gooner wrote:
Compare a treadmill with a set of rollers for bike training. One has a motor providing propulsion the other does not. And still the physics professors insist that treadmill running is the same as real running. If it is the same, why the heck do you need a motor.
OK, you are rapidly approaching Hall of Fame level for the um, let's just say lack of intelligence in your posts.
"If it is the same, why the heck do you need a motor?"
First of all you have no right to use the phrase, "why the heck".
Second of all, what the heck does the fact that it has a motor have to do with anything? You might just as well have asked, "why is it painted red?" or "why are these treadmills commonly found in gyms?" or... It is not pertinent in any way whatsoever.
Here, to vaguely reference another rather hilarious LRC physics thread, let's pretend we are swimming rather than running. And instead of a treadmill we are in one of those swimming exercise mini pools
http://www.endlesspools.com/Now the pool motor takes up a bunch of water from the back of the pool and pushes it out in the front of the pool creating a backward current for the swimmer to swim against (while staying in one place). Are you going to claim that this is somehow not the same as "real" swimming? Is this moving water somehow transformed into magic water that requires less effort to swim in?
Or perhaps you will ask rhetorically , if swimming in this "endless pool" is the same as swimming in a real pool, why the heck do you need the motor?
Hello. Please get just a smidgeon of a clue.