When it comes to my programs, I don't remember a lot of it :). My programs can do things that I have long forgotten how to program.
But if you are a good programmer you try to make sure your code has good enough documentation so you can figure out how it works years later if you need to fix it. Including references to sources e.g. links or whatever to follow for the information used to program it,
But if you think about it, you probably know lots of things, everyone does, that are just as complicated. At least they would be if you tried to program a computer program to learn such things. But they seem trivial. Even things like walking, talking, how to ride a bike or whatever.
So many things are like that also. Rather like riding a bike. It no longer seems complicated because you've got used to it. Though if you tried to consciously do all the things you do when riding a bike.
E.g. did you know that whenever you turn right, you have to turn your handlebars to the left first to make the bike go out of equilibrium so that it falls to the right, then it is only after that, that you can then lean into the turn to the right and the bike turns? Try riding a bike and turning it to the right without even the slightest turn of the handlebars to the left - somewhere where there is no traffic of course - it can't be done. You'll probably find you fall over if you are really strict about it, don't permit even a slight turn of the handlebars to the left and try to turn right.
But we just do that automatically and don't have to tell us each time "I'm going to turn right so I need to turn the handlebars slightly to the left first, go out of balance to the right and then turn right" - you are completely unaware you are doing it. So some of it at least is like that, and you think in larger units and a higher level a lot of the time, like the place you are cycling to, or the best route to take to get there, or whatever.
It is just a momentary turn to the left for probably less than a second.
If you try to lean to the left to turn left without doing this, you tilt that way, yes, but the bike tilts the other way to compensate, and end result is no effect. This video illustrates it - in the middle of it, - he built a bike with extra handlebars decoupled from the wheel so you can't use them - and you can see how the biker tries steering by shifting body weight, but can't.
See also: Science of Cycling: Turning + Activity | Exploratorium
And - as this physicist explains then you can steer to avoid a pothole momentarily and don't use countersteering for that but then the bike just comes upright again and continues in a straight line:
And this video, though from my own experience on a bicycle + the physics I don't think the author is right that you can steer by just tilting without countersteering at low speeds. It is just more subtle and harder to see.
Anyway the video does show counter steering in action.
And on how a bike stays balanced
This is - no longer about counter steering - but kind of cool - in this video they construct a bike that makes turning impossible. If you were able to cycle in zero g, somehow the bike remains attached to the surface and doesn't float up, then you wouldn't be able to cycle round corners, according to them:
Which leads me to an interesting question. Would you be able to go round corners on a cycle in artificial gravity? I mean like a torus type habitat spinning for artificial gravity? Does it depend on the radius, and spin rate, or can you cycle at any combination of those values?
See conversation with Andy Ruina on the video - seems that, at the least, it would need counter rotating wheels to cancel the gyroscope effect, or you'd just keep falling over if you tried to cycle across ways parallel to the spin axis. Either that or cycle at a steep angle which probably only a trained athlete could do.
So then, if that is right, the question is - can you cycle in an AG habitat with counter rotating wheels to cancel out the gyroscope effect.
But if you are a good programmer you try to make sure your code has good enough documentation so you can figure out how it works years later if you need to fix it. Including references to sources e.g. links or whatever to follow for the information used to program it,
But if you think about it, you probably know lots of things, everyone does, that are just as complicated. At least they would be if you tried to program a computer program to learn such things. But they seem trivial. Even things like walking, talking, how to ride a bike or whatever.
So many things are like that also. Rather like riding a bike. It no longer seems complicated because you've got used to it. Though if you tried to consciously do all the things you do when riding a bike.
E.g. did you know that whenever you turn right, you have to turn your handlebars to the left first to make the bike go out of equilibrium so that it falls to the right, then it is only after that, that you can then lean into the turn to the right and the bike turns? Try riding a bike and turning it to the right without even the slightest turn of the handlebars to the left - somewhere where there is no traffic of course - it can't be done. You'll probably find you fall over if you are really strict about it, don't permit even a slight turn of the handlebars to the left and try to turn right.
But we just do that automatically and don't have to tell us each time "I'm going to turn right so I need to turn the handlebars slightly to the left first, go out of balance to the right and then turn right" - you are completely unaware you are doing it. So some of it at least is like that, and you think in larger units and a higher level a lot of the time, like the place you are cycling to, or the best route to take to get there, or whatever.
MORE ABOUT THE BIKE COUNTER-STEERING
It is just a momentary turn to the left for probably less than a second.
If you try to lean to the left to turn left without doing this, you tilt that way, yes, but the bike tilts the other way to compensate, and end result is no effect. This video illustrates it - in the middle of it, - he built a bike with extra handlebars decoupled from the wheel so you can't use them - and you can see how the biker tries steering by shifting body weight, but can't.
See also: Science of Cycling: Turning + Activity | Exploratorium
And - as this physicist explains then you can steer to avoid a pothole momentarily and don't use countersteering for that but then the bike just comes upright again and continues in a straight line:
And this video, though from my own experience on a bicycle + the physics I don't think the author is right that you can steer by just tilting without countersteering at low speeds. It is just more subtle and harder to see.
Anyway the video does show counter steering in action.
And on how a bike stays balanced
CYCLING IN ZERO G
This is - no longer about counter steering - but kind of cool - in this video they construct a bike that makes turning impossible. If you were able to cycle in zero g, somehow the bike remains attached to the surface and doesn't float up, then you wouldn't be able to cycle round corners, according to them:
Which leads me to an interesting question. Would you be able to go round corners on a cycle in artificial gravity? I mean like a torus type habitat spinning for artificial gravity? Does it depend on the radius, and spin rate, or can you cycle at any combination of those values?
See conversation with Andy Ruina on the video - seems that, at the least, it would need counter rotating wheels to cancel the gyroscope effect, or you'd just keep falling over if you tried to cycle across ways parallel to the spin axis. Either that or cycle at a steep angle which probably only a trained athlete could do.
So then, if that is right, the question is - can you cycle in an AG habitat with counter rotating wheels to cancel out the gyroscope effect.
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0