Physical Philosophy

its not adequate and to simple and lacks corroboration because you arent satisfied, and dont understand. it makes complete sense to me...
also, the second paragraph seems like a bit of desperation on your part for attention...

Keep in mind that "larger" wheels tend to be 700C somethingorother. They tend to be run at higher pressures than "smaller" wheels. All else being held equal, less friction at the axle due to fewer revolutions is going to be a tough sell.

What I've read tells me, all else being equal, larger wheels generate less rolling resistance than smaller wheels. They used steel wheels, the smaller tested less against another wheel, but against a flat surface the larger came out on top.

I haven't been able to find enough details to know whether axle friction was a factor or not. Momentum may also have an effect.
I would think they took all that onto account, but I see no reason for a larger wheel to have less resistance.

Can ANYONE here imagine philosophy being physical? please, describe, because i cant.

Noah, you ill witted and diminutive phillistine, this forum regards philosophy of matters which are of a caliber quite supreme, and which additionally regard matters of the physical universe. Noah, Noah, Noah, when will you learn?

well, TML, can you, oh so wise one answer the question I've just asked? or is it below your "dignity"?

'Tis, my humble subordinate. Understand what I have stated here before you make such erroneous comments. Thank you for having the intelligence to visit MY forum, as it is fitting that you would do so.

so... you just don't know the answer.

(...) Excuse my contemptuous and derisive snorts of deplorable enmity for this poor pauper, Hamilton, he calls himself. Pray, do not squander your time and visit his erroneous forum, where the discussion is is that of mindless lemmings.

Actions reveal thoughts. Sometimes you can get an idea of how a person thinks just by observing how he acts. Even though the person isn't inclined to think philosophically, you can get answers to philosophical questions just by watching. Not precisely related to the topic, but that is what I was thinking when I read the title.

thanks. that helped me understand that.

That was just my spin on it. The OP might have a different intention.

Thank you for that sentiment. Additionally, I might add, directed towards this, "Hamilton", that philosophy, the love of learning, must not be constrained to the perameters of the metaphysical and intellectual world, but also the world of tangible matter. A physical philosophy defines a philosophy which utilizes intellectual thought to relate to physical matters and to delve deeply into the realm in which physical and intellectual coincide.

Tifinden, isn't the term "empirical" philosophy what you mean by "physical" philosophy?

The way I see it, philosophy is laced through everything we deal with. It has to do with how we approach problems, how we identify them and how we solve them. Most of us don't see it, because we only use the conclusions of philosophic inquiry about morals, for instance, or about how to conduct business in an acceptable manner. Philosophy isn't so much a branch of human inquiry as it is an approach to almost anything; a tool to achieve deeper insights and better results. (Even such distinctions as "deeper" and "better" are linked to philosophical study.)

Thank you for finally coming out of your shell of arrogance to explain the title of your topic... I can go to sleep at night now.

Cryacuz, you seem to be comparing a kind of street philosophy ("an approach to almost anything") with academic philosophy ("a branch of human inquiry"). The first is informal and inclusive--and what we do in A2K--the second is formal and exclusive.

Yes. But to be honest I often think that the formal and exclusive, academic philosophy is inherently fraudulent. Not by the intention of these philosophers, but because of the nature of reality and human perception. Philosophy for the sake of philosophy, or attaining wisdom only for the sake of being wise, seems like a waste of time...

And I see academic philosophers and artists as "careerists," passionless laborers who focus only on technical issues and methods for the sake of professional gain. There are exceptions of course.

Yes. I think Nietzche has some good things to say about that kind of philosophers in Beyond Good and Evil. If I remember correctly he calls it their lie, the way they present their thoughts in orderly systems that they try to make foolproof. As he says, thoughts arrive when they do, not when the thinker wants them to come, and rarely in an orderly fashion.

A lot of philosophy that consists of premises building on premises sometimes strikes me as building a tower by using stones from the foundation. Then it's just a matter of time before the walls crumble.