Nope. Nice attempt at attempting to save face after losing hehe. You were adamant that with the broom/spaghetti leaning, it would always collapse the same way. Now you've admitted it would collapse in a random way.
Now you are making thing ups. I have
always been adamant that something collapsing will collapse in a random manner.
You are the one who has maintained that they always collapse in the same direction. I did not misquote you. That is a direct quote. Here’s another from post 59
This is because that spaghetti already has a built in imperfection, an existing slight bend in it, so no matter what you do it's just going to bend in the same way as that existing bend. This is buckling. There is no external lateral force here. Your entire input force is axial. If you take a different spaghetti, that second spaghetti will have a different imperfection so it will buckle in it's own way. But it's always the same. You will never find a spaghetti that buckles in a 360 degree random direction each time you press down, because such a theoretically perfect spaghetti does not exist.
My post 60 is a response to your statement even doing your silly experiment. The spaghetti bends and breaks in a random direction.
I see you tried to cheat the argument by misquoting me. Where you quoted me I was talking about vertical spaghetti buckling due to built in weakness (which you also admitted in your last post fyi). In my most recent challenge to you where you finally admitted your mistake, we were talking about a leaning situation.
I have not misquoted you. One of your quotes is above in full. The bolded text says that the spaghetti “never” buckles in a random direction. You seem to be saying something completely different not. I admit that spaghetti isn’t a strong material and has weaknesses but those weaknesses are completely random which means that it will break in a random direction when force is applied. All materials have internal weaknesses from inconsistencies of the materials
and all materials are going to buckle in a random direction if subjected to a vertical force. If a lateral force is applied, they will buckle in the direction of the lateral is pushing.
This is about frame of reference. You are turning left and your bike is leaning left. Your nose is to the left of the headset. The moment the snot leaves your nose it's going to begin flying in a straight line along the tangent. It will no longer be taking a curved path. Meanwhile you are continuing your curve left. By the time the snot has dropped near the headset, the bike frame has curved left to meet it. As you can see, from the perspective of a person standing nearby, the snot is traveling perpendicular toward the ground, but from the frame of reference of the cyclist, the snot is falling diagonally toward the centerline of the frame. We are analyzing forces on the bike, so we have to analyze in the frame of reference of the bike, not in the frame of reference of a stationary outside observer. Understand now?
Again…EWWWWW! Yes, this is about frame of reference but once the snot leaves your nose (EWWWW!), it falls out of the frame of reference of the bike and enters its own frame of reference. Once dropped, the snot (EWWWW!) drops straight down due to gravity (let’s ignore aerodynamics) and, at the same time, takes a straight line path away from the corner. It does not fall towards the centerline of the frame and, in fact, travels away from the frame at a tangent to the corner. The combined motions will form an arc but away from the frame and definitely not straight down the frame.
In the same way, the bike (including the wheel) is experiencing a purely "downward" force, where the "downward" is not perpendicular to the ground, but instead leaned at an angle. It is 100% downward in its own frame of reference. Since the force is completely in plane with the wheel, there is no sideways force trying to bend the wheel into a taco.
The problem here, again, is that you are trying to put the bike into a frame of reference that you are not justified to put it into. The forces working on the bike are not forces in the frame of reference. They are external to it. The angle of the bicycle is a result of the action of the normal force and the centripetal force. The angle is the sum of those two forces but the individual forces are still there and still acting on the bicycle.
Were you able to follow along with my explanation? I tried to make it clear.
Well I can follow your explanation but it is still wrong. You are making wrong assumptions.
I'm glad you stated your belief in such a clear way. Now you cannot back away from it. Let us cut through all your self-confused mumble jumbo and end the argument right here. You're saying that if you hold a plumb bob in your teeth while riding in a circle, the plumb bob will not fall toward the headset. You are saying it will fall perpendicular to the ground.
A plumb would be different from a free snot body (EWWW!) because it is constrained and attached to the bike. It is a semi-free body and the angle at which if falls is going to be highly influenced by the weight of the bob. If dropped, it would fall down and away from the corner. Once it hits the end of its line, it is no longer a free body and will take an angle but that angle wouldn’t necessarily be the same as that of the bicycle.