squats and leg-presses?
Comments
-
dennisn wrote:
My source? Why the Internet of course. In any case you are wrong. A thing called Creation Science came up with this idea and they have proven it. Depending on what your idea of proof is. Maybe you're making the mistake that if it's called science then it must be correct. Sciences(of the day) once proved that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of our solar system, that man did(or did not) descend(or ascend) from the apes, That man landed(or didn't) on the moon, that there was(or wasn't) more than one shooter in the JFK assassination. This list of proven(or not) things goes on and on.
The key word (which you have missed) is 'progress', Dennis. I wouldn't have had a problem with anyone who believed that the earth was flat back in the day - because there was nothing to suggest it wasn't. I would have a problem with someone who still believed the earth was flat today, in the face of overwhelming evidence (or even conclusive proof) to the contrary.0 -
Imposter wrote:dennisn wrote:
My source? Why the Internet of course. In any case you are wrong. A thing called Creation Science came up with this idea and they have proven it. Depending on what your idea of proof is. Maybe you're making the mistake that if it's called science then it must be correct. Sciences(of the day) once proved that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of our solar system, that man did(or did not) descend(or ascend) from the apes, That man landed(or didn't) on the moon, that there was(or wasn't) more than one shooter in the JFK assassination. This list of proven(or not) things goes on and on.
The key word (which you have missed) is 'progress', Dennis. I wouldn't have had a problem with anyone who believed that the earth was flat back in the day - because there was nothing to suggest it wasn't. I would have a problem with someone who still believed the earth was flat today, in the face of overwhelming evidence (or even conclusive proof) to the contrary.
Until I see it with my own eyes, I will always be a skeptic. Never put anything past the Government :twisted:http://app.strava.com/athletes/686217
Come on! You call this a storm? Blow, you son of a bitch! Blow! It's time for a showdown! You and me! I'm right here! Come and get me!0 -
Imposter wrote:dennisn wrote:
My source? Why the Internet of course. In any case you are wrong. A thing called Creation Science came up with this idea and they have proven it. Depending on what your idea of proof is. Maybe you're making the mistake that if it's called science then it must be correct. Sciences(of the day) once proved that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of our solar system, that man did(or did not) descend(or ascend) from the apes, That man landed(or didn't) on the moon, that there was(or wasn't) more than one shooter in the JFK assassination. This list of proven(or not) things goes on and on.
The key word (which you have missed) is 'progress', Dennis. I wouldn't have had a problem with anyone who believed that the earth was flat back in the day - because there was nothing to suggest it wasn't. I would have a problem with someone who still believed the earth was flat today, in the face of overwhelming evidence (or even conclusive proof) to the contrary.
Well, you believe the "proofs" that you believe and I remain skeptical of anyone claiming proof positive or anything near that.
I don't quite buy into your progress idea though. Back in the day there was overwhelming evidence that the earth was flat. All you had to do was look and you could actually see the edge. You can still do this today. Plus the so called smartest men in the world said it was, therefore it was. Today it's sort of the same thing. We look at the Earth from a camera in space and we see that it's round. Is this overwhelming evidence? I would say so. Is it conclusive proof? No, not for me. Way too much not known about space, time, and the fabric of the universe. Things are not always as they appear.0 -
Just in case you thought this thread couldn't get any more ridiculous...dennisn wrote:We look at the Earth from a camera in space and we see that it's round. Is this overwhelming evidence? I would say so. Is it conclusive proof? No, not for me.
Is a picture of a duck conclusive proof that ducks are duck-shaped ?? Or would you doubt that as well?dennisn wrote:Way too much not known about space, time, and the fabric of the universe. Things are not always as they appear.
The earth 'appeared' flat to those standing on it, who knew no better. We now know that it isn't. That's progress. Until someone comes along with evidence that the earth is actually triangular, I will stick with the 'globe' theory.0 -
Scrap the weights and just eat 3 egg whites a day and ride.
Works for this dude. Check these monsters.
0 -
Dennis rarely disappoints, given enough time.Imposter wrote:Just in case you thought this thread couldn't get any more ridiculous...0 -
dennisn wrote:A thing called Creation Science came up with this idea and they have proven it.
You sir, are a fool, and your belief in "Creation Science" - which is not real science proves it.
Bumblebees can fly because they generate lift in both the down stroke and up stroke of their wings (I believe that they are the only creature to do so). This has been tested and proven to be a simple scientific fact. You can find it by searching google and watching a slow motion, extremely high resolution video of a bumblebee on a wind tunnel type scenario and there is proof of this - I believe this was shown on the BBC a couple of years ago, in a program presented by Richard Hammond.
Your failure to accept what are proven to be 'truths' speaks more for your cynicism than it does for sciences ability to provide empirical proof of anything.
Basically what your saying is that you dont believe in anything that anyone tells you - unless you know it for certain yourself, then you simply wont believe it if it doesnt match up with your preconceived idea's of life, physics and human body. This. frankly, must make you a very 'unique' individual and must provide some serious issues for you in your day to day life, after all, if one doesnt believe in electricity (because you dont know how it works and wont believe anyone else's explanation) how does one explain that to his children? Similarly if you ever get on an aeroplane, if you dont understand the basic principles of flight would you dare to get on, I mean, if magic is holding it up....it could fall to the ground at any minute..... :shock:
You could have saved many people their wasted time by announcing this rediculous fact on page one instead of letting it drag on for 10+ pages and frankly show yourself to be a simple fool.0 -
And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0
-
NeXXus wrote:
Proof - if any were needed - that the earth is flat. He wouldn't have fallen off the end of it, otherwise...0 -
SpainSte wrote:dennisn wrote:A thing called Creation Science came up with this idea and they have proven it.
You sir, are a fool, and your belief in "Creation Science" - which is not real science proves it.
I don't believe that I stated any belief in "Creation Science". It's Science to some people. This depends on your definition of Science, of course.
Just trying to show that there are "Sciences" out there that claim to know and be able to accomplish many things.
I believe that Science is the process of looking for pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and when you find that piece it's not the end of the puzzle, there are more pieces to find. Oh sure the puzzle gets finished, eventually, unless of course there are a few pieces missing or somehow a piece or two got put in the wrong place or.......0 -
No, I think he really does have calf muscles like that. They always look the same in every issue of ProCycling, so unless he photoshops them the same way every time...dennisn wrote:Zoomer37 wrote:Scrap the weights and just eat 3 egg whites a day and ride.
Works for this dude. Check these monsters.
Not sure why but that picture sort of says Photoshop? :?
I reckon it isn't the egg whites, it's the regular injections of Klingon forehead extract.0 -
He seems to have a lot more muscles in his calves than I do :shock:0
-
keef66 wrote:He seems to have a lot more muscles in his calves than I do :shock:
yeah, he's got like 6 per leg, I'm sure I've only got one......!0 -
neeb wrote:
No, I think he really does have calf muscles like that. They always look the same in every issue of ProCycling, so unless he photoshops them the same way every time...dennisn wrote:Zoomer37 wrote:Scrap the weights and just eat 3 egg whites a day and ride.
Works for this dude. Check these monsters.
Not sure why but that picture sort of says Photoshop? :?
I reckon it isn't the egg whites, it's the regular injections of Klingon forehead extract.
Klingon forehead extract? I've been sick with a bad cold for 4 days now and that's the first time I've laughed out loud let alone cracked a smile. My vote for post of the day(at the very least). And congratulations on having such a twisted mind. Something to be proud of.0 -
dennisn wrote:
Really?dennisn wrote:Just like science has proven that honey bees can't flybompington wrote:And your scientific source for this is?dennisn wrote:My source? [......] A thing called Creation Science came up with this idea and they have proven it.
Proof that you believe in a notion invented by creation science, ergo - you believe in creation science.It's Science to some people. This depends on your definition of Science, of course.
Just trying to show that there are "Sciences" out there that claim to know and be able to accomplish many things.
I believe that Science is the process of looking for pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and when you find that piece it's not the end of the puzzle, there are more pieces to find. Oh sure the puzzle gets finished, eventually, unless of course there are a few pieces missing or somehow a piece or two got put in the wrong place or.......
You can dress it up any way you like and try and make it sound rational, the point of the matter however is the fact that you refuse to believe anything that you do not understand yourself, regardless of who is telling you.
You stated that Creation Science had proven something, which it did not. Creation science is not real science, the only people to believe that it has even the slightest baring on reality are those, similar to you, that do not believe in science and so jump off when the questions get tricky - dont know the answer? God did it. Rubbish.0 -
SpainSte wrote:dennisn wrote:
Really?dennisn wrote:Just like science has proven that honey bees can't flybompington wrote:And your scientific source for this is?dennisn wrote:My source? [......] A thing called Creation Science came up with this idea and they have proven it.
Proof that you believe in a notion invented by creation science, ergo - you believe in creation science.It's Science to some people. This depends on your definition of Science, of course.
Just trying to show that there are "Sciences" out there that claim to know and be able to accomplish many things.
I believe that Science is the process of looking for pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and when you find that piece it's not the end of the puzzle, there are more pieces to find. Oh sure the puzzle gets finished, eventually, unless of course there are a few pieces missing or somehow a piece or two got put in the wrong place or.......
You can dress it up any way you like and try and make it sound rational, the point of the matter however is the fact that you refuse to believe anything that you do not understand yourself, regardless of who is telling you.
You stated that Creation Science had proven something, which it did not. Creation science is not real science, the only people to believe that it has even the slightest baring on reality are those, similar to you, that do not believe in science and so jump off when the questions get tricky - dont know the answer? God did it. Rubbish.
Wow, i always thought that i was pretty good at twisting peoples words around to seem like they are saying something else, but....
I concede and bow down to your obvious superiority in this field. :oops:0 -
I'll just call you American - C.V. is "curriculum vitae", I believe more often called a résumé on your side of the pond...dennisn wrote:0 -
Ah yes, it's clear to me now. I would, however, recommend that you you skip "twisted mind" on your C.V. unless, of course, you're applying for a job as a moderator at bikeradar or looking to fill some position in hell. Possibly those two ARE the same job????neeb wrote:
I'll just call you American - C.V. is "curriculum vitae", I believe more often called a résumé on your side of the pond...dennisn wrote:0 -
Right. I've brewed up and am now nice and comfy and ready to re-start this thread for today!bompington wrote:Let's imagine a cyclist weighing 70kg, on a bike weighing 10kg, so total weight 80kg, on this fabled 50% slope - that's 30°.
The force required to balance gravity (i.e. trackstand, or keep moving at a constant speed*) is 80 * sin 30 = 40kg (using kg as a unit of f........blah blah blah....drone...drone...drone....
Look pal. Let's just keep it nice and simple instead of pulling all sorts of unsubstantiated equations out of our backsides eh?
How about explaining to me how my mate who weighs about 10 stone wet through leaves me for dead on the climbs apart from the bits where it gets really short and steep? Despite me weighing about 7 stone more than him?0 -
Bustacapp wrote:
How about explaining to me how my mate who weighs about 10 stone wet through leaves me for dead on the climbs apart from the bits where it gets really short and steep? Despite me weighing about 7 stone more than him?
Could do with some more detail, but it sounds like better w/kg v better peak power. I would imagine your explanation is different.
Once again though, just because you can't/won't understand something, does not make it 'unsubstantiated'.0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Right. I've brewed up and am now nice and comfy and ready to re-start this thread for today!bompington wrote:Let's imagine a cyclist weighing 70kg, on a bike weighing 10kg, so total weight 80kg, on this fabled 50% slope - that's 30°.
The force required to balance gravity (i.e. trackstand, or keep moving at a constant speed*) is 80 * sin 30 = 40kg (using kg as a unit of f........blah blah blah....drone...drone...drone....
Look pal. Let's just keep it nice and simple instead of pulling all sorts of unsubstantiated equations out of our backsides eh?
How about explaining to me how my mate who weighs about 10 stone wet through leaves me for dead on the climbs apart from the bits where it gets really short and steep? Despite me weighing about 7 stone more than him?
I went through his equations and they all stack up to me.
Are you saying you beat him up the short, steep climbs? Or the gap is much less?0 -
Dear oh dear. Time to stop feeding the troll I think.0
-
...but I just can't help it, I have to ask... unsubstantiated equations? You have heard of maths, no?0
-
Well I guess if they stack up to you then they are infallible.bernithebiker wrote:I went through his equations and they all stack up to me.
The former.Are you saying you beat him up the short, steep climbs? Or the gap is much less?0 -
LOL, this shit is still going on?
I have the answer to this question. The people who lack high amounts of power (strength< penis length, whatever you want to call it) will say that doing weights is of no benefit to cyclist because 90% of what we do is endurance.
The other normal ones will say that in those other 10% where power (or strength, or penis length, or whatever) is necessary will say that if you benefit that 10% of your riding your overall cycling has benefitted. End of, too many idiots on this thread.0 -
We all know that mathematicians are making stuff up all the time, just to suit themselves. I mean, next thing will be, er, I don't know, imaginary numbers. Yeah, right.bompington wrote:...but I just can't help it, I have to ask... unsubstantiated equations? You have heard of maths, no?0
This discussion has been closed.
