On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 17:57:02 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@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
>
> > So still no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was
> > valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>
> --
> Spike
You claimed the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but was no longer valid so you need to provide evidence to support that claim.

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 17:57:02 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@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
>>
>>> So still no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was
>>> valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>
>> --
>> Spike

On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 19:40:06 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 17:57:02 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins <cmik...@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
> >>
> >>> So still no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was
> >>> valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
> >> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
>
> > You claimed the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but was no longer
> > valid so you need to provide evidence to support that claim.
>
> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>
> --
> Spike

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 19:40:06 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 17:57:02 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@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
>>>>
>>>>> So still no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was
>>>>> valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Spike
>>
>>> You claimed the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but was no longer
>>> valid so you need to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>
>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>
>> --
>> Spike
>
> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.

On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 19:26:49 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 19:40:06 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 17:57:02 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@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
> >>>>
> >>>>> So still no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was
> >>>>> valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
> >>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Spike
> >>
> >>> You claimed the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but was no longer
> >>> valid so you need to provide evidence to support that claim.
> >>
> >> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
> >
> > You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
> > so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
>
> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>
> --
> Spike
You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 19:26:49 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 19:40:06 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 17:57:02 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So still no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was
>>>>>>> valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Spike
>>>>
>>>>> You claimed the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but was no longer
>>>>> valid so you need to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>>>
>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Spike
>>>
>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>
>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>
>> --
>> Spike
> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.

On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 21:42:20 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 19:26:49 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 19:40:06 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 17:57:02 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So still no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was
> >>>>>>> valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
> >>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Spike
> >>>>
> >>>>> You claimed the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but was no longer
> >>>>> valid so you need to provide evidence to support that claim.
> >>>>
> >>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Spike
> >>>
> >>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
> >>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
> >>
> >> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
> > You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
> > so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
>
> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>
> --
> Spike
You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 21:42:20 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 19:26:49 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 19:40:06 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 17:57:02 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So still no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was
>>>>>>>>> valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
>>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You claimed the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but was no longer
>>>>>>> valid so you need to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>
>>>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
>>>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>>>
>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Spike
>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>
>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>
>> --
>> Spike
> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.

On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 08:56:00 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 21:42:20 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 19:26:49 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 19:40:06 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 17:57:02 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So still no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was
> >>>>>>>>> valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
> >>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Spike
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You claimed the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but was no longer
> >>>>>>> valid so you need to provide evidence to support that claim.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Spike
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
> >>>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
> >>>>
> >>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Spike
> >>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
> >>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
> >>
> >> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
> > You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
> > so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
> “The day begins as it will end…”
>

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 08:56:00 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 21:42:20 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 19:26:49 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 19:40:06 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 17:57:02 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So still no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was
>>>>>>>>>>> valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
>>>>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You claimed the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but was no longer
>>>>>>>>> valid so you need to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
>>>>>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Spike
>>>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
>>>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>>>
>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Spike
>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
>> “The day begins as it will end…”
>>
>
> On this planet the day begins with the Sun rising in the East and ends
> with the Sun setting in the West. Which planet are you from?
> No surprise an alien visitor would think cars are the dominant life form.

On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 16:39:00 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 08:56:00 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 21:42:20 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 19:26:49 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 19:40:06 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 17:57:02 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So still no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was
> >>>>>>>>>>> valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
> >>>>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >>>>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Spike
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You claimed the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but was no longer
> >>>>>>>>> valid so you need to provide evidence to support that claim.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Spike
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
> >>>>>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Spike
> >>>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
> >>>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
> >>>>
> >>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Spike
> >>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
> >>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
> >> “The day begins as it will end…”
> >>
> >
> > On this planet the day begins with the Sun rising in the East and ends
> > with the Sun setting in the West. Which planet are you from?
> > No surprise an alien visitor would think cars are the dominant life form.
> It could be worse, if they thought bicycles were the dominant species.

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 16:39:00 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 08:56:00 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 21:42:20 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 19:26:49 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 19:40:06 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 17:57:02 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So still no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>>>>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You claimed the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but was no longer
>>>>>>>>>>> valid so you need to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
>>>>>>>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
>>>>>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Spike
>>>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
>>>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>>> “The day begins as it will end…”
>>>>
>>>
>>> On this planet the day begins with the Sun rising in the East and ends
>>> with the Sun setting in the West. Which planet are you from?
>>> No surprise an alien visitor would think cars are the dominant life form.
>> It could be worse, if they thought bicycles were the dominant species.
>
> Why?
> Motorists seem to think they must have a better car than their neighbours.
> Cyclists find a pedal cycle they are comfortable with.
> I have a Dawes Karakum with a SON20 hub dynamo, Selle Brookland saddle
> and Magura rim brakes. A solid reliable workhorse.
> I don't feel the need to replace it because there are newer pedal cycles on the road.

On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 09:18:17 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 16:39:00 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 08:56:00 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 21:42:20 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 19:26:49 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 19:40:06 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 17:57:02 UTC, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So still no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Spike
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You claimed the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but was no longer
> >>>>>>>>>>> valid so you need to provide evidence to support that claim.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >>>>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Spike
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
> >>>>>>>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Spike
> >>>>>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
> >>>>>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
> >>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Spike
> >>>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
> >>>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
> >>>> “The day begins as it will end…”
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> On this planet the day begins with the Sun rising in the East and ends
> >>> with the Sun setting in the West. Which planet are you from?
> >>> No surprise an alien visitor would think cars are the dominant life form.
> >> It could be worse, if they thought bicycles were the dominant species.
> >
> > Why?
> > Motorists seem to think they must have a better car than their neighbours.
> > Cyclists find a pedal cycle they are comfortable with.
> > I have a Dawes Karakum with a SON20 hub dynamo, Selle Brookland saddle
> > and Magura rim brakes. A solid reliable workhorse.
> > I don't feel the need to replace it because there are newer pedal cycles on the road.
> An uninteresting exercise in virtue signalling.
> >>> Did your planet squander irreplaceable hydrocarbon deposits the way we have?
> >> That phrase ends “…with the ground crew”.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Spike
>
> > You still need to provide evidence the 4th power law is no longer valid..
> To put you out of your misery, one of the five references you posted says
> in effect that your mythical ‘fourth power law’ was just that.
>
> Since you obviously read and understood those references, otherwise you
> wouldn’t have posted them, there is no need for me to point to the exact
> source as you will already be familiar with it.
>
> It is interesting watching you try to manoeuvre unsuccessfully round the
> issue you created for yourself, as one at least of your own references
> condemns you.
>
> --
> Spike
So you admit the 4th power law was valid in the 50's.

On 04/02/2023 11:43 am, Mike Collins wrote:

[ ... ]

[To someone:]
> So you admit the 4th power law was valid in the 50's. > Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that
it is no longer valid.
Why don't you just cite the literature which formulated and validated
this "law" you mention?

On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:05:24 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 04/02/2023 11:43 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> [To someone:]
> > So you admit the 4th power law was valid in the 50's. > Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that
> it is no longer valid.
> Why don't you just cite the literature which formulated and validated
> this "law" you mention?

I don't need to. You, in your Spike incarnation, have accepted the 4th power of axle weight law relating to road damage is true based on 1950's experiments. Spike said "we know better now", so must provide evidence to support that claim.

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 09:18:17 UTC, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 16:39:00 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 08:56:00 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 21:42:20 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 2 February 2023 at 19:26:49 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 19:40:06 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 17:57:02 UTC, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So still no evidence to support your claim that the 4th power rule was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid in the 50's but is no longer valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claimed the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but was no longer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid so you need to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>>>>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
>>>>>>>>>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
>>>>>>>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You gratuitously introduced your ‘fourth power law’ into the discussion, so
>>>>>>>> you justify it; I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Spike
>>>>>>> You stated the 4th power law was valid in the 50's but is no longer valid
>>>>>>> so you have to provide evidence to support that claim.
>>>>>> “The day begins as it will end…”
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On this planet the day begins with the Sun rising in the East and ends
>>>>> with the Sun setting in the West. Which planet are you from?
>>>>> No surprise an alien visitor would think cars are the dominant life form.
>>>> It could be worse, if they thought bicycles were the dominant species.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>> Motorists seem to think they must have a better car than their neighbours.
>>> Cyclists find a pedal cycle they are comfortable with.
>>> I have a Dawes Karakum with a SON20 hub dynamo, Selle Brookland saddle
>>> and Magura rim brakes. A solid reliable workhorse.
>>> I don't feel the need to replace it because there are newer pedal cycles on the road.
>> An uninteresting exercise in virtue signalling.
>>>>> Did your planet squander irreplaceable hydrocarbon deposits the way we have?
>>>> That phrase ends “…with the ground crew”.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Spike
>>
>>> You still need to provide evidence the 4th power law is no longer valid.
>> To put you out of your misery, one of the five references you posted says
>> in effect that your mythical ‘fourth power law’ was just that.
>>
>> Since you obviously read and understood those references, otherwise you
>> wouldn’t have posted them, there is no need for me to point to the exact
>> source as you will already be familiar with it.
>>
>> It is interesting watching you try to manoeuvre unsuccessfully round the
>> issue you created for yourself, as one at least of your own references
>> condemns you.
>>
>> --
>> Spike

Mike Collins <cmike8828@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:05:24 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 04/02/2023 11:43 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> [To someone:]
>>> So you admit the 4th power law was valid in the 50's. > Now all you
>>> need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that
>> it is no longer valid.
>> Why don't you just cite the literature which formulated and validated
>> this "law" you mention?
>
> I don't need to. You, in your Spike incarnation, have accepted the 4th
> power of axle weight law relating to road damage is true based on 1950's
> experiments. Spike said "we know better now", so must provide evidence to
> support that claim.

It isn’t a ‘law’.

--
Spike

On 04/02/2023 07:06 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:05:24 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 04/02/2023 11:43 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>
>> [ ... ]
>
>> [To someone:]

>>> So you admit the 4th power law was valid in the 50's.

>>> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that
>>> it is no longer valid.

>> Why don't you just cite the literature which formulated and validated
>> this "law" you mention?
>
> I don't need to. You, in your Spike incarnation, have accepted the 4th power of axle weight law relating to road damage is true based on 1950's experiments. Spike said "we know better now", so must provide evidence to support that claim.

Top up your cannabis level.

On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 02:23:49 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 04/02/2023 07:06 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:05:24 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 04/02/2023 11:43 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> >
> >> [ ... ]
> >
> >> [To someone:]
>
> >>> So you admit the 4th power law was valid in the 50's.
>
> >>> Now all you need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that
> >>> it is no longer valid.
>
> >> Why don't you just cite the literature which formulated and validated
> >> this "law" you mention?
> >
> > I don't need to. You, in your Spike incarnation, have accepted the 4th power of axle weight law relating to road damage is true based on 1950's experiments. Spike said "we know better now", so must provide evidence to support that claim.
> Top up your cannabis level.

So no evidence to support your claim.

On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 19:30:56 UTC, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 17:05:24 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 04/02/2023 11:43 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>
> >> [ ... ]
> >>
> >> [To someone:]
> >>> So you admit the 4th power law was valid in the 50's. > Now all you
> >>> need to do is provide evidence to support your claim that
> >> it is no longer valid.
> >> Why don't you just cite the literature which formulated and validated
> >> this "law" you mention?
> >
> > I don't need to. You, in your Spike incarnation, have accepted the 4th
> > power of axle weight law relating to road damage is true based on 1950's
> > experiments. Spike said "we know better now", so must provide evidence to
> > support that claim.
> It isn’t a ‘law’.
>
> --
> Spike

Just like Newton's laws of motion are not laws.