to provide quotes from the Bible to prove your point, including a KAPOW at the end as if you had won the argument. Oh wait...
Seriously, nice try at backing yourself out of that one though. A+ for effort. P- for popcorn!