Mike Collins wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
Describes 1950s study

> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/

Chart using 1950s study

> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf

Quotes 1950s study

> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/

Proof by assertion

> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=253&meta_id=32349

Rule of thumb

> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/

<very big snip>

Feasibility study

> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
> we know different theses day?

Please, please don’t go on. You’re so far out of your depth - you
demonstrate so little understanding of what you’re reading. It’s pitiful.
You’re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.

--
Spike

On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
>
> Describes 1950s study
>
> > https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
>
> Chart using 1950s study
>
> > https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
>
> Quotes 1950s study
>
> > https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
>
> Proof by assertion
>
> > https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=253&meta_id=32349
>
> Rule of thumb
>
> > https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
>
> <very big snip>
>
> Feasibility study
>
> > Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
> > we know different theses day?
>
> Please, please don’t go on. You’re so far out of your depth - you
> demonstrate so little understanding of what you’re reading. It’s pitiful.
> You’re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
>
> --
> Spike
Thank you for creating my own thread.
Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule is no longer valid.

On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
>
> Describes 1950s study
>
> > https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
>
> Chart using 1950s study
>
> > https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
>
> Quotes 1950s study
>
> > https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
>
> Proof by assertion
>
> > https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=253&meta_id=32349
>
> Rule of thumb
>
> > https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
>
> <very big snip>
>
> Feasibility study
>
> > Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
> > we know different theses day?
>
> Please, please don’t go on. You’re so far out of your depth - you
> demonstrate so little understanding of what you’re reading. It’s pitiful.
> You’re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
>
> --
> Spike

Somehow men with pencils and slide rules managed to put a man on the moon based on Hoffmann's 1925 work and concorde was designed my men throwing paper airplanes down a wind tunnel.

I remember when I was studying Engineering at Uni a guest lecturer said analogue electrical engineers call digital engineers Bit Freaks and digital electrical engineers call analogue electrical engineers Sir.

On 29/01/2023 01:35 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins wrote:
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
>>
>> Describes 1950s study
>>
>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
>>
>> Chart using 1950s study
>>
>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
>>
>> Quotes 1950s study
>>
>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
>>
>> Proof by assertion
>>
>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=253&meta_id=32349
>>
>> Rule of thumb
>>
>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
>>
>> <very big snip>
>>
>> Feasibility study
>>
>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
>>> we know different theses day?
>>
>> Please, please don’t go on. You’re so far out of your depth - you
>> demonstrate so little understanding of what you’re reading. It’s pitiful.
>> You’re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
>>
>> --
>> Spike
> Thank you for creating my own thread.
> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule is no longer valid.

Has it yet been proven that it was ever valid?

On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 13:52:11 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 29/01/2023 01:35 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> > On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins wrote:
> >>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
> >>
> >> Describes 1950s study
> >>
> >>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
> >>
> >> Chart using 1950s study
> >>
> >>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
> >>
> >> Quotes 1950s study
> >>
> >>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
> >>
> >> Proof by assertion
> >>
> >>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=253&meta_id=32349
> >>
> >> Rule of thumb
> >>
> >>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
> >>
> >> <very big snip>
> >>
> >> Feasibility study
> >>
> >>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
> >>> we know different theses day?
> >>
> >> Please, please don’t go on. You’re so far out of your depth - you
> >> demonstrate so little understanding of what you’re reading. It’s pitiful.
> >> You’re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
> > Thank you for creating my own thread.
> > Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule is no longer valid.
> Has it yet been proven that it was ever valid?

Form your own opinion based on available data and report back.
I look forward to reading your thesis.
Don't forget to cite peer reviewed literature to support it and same for opposing views.

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins wrote:
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
>>
>> Describes 1950s study
>>
>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
>>
>> Chart using 1950s study
>>
>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
>>>
>>
>> Quotes 1950s study
>>
>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
>>>
>>
>> Proof by assertion
>>
>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
>>
>> Rule of thumb
>>
>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
>>
>> <very big snip>
>>
>> Feasibility study
>>
>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
>>> we know different theses day?
>>
>> Please, please dont go on. Youre so far out of your depth - you
>> demonstrate so little understanding of what youre reading. Its pitiful.
>> Youre a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
>>
>> --
>> Spike

> Somehow men with pencils and slide rules managed to put a man on the moon
> based on Hoffmann's 1925 work

Nope, man was put on the Moon with the extensive and critical use of
computers.

> and concorde was designed my men throwing paper airplanes down a wind tunnel.

Roaring commercial success that was.

> I remember when I was studying Engineering at Uni a guest lecturer said
> analogue electrical engineers call digital engineers Bit Freaks and
> digital electrical engineers call analogue electrical engineers Sir.

Sixty years later, they don’t.

--
Spike

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins wrote:
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
>>
>> Describes 1950s study
>>
>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
>>
>> Chart using 1950s study
>>
>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
>>>
>>
>> Quotes 1950s study
>>
>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
>>>
>>
>> Proof by assertion
>>
>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
>>
>> Rule of thumb
>>
>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
>>
>> <very big snip>
>>
>> Feasibility study
>>
>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
>>> we know different theses day?
>>
>> Please, please dont go on. Youre so far out of your depth - you
>> demonstrate so little understanding of what youre reading. Its pitiful.
>> Youre a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
>>
>> --
>> Spike

> Thank you for creating my own thread.

It wouldn’t have been necessary had you not posted a message containing an
absurdly long url.

This thread was a successful attempt to discover what in fact would get
past the news server.

> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the
> 4th power rule is no longer valid.

You brought up the issue of what you believe is ‘the fourth power rule’,
so it’s up to you to back it up. To help you, I hinted as to why that was a
lost cause, but no, you’ve tried to duck, dive, and deflect your way round
the problem you created for yourself. It isn’t up to anyone else to get you
out of the self-created pothole in which you find yourself.

PS: it turns out the ‘fourth power rule’ is rather flexible, suggesting it
was on shaky grounds to start with. HTH

--
Spike

On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 16:08:25 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins wrote:
> >>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
> >>
> >> Describes 1950s study
> >>
> >>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
> >>
> >> Chart using 1950s study
> >>
> >>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
> >>>
> >>
> >> Quotes 1950s study
> >>
> >>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
> >>>
> >>
> >> Proof by assertion
> >>
> >>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
> >>
> >> Rule of thumb
> >>
> >>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
> >>
> >> <very big snip>
> >>
> >> Feasibility study
> >>
> >>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
> >>> we know different theses day?
> >>
> >> Please, please don t go on. You re so far out of your depth - you
> >> demonstrate so little understanding of what you re reading. It s pitiful.
> >> You re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
>
> > Thank you for creating my own thread.
> It wouldn’t have been necessary had you not posted a message containing an
> absurdly long url.
>
> This thread was a successful attempt to discover what in fact would get
> past the news server.
> > Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the
> > 4th power rule is no longer valid.
> You brought up the issue of what you believe is ‘the fourth power rule’,
> so it’s up to you to back it up. To help you, I hinted as to why that was a
> lost cause, but no, you’ve tried to duck, dive, and deflect your way round
> the problem you created for yourself. It isn’t up to anyone else to get you
> out of the self-created pothole in which you find yourself.

You said the 4th power rule was no longer valid in the computer age so it is up to you to provide the evidence.

>
> PS: it turns out the ‘fourth power rule’ is rather flexible, suggesting it
> was on shaky grounds to start with. HTH

So cite the peer reviewed evidence.

On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 16:10:13 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins wrote:
> >>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
> >>
> >> Describes 1950s study
> >>
> >>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
> >>
> >> Chart using 1950s study
> >>
> >>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
> >>>
> >>
> >> Quotes 1950s study
> >>
> >>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
> >>>
> >>
> >> Proof by assertion
> >>
> >>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
> >>
> >> Rule of thumb
> >>
> >>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
> >>
> >> <very big snip>
> >>
> >> Feasibility study
> >>
> >>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
> >>> we know different theses day?
> >>
> >> Please, please don t go on. You re so far out of your depth - you
> >> demonstrate so little understanding of what you re reading. It s pitiful.
> >> You re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
>
> > Somehow men with pencils and slide rules managed to put a man on the moon
> > based on Hoffmann's 1925 work
> Nope, man was put on the Moon with the extensive and critical use of
> computers.

Based on Hoffmann.

> > and concorde was designed my men throwing paper airplanes down a wind tunnel.
> Roaring commercial success that was.

It was a great technological achievement.

On 29/01/2023 03:52 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 13:52:11 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 29/01/2023 01:35 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>> Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
>>>>
>>>> Describes 1950s study
>>>>
>>>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
>>>>
>>>> Chart using 1950s study
>>>>
>>>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Quotes 1950s study
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
>>>>
>>>> Proof by assertion
>>>>
>>>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=253&meta_id=32349
>>>>
>>>> Rule of thumb
>>>>
>>>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
>>>>
>>>> <very big snip>
>>>>
>>>> Feasibility study
>>>>
>>>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
>>>>> we know different theses day?
>>>>
>>>> Please, please don’t go on. You’re so far out of your depth - you
>>>> demonstrate so little understanding of what you’re reading. It’s pitiful.
>>>> You’re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Spike
>>> Thank you for creating my own thread.
>>> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule is no longer valid.
>> Has it yet been proven that it was ever valid?
>
> Form your own opinion based on available data and report back.
> I look forward to reading your thesis.
> Don't forget to cite peer reviewed literature to support it and same for opposing views.

So that's a "no".

Thank you.

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 16:08:25 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>> Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
>>>>
>>>> Describes 1950s study
>>>>
>>>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
>>>>
>>>> Chart using 1950s study
>>>>
>>>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quotes 1950s study
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Proof by assertion
>>>>
>>>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
>>>>
>>>> Rule of thumb
>>>>
>>>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
>>>>
>>>> <very big snip>
>>>>
>>>> Feasibility study
>>>>
>>>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
>>>>> we know different theses day?
>>>>
>>>> Please, please don t go on. You re so far out of your depth - you
>>>> demonstrate so little understanding of what you re reading. It s pitiful.
>>>> You re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Spike
>>
>>> Thank you for creating my own thread.
>> It wouldn’t have been necessary had you not posted a message containing an
>> absurdly long url.
>>
>> This thread was a successful attempt to discover what in fact would get
>> past the news server.
>>> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the
>>> 4th power rule is no longer valid.
>> You brought up the issue of what you believe is ‘the fourth power rule’,
>> so it’s up to you to back it up. To help you, I hinted as to why that was a
>> lost cause, but no, you’ve tried to duck, dive, and deflect your way round
>> the problem you created for yourself. It isn’t up to anyone else to get you
>> out of the self-created pothole in which you find yourself.

> You said the 4th power rule was no longer valid in the computer age so it
> is up to you to provide the evidence.

You introduced the so-called ‘fourth power rule’ into the discussion, so it
is up to you to justify that.

>> PS: it turns out the ‘fourth power rule’ is rather flexible, suggesting it
>> was on shaky grounds to start with. HTH

> So cite the peer reviewed evidence.

It was in the stuff you quoted, which you clearly haven’t read. Whether
that counts as ‘peer reviewed evidence’ I’ll leave to you.

--
Spike

On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 18:19:09 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 16:08:25 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>> Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
> >>>>
> >>>> Describes 1950s study
> >>>>
> >>>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
> >>>>
> >>>> Chart using 1950s study
> >>>>
> >>>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Quotes 1950s study
> >>>>
> >>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Proof by assertion
> >>>>
> >>>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
> >>>>
> >>>> Rule of thumb
> >>>>
> >>>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
> >>>>
> >>>> <very big snip>
> >>>>
> >>>> Feasibility study
> >>>>
> >>>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
> >>>>> we know different theses day?
> >>>>
> >>>> Please, please don t go on. You re so far out of your depth - you
> >>>> demonstrate so little understanding of what you re reading. It s pitiful.
> >>>> You re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Spike
> >>
> >>> Thank you for creating my own thread.
> >> It wouldn’t have been necessary had you not posted a message containing an
> >> absurdly long url.
> >>
> >> This thread was a successful attempt to discover what in fact would get
> >> past the news server.
> >>> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the
> >>> 4th power rule is no longer valid.
> >> You brought up the issue of what you believe is ‘the fourth power rule’,
> >> so it’s up to you to back it up. To help you, I hinted as to why that was a
> >> lost cause, but no, you’ve tried to duck, dive, and deflect your way round
> >> the problem you created for yourself. It isn’t up to anyone else to get you
> >> out of the self-created pothole in which you find yourself.
>
> > You said the 4th power rule was no longer valid in the computer age so it
> > is up to you to provide the evidence.
> You introduced the so-called ‘fourth power rule’ into the discussion, so it
> is up to you to justify that.
> >> PS: it turns out the ‘fourth power rule’ is rather flexible, suggesting it
> >> was on shaky grounds to start with. HTH
>
> > So cite the peer reviewed evidence.
> It was in the stuff you quoted, which you clearly haven’t read. Whether
> that counts as ‘peer reviewed evidence’ I’ll leave to you.
>
>
> --
> Spike
So you have no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule no longer applies.

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 18:19:09 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 16:08:25 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Describes 1950s study
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chart using 1950s study
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quotes 1950s study
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proof by assertion
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rule of thumb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <very big snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Feasibility study
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
>>>>>>> we know different theses day?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please, please don t go on. You re so far out of your depth - you
>>>>>> demonstrate so little understanding of what you re reading. It s pitiful.
>>>>>> You re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Spike
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for creating my own thread.
>>>> It wouldn’t have been necessary had you not posted a message containing an
>>>> absurdly long url.
>>>>
>>>> This thread was a successful attempt to discover what in fact would get
>>>> past the news server.
>>>>> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the
>>>>> 4th power rule is no longer valid.
>>>> You brought up the issue of what you believe is ‘the fourth power rule’,
>>>> so it’s up to you to back it up. To help you, I hinted as to why that was a
>>>> lost cause, but no, you’ve tried to duck, dive, and deflect your way round
>>>> the problem you created for yourself. It isn’t up to anyone else to get you
>>>> out of the self-created pothole in which you find yourself.
>>
>>> You said the 4th power rule was no longer valid in the computer age so it
>>> is up to you to provide the evidence.
>> You introduced the so-called ‘fourth power rule’ into the discussion, so it
>> is up to you to justify that.
>>>> PS: it turns out the ‘fourth power rule’ is rather flexible, suggesting it
>>>> was on shaky grounds to start with. HTH
>>
>>> So cite the peer reviewed evidence.
>> It was in the stuff you quoted, which you clearly haven’t read. Whether
>> that counts as ‘peer reviewed evidence’ I’ll leave to you.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Spike

> So you have no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule no longer applies.

The actual point here is that you have no evidence other than anecdote to
support your vaunted ‘fourth power rule’ that you gratuitously chose to
foist on to the discussion.

--
Spike

On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 22:07:22 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 18:19:09 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 16:08:25 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>> Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Describes 1950s study
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Chart using 1950s study
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Quotes 1950s study
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Proof by assertion
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Rule of thumb
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <very big snip>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Feasibility study
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
> >>>>>>> we know different theses day?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please, please don t go on. You re so far out of your depth - you
> >>>>>> demonstrate so little understanding of what you re reading. It s pitiful.
> >>>>>> You re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Spike
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thank you for creating my own thread.
> >>>> It wouldn’t have been necessary had you not posted a message containing an
> >>>> absurdly long url.
> >>>>
> >>>> This thread was a successful attempt to discover what in fact would get
> >>>> past the news server.
> >>>>> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the
> >>>>> 4th power rule is no longer valid.
> >>>> You brought up the issue of what you believe is ‘the fourth power rule’,
> >>>> so it’s up to you to back it up. To help you, I hinted as to why that was a
> >>>> lost cause, but no, you’ve tried to duck, dive, and deflect your way round
> >>>> the problem you created for yourself. It isn’t up to anyone else to get you
> >>>> out of the self-created pothole in which you find yourself.
> >>
> >>> You said the 4th power rule was no longer valid in the computer age so it
> >>> is up to you to provide the evidence.
> >> You introduced the so-called ‘fourth power rule’ into the discussion, so it
> >> is up to you to justify that.
> >>>> PS: it turns out the ‘fourth power rule’ is rather flexible, suggesting it
> >>>> was on shaky grounds to start with. HTH
> >>
> >>> So cite the peer reviewed evidence.
> >> It was in the stuff you quoted, which you clearly haven’t read.. Whether
> >> that counts as ‘peer reviewed evidence’ I’ll leave to you.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
>
> > So you have no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule no longer applies.
> The actual point here is that you have no evidence other than anecdote to
> support your vaunted ‘fourth power rule’ that you gratuitously chose to
> foist on to the discussion.
>
> --
> Spike

No, you accepted the 4th power law was based on 50's real world experiments but you claimed it is no longer valid. You need to supply evidence to support this claim.

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 22:07:22 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 18:19:09 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 16:08:25 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Describes 1950s study
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chart using 1950s study
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quotes 1950s study
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Proof by assertion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rule of thumb
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <very big snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Feasibility study
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
>>>>>>>>> we know different theses day?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please, please don t go on. You re so far out of your depth - you
>>>>>>>> demonstrate so little understanding of what you re reading. It s pitiful.
>>>>>>>> You re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for creating my own thread.
>>>>>> It wouldn’t have been necessary had you not posted a message containing an
>>>>>> absurdly long url.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This thread was a successful attempt to discover what in fact would get
>>>>>> past the news server.
>>>>>>> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the
>>>>>>> 4th power rule is no longer valid.
>>>>>> You brought up the issue of what you believe is ‘the fourth power rule’,
>>>>>> so it’s up to you to back it up. To help you, I hinted as to why that was a
>>>>>> lost cause, but no, you’ve tried to duck, dive, and deflect your way round
>>>>>> the problem you created for yourself. It isn’t up to anyone else to get you
>>>>>> out of the self-created pothole in which you find yourself.
>>>>
>>>>> You said the 4th power rule was no longer valid in the computer age so it
>>>>> is up to you to provide the evidence.
>>>> You introduced the so-called ‘fourth power rule’ into the discussion, so it
>>>> is up to you to justify that.
>>>>>> PS: it turns out the ‘fourth power rule’ is rather flexible, suggesting it
>>>>>> was on shaky grounds to start with. HTH
>>>>
>>>>> So cite the peer reviewed evidence.
>>>> It was in the stuff you quoted, which you clearly haven’t read. Whether
>>>> that counts as ‘peer reviewed evidence’ I’ll leave to you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Spike
>>
>>> So you have no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule no longer applies.
>> The actual point here is that you have no evidence other than anecdote to
>> support your vaunted ‘fourth power rule’ that you gratuitously chose to
>> foist on to the discussion.
>>
>> --
>> Spike
>
> No, you accepted the 4th power law was based on 50's real world
> experiments but you claimed it is no longer valid. You need to supply
> evidence to support this claim.

I can go round this loop as many times as it takes:

*You* introduced what you said was the ‘fourth power law’

…so…

*You* substantiate it.

HTH

--
Spike

On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 16:02:33 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 22:07:22 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 18:19:09 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 16:08:25 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Describes 1950s study
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Chart using 1950s study
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Quotes 1950s study
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Proof by assertion
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Rule of thumb
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <very big snip>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Feasibility study
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
> >>>>>>>>> we know different theses day?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please, please don t go on. You re so far out of your depth - you
> >>>>>>>> demonstrate so little understanding of what you re reading. It s pitiful.
> >>>>>>>> You re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Spike
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thank you for creating my own thread.
> >>>>>> It wouldn’t have been necessary had you not posted a message containing an
> >>>>>> absurdly long url.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This thread was a successful attempt to discover what in fact would get
> >>>>>> past the news server.
> >>>>>>> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the
> >>>>>>> 4th power rule is no longer valid.
> >>>>>> You brought up the issue of what you believe is ‘the fourth power rule’,
> >>>>>> so it’s up to you to back it up. To help you, I hinted as to why that was a
> >>>>>> lost cause, but no, you’ve tried to duck, dive, and deflect your way round
> >>>>>> the problem you created for yourself. It isn’t up to anyone else to get you
> >>>>>> out of the self-created pothole in which you find yourself.
> >>>>
> >>>>> You said the 4th power rule was no longer valid in the computer age so it
> >>>>> is up to you to provide the evidence.
> >>>> You introduced the so-called ‘fourth power rule’ into the discussion, so it
> >>>> is up to you to justify that.
> >>>>>> PS: it turns out the ‘fourth power rule’ is rather flexible, suggesting it
> >>>>>> was on shaky grounds to start with. HTH
> >>>>
> >>>>> So cite the peer reviewed evidence.
> >>>> It was in the stuff you quoted, which you clearly haven’t read. Whether
> >>>> that counts as ‘peer reviewed evidence’ I’ll leave to you.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Spike
> >>
> >>> So you have no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule no longer applies.
> >> The actual point here is that you have no evidence other than anecdote to
> >> support your vaunted ‘fourth power rule’ that you gratuitously chose to
> >> foist on to the discussion.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
> >
> > No, you accepted the 4th power law was based on 50's real world
> > experiments but you claimed it is no longer valid. You need to supply
> > evidence to support this claim.
> I can go round this loop as many times as it takes:
>
> *You* introduced what you said was the ‘fourth power law’
>
> …so…
>
> *You* substantiate it.
>
> HTH
>
> --
> Spike

You admitted the 4th power law was valid in the 50's and claimed it is no longer valid so the burden of proof to support this claim is on you.

On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 16:02:33 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 22:07:22 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 18:19:09 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 16:08:25 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Describes 1950s study
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Chart using 1950s study
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Quotes 1950s study
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Proof by assertion
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Rule of thumb
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <very big snip>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Feasibility study
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
> >>>>>>>>> we know different theses day?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please, please don t go on. You re so far out of your depth - you
> >>>>>>>> demonstrate so little understanding of what you re reading. It s pitiful.
> >>>>>>>> You re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Spike
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thank you for creating my own thread.
> >>>>>> It wouldn’t have been necessary had you not posted a message containing an
> >>>>>> absurdly long url.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This thread was a successful attempt to discover what in fact would get
> >>>>>> past the news server.
> >>>>>>> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the
> >>>>>>> 4th power rule is no longer valid.
> >>>>>> You brought up the issue of what you believe is ‘the fourth power rule’,
> >>>>>> so it’s up to you to back it up. To help you, I hinted as to why that was a
> >>>>>> lost cause, but no, you’ve tried to duck, dive, and deflect your way round
> >>>>>> the problem you created for yourself. It isn’t up to anyone else to get you
> >>>>>> out of the self-created pothole in which you find yourself.
> >>>>
> >>>>> You said the 4th power rule was no longer valid in the computer age so it
> >>>>> is up to you to provide the evidence.
> >>>> You introduced the so-called ‘fourth power rule’ into the discussion, so it
> >>>> is up to you to justify that.
> >>>>>> PS: it turns out the ‘fourth power rule’ is rather flexible, suggesting it
> >>>>>> was on shaky grounds to start with. HTH
> >>>>
> >>>>> So cite the peer reviewed evidence.
> >>>> It was in the stuff you quoted, which you clearly haven’t read. Whether
> >>>> that counts as ‘peer reviewed evidence’ I’ll leave to you.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Spike
> >>
> >>> So you have no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule no longer applies.
> >> The actual point here is that you have no evidence other than anecdote to
> >> support your vaunted ‘fourth power rule’ that you gratuitously chose to
> >> foist on to the discussion.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
> >
> > No, you accepted the 4th power law was based on 50's real world
> > experiments but you claimed it is no longer valid. You need to supply
> > evidence to support this claim.
> I can go round this loop as many times as it takes:
>
> *You* introduced what you said was the ‘fourth power law’
>
> …so…
>
> *You* substantiate it.
>
> HTH
>
> --
> Spike
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials).. "Guide for design of pavement structures." (1993).

Mike Collins wrote:
> Spike wrote:

>> *You* introduced what you said was the ‘fourth power law’

>> …so…

>> *You* substantiate it.

> You admitted the 4th power law was valid in the 50's and claimed it is no
> longer valid so the burden of proof to support this claim is on you.

I refer the gentleman to my previous answer.

--
Spike

On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 18:31:30 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins wrote:
> > Spike wrote:
>
> >> *You* introduced what you said was the ‘fourth power law’
>
> >> …so…
>
> >> *You* substantiate it.
> > You admitted the 4th power law was valid in the 50's and claimed it is no
> > longer valid so the burden of proof to support this claim is on you.
> I refer the gentleman to my previous answer.
>
> --
> Spike
So you have no evidence to support your claim.

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 18:31:30 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins wrote:
>>> Spike wrote:
>>
>>>> *You* introduced what you said was the ‘fourth power law’
>>
>>>> …so…
>>
>>>> *You* substantiate it.
>>> You admitted the 4th power law was valid in the 50's and claimed it is no
>>> longer valid so the burden of proof to support this claim is on you.
>> I refer the gentleman to my previous answer.
>>
>> --
>> Spike
> So you have no evidence to support your claim.
>

I refer you to my comments, which you have quoted above.

--
Spike

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 16:02:33 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 22:07:22 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 18:19:09 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 16:08:25 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Describes 1950s study
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Chart using 1950s study
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Quotes 1950s study
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Proof by assertion
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rule of thumb
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <very big snip>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Feasibility study
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
>>>>>>>>>>> we know different theses day?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please, please don t go on. You re so far out of your depth - you
>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate so little understanding of what you re reading. It s pitiful.
>>>>>>>>>> You re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for creating my own thread.
>>>>>>>> It wouldn’t have been necessary had you not posted a message containing an
>>>>>>>> absurdly long url.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This thread was a successful attempt to discover what in fact would get
>>>>>>>> past the news server.
>>>>>>>>> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the
>>>>>>>>> 4th power rule is no longer valid.
>>>>>>>> You brought up the issue of what you believe is ‘the fourth power rule’,
>>>>>>>> so it’s up to you to back it up. To help you, I hinted as to why that was a
>>>>>>>> lost cause, but no, you’ve tried to duck, dive, and deflect your way round
>>>>>>>> the problem you created for yourself. It isn’t up to anyone else to get you
>>>>>>>> out of the self-created pothole in which you find yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You said the 4th power rule was no longer valid in the computer age so it
>>>>>>> is up to you to provide the evidence.
>>>>>> You introduced the so-called ‘fourth power rule’ into the discussion, so it
>>>>>> is up to you to justify that.
>>>>>>>> PS: it turns out the ‘fourth power rule’ is rather flexible, suggesting it
>>>>>>>> was on shaky grounds to start with. HTH
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So cite the peer reviewed evidence.
>>>>>> It was in the stuff you quoted, which you clearly haven’t read. Whether
>>>>>> that counts as ‘peer reviewed evidence’ I’ll leave to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Spike
>>>>
>>>>> So you have no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule
>>>>> no longer applies.
>>>> The actual point here is that you have no evidence other than anecdote to
>>>> support your vaunted ‘fourth power rule’ that you gratuitously chose to
>>>> foist on to the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Spike
>>>
>>> No, you accepted the 4th power law was based on 50's real world
>>> experiments but you claimed it is no longer valid. You need to supply
>>> evidence to support this claim.
>> I can go round this loop as many times as it takes:
>>
>> *You* introduced what you said was the ‘fourth power law’
>>
>> …so…
>>
>> *You* substantiate it.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> --
>> Spike
> AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
> Officials). "Guide for design of pavement structures." (1993).
>

And?

--
Spike

On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 22:20:10 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 16:02:33 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 22:07:22 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 18:19:09 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 16:08:25 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Describes 1950s study
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Chart using 1950s study
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Quotes 1950s study
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Proof by assertion
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Rule of thumb
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> <very big snip>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Feasibility study
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
> >>>>>>>>>>> we know different theses day?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Please, please don t go on. You re so far out of your depth - you
> >>>>>>>>>> demonstrate so little understanding of what you re reading. It s pitiful.
> >>>>>>>>>> You re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Spike
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you for creating my own thread.
> >>>>>>>> It wouldn’t have been necessary had you not posted a message containing an
> >>>>>>>> absurdly long url.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This thread was a successful attempt to discover what in fact would get
> >>>>>>>> past the news server.
> >>>>>>>>> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the
> >>>>>>>>> 4th power rule is no longer valid.
> >>>>>>>> You brought up the issue of what you believe is ‘the fourth power rule’,
> >>>>>>>> so it’s up to you to back it up. To help you, I hinted as to why that was a
> >>>>>>>> lost cause, but no, you’ve tried to duck, dive, and deflect your way round
> >>>>>>>> the problem you created for yourself. It isn’t up to anyone else to get you
> >>>>>>>> out of the self-created pothole in which you find yourself.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You said the 4th power rule was no longer valid in the computer age so it
> >>>>>>> is up to you to provide the evidence.
> >>>>>> You introduced the so-called ‘fourth power rule’ into the discussion, so it
> >>>>>> is up to you to justify that.
> >>>>>>>> PS: it turns out the ‘fourth power rule’ is rather flexible, suggesting it
> >>>>>>>> was on shaky grounds to start with. HTH
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So cite the peer reviewed evidence.
> >>>>>> It was in the stuff you quoted, which you clearly haven’t read. Whether
> >>>>>> that counts as ‘peer reviewed evidence’ I’ll leave to you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Spike
> >>>>
> >>>>> So you have no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule
> >>>>> no longer applies.
> >>>> The actual point here is that you have no evidence other than anecdote to
> >>>> support your vaunted ‘fourth power rule’ that you gratuitously chose to
> >>>> foist on to the discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Spike
> >>>
> >>> No, you accepted the 4th power law was based on 50's real world
> >>> experiments but you claimed it is no longer valid. You need to supply
> >>> evidence to support this claim.
> >> I can go round this loop as many times as it takes:
> >>
> >> *You* introduced what you said was the ‘fourth power law’
> >>
> >> …so…
> >>
> >> *You* substantiate it.
> >>
> >> HTH
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
> > AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
> > Officials). "Guide for design of pavement structures." (1993).
> >
> And?
>
> --
> Spike

And now you supply evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 22:20:10 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 16:02:33 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 22:07:22 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 18:19:09 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 16:08:25 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Describes 1950s study
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chart using 1950s study
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Quotes 1950s study
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof by assertion
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rule of thumb
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <very big snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Feasibility study
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know different theses day?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please, please don t go on. You re so far out of your depth - you
>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate so little understanding of what you re reading. It s pitiful.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for creating my own thread.
>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn’t have been necessary had you not posted a message containing an
>>>>>>>>>> absurdly long url.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This thread was a successful attempt to discover what in fact would get
>>>>>>>>>> past the news server.
>>>>>>>>>>> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the
>>>>>>>>>>> 4th power rule is no longer valid.
>>>>>>>>>> You brought up the issue of what you believe is ‘the fourth power rule’,
>>>>>>>>>> so it’s up to you to back it up. To help you, I hinted as to why that was a
>>>>>>>>>> lost cause, but no, you’ve tried to duck, dive, and deflect your way round
>>>>>>>>>> the problem you created for yourself. It isn’t up to anyone else to get you
>>>>>>>>>> out of the self-created pothole in which you find yourself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You said the 4th power rule was no longer valid in the computer age so it
>>>>>>>>> is up to you to provide the evidence.
>>>>>>>> You introduced the so-called ‘fourth power rule’ into the discussion, so it
>>>>>>>> is up to you to justify that.
>>>>>>>>>> PS: it turns out the ‘fourth power rule’ is rather flexible, suggesting it
>>>>>>>>>> was on shaky grounds to start with. HTH
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So cite the peer reviewed evidence.
>>>>>>>> It was in the stuff you quoted, which you clearly haven’t read. Whether
>>>>>>>> that counts as ‘peer reviewed evidence’ I’ll leave to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you have no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule
>>>>>>> no longer applies.
>>>>>> The actual point here is that you have no evidence other than anecdote to
>>>>>> support your vaunted ‘fourth power rule’ that you gratuitously chose to
>>>>>> foist on to the discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you accepted the 4th power law was based on 50's real world
>>>>> experiments but you claimed it is no longer valid. You need to supply
>>>>> evidence to support this claim.
>>>> I can go round this loop as many times as it takes:
>>>>
>>>> *You* introduced what you said was the ‘fourth power law’
>>>>
>>>> …so…
>>>>
>>>> *You* substantiate it.
>>>>
>>>> HTH
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Spike
>>> AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
>>> Officials). "Guide for design of pavement structures." (1993).
>>>
>> And?
>>
>> --
>> Spike
>
> And now you supply evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule
> was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.

I refer you to the replies I made on the previous occasions you have raised
this self-created non-issue.

--
Spike

On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 16:54:28 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 22:20:10 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 16:02:33 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 22:07:22 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 18:19:09 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 16:08:25 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Describes 1950s study
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chart using 1950s study
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Quotes 1950s study
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Proof by assertion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rule of thumb
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <very big snip>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Feasibility study
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we know different theses day?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please, please don t go on. You re so far out of your depth - you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate so little understanding of what you re reading. It s pitiful.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Spike
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for creating my own thread.
> >>>>>>>>>> It wouldn’t have been necessary had you not posted a message containing an
> >>>>>>>>>> absurdly long url.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This thread was a successful attempt to discover what in fact would get
> >>>>>>>>>> past the news server.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the
> >>>>>>>>>>> 4th power rule is no longer valid.
> >>>>>>>>>> You brought up the issue of what you believe is ‘the fourth power rule’,
> >>>>>>>>>> so it’s up to you to back it up. To help you, I hinted as to why that was a
> >>>>>>>>>> lost cause, but no, you’ve tried to duck, dive, and deflect your way round
> >>>>>>>>>> the problem you created for yourself. It isn’t up to anyone else to get you
> >>>>>>>>>> out of the self-created pothole in which you find yourself.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You said the 4th power rule was no longer valid in the computer age so it
> >>>>>>>>> is up to you to provide the evidence.
> >>>>>>>> You introduced the so-called ‘fourth power rule’ into the discussion, so it
> >>>>>>>> is up to you to justify that.
> >>>>>>>>>> PS: it turns out the ‘fourth power rule’ is rather flexible, suggesting it
> >>>>>>>>>> was on shaky grounds to start with. HTH
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So cite the peer reviewed evidence.
> >>>>>>>> It was in the stuff you quoted, which you clearly haven’t read. Whether
> >>>>>>>> that counts as ‘peer reviewed evidence’ I’ll leave to you.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Spike
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So you have no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule
> >>>>>>> no longer applies.
> >>>>>> The actual point here is that you have no evidence other than anecdote to
> >>>>>> support your vaunted ‘fourth power rule’ that you gratuitously chose to
> >>>>>> foist on to the discussion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Spike
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, you accepted the 4th power law was based on 50's real world
> >>>>> experiments but you claimed it is no longer valid. You need to supply
> >>>>> evidence to support this claim.
> >>>> I can go round this loop as many times as it takes:
> >>>>
> >>>> *You* introduced what you said was the ‘fourth power law’
> >>>>
> >>>> …so…
> >>>>
> >>>> *You* substantiate it.
> >>>>
> >>>> HTH
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Spike
> >>> AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
> >>> Officials). "Guide for design of pavement structures." (1993).
> >>>
> >> And?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
> >
> > And now you supply evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule
> > was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
> I refer you to the replies I made on the previous occasions you have raised
> this self-created non-issue.
>
> --
> Spike
So still no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 16:54:28 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 22:20:10 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 16:02:33 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 22:07:22 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 18:19:09 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2023 at 16:08:25 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 19:53:51 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Describes 1950s study
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chart using 1950s study
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IPWEA/c7e19de0-08d5-47b7-ac3f-c198b11cd969/UploadedImages/pdfs/Info%20sheets/IS-06_4th_Power_Law.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quotes 1950s study
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24vqq7/til_pavement_damage_is_proportional_to_the_fourth/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof by assertion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id%3&meta_id2349
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rule of thumb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <very big snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feasibility study
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shall I go on or will you now provide evidence to support your claim that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know different theses day?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please, please don t go on. You re so far out of your depth - you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate so little understanding of what you re reading. It s pitiful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You re a Phlogiston believer in an Oxygen world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for creating my own thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn’t have been necessary had you not posted a message containing an
>>>>>>>>>>>> absurdly long url.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This thread was a successful attempt to discover what in fact would get
>>>>>>>>>>>> past the news server.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4th power rule is no longer valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You brought up the issue of what you believe is ‘the fourth power rule’,
>>>>>>>>>>>> so it’s up to you to back it up. To help you, I hinted as to why that was a
>>>>>>>>>>>> lost cause, but no, you’ve tried to duck, dive, and deflect your way round
>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem you created for yourself. It isn’t up to anyone else to get you
>>>>>>>>>>>> out of the self-created pothole in which you find yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You said the 4th power rule was no longer valid in the computer age so it
>>>>>>>>>>> is up to you to provide the evidence.
>>>>>>>>>> You introduced the so-called ‘fourth power rule’ into the discussion, so it
>>>>>>>>>> is up to you to justify that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> PS: it turns out the ‘fourth power rule’ is rather flexible, suggesting it
>>>>>>>>>>>> was on shaky grounds to start with. HTH
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So cite the peer reviewed evidence.
>>>>>>>>>> It was in the stuff you quoted, which you clearly haven’t read. Whether
>>>>>>>>>> that counts as ‘peer reviewed evidence’ I’ll leave to you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you have no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule
>>>>>>>>> no longer applies.
>>>>>>>> The actual point here is that you have no evidence other than anecdote to
>>>>>>>> support your vaunted ‘fourth power rule’ that you gratuitously chose to
>>>>>>>> foist on to the discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you accepted the 4th power law was based on 50's real world
>>>>>>> experiments but you claimed it is no longer valid. You need to supply
>>>>>>> evidence to support this claim.
>>>>>> I can go round this loop as many times as it takes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *You* introduced what you said was the ‘fourth power law’
>>>>>>
>>>>>> …so…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *You* substantiate it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HTH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Spike
>>>>> AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
>>>>> Officials). "Guide for design of pavement structures." (1993).
>>>>>
>>>> And?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Spike
>>>
>>> And now you supply evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule
>>> was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
>> I refer you to the replies I made on the previous occasions you have raised
>> this self-created non-issue.
>>
>> --
>> Spike