Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/09/2009 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    There's an overwhelming over-abundance of more than enough information. And that's just in any single frame of the video. Consider all of the content of all of the frames, and there are multiple, layered, redundant means of determining whether or not any entity, attribute, action or effect seen in any frame conforms to reality. The space, the objects within it, and the motions are all precisely measurable. Then add all of the visual information from other cameras at other vantage points... Each participant on this thread who has commented on the visual evidence is right about some things, yet wrong about others. The issue is not that the visual evidence is insufficient, but that none of you has the technical knowledge to be making any conclusions, or to be dismissing anyone else's observations or concerns, or to be throwing accusations of kookiness or conspiracy theorizing at anyone who thinks that something in a photo looks a bit odd. J
  2. 3 points
    https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-milkyway-over-beaverhill-county-jestephotography-ltd.html Something a lil different than my Wildlife photography. Nikon Z7 mirrorless with a Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 Art series lens for Astrophotography.
  3. 3 points
    I hope my posts get a lot of sads (from the anti-Trump bitches!)
  4. 2 points
    Last July Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard published “Regarding Carl Barney and Scientology” in defense of Barney. That didn’t satisfy some of his readers so a few days ago he published a Part Two, same webpage as what is now called Part One. I review it at: Barney Continues Telling His Story
  5. 2 points
    They're being softened up for committing ritual suicide. Ellen
  6. 2 points
    Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
  7. 2 points
    By Ron Unz, the latest in his American Pravda series: John McCain, Jeffrey Epstein, and Pizzagate “Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings” It’s long but the lucid style makes it easy to read.
  8. 2 points
    I'm not here to defend the morality of most self-proclaimed secularists (I should add, secularism is merely one political position, not a whole ideology in and of itself. Objectivism is a secular philosophy that promotes secularism, after all). I think you're going off topic. The reality is that "being good without god" is a significant question that many theists ponder. Natural Law provided an answer to that question. And Christians/Evangelicals never appealed to the state to enshrine their values? Evangelical Christianity in particular has been resolutely illiberal. They only defend classical liberalism when convenient for them, or when they're losing a culture war. When they're in power, they have shown a consistent tendency towards using the state to enforce their beliefs on others. Not that most members of the secular left are any better. But again, that isn't the point.
  9. 2 points
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  10. 2 points
    Many of them sincerely believe, it’s just that they want you to die, first. They want your home burned down and turned back to prairie. Then they can enjoy earth with a smaller, sustainable population. How many who oppose pipelines have turned off their pipeline? None. That would be suicide.
  11. 2 points
    One of the general differences between those on the left and right is that the right understands the left's views... You can see this with their parody and satire. Leftist characters are portrayed accurately, and sometimes, right-wing media creators can even explain the left's views better than actual leftists. The parody and satire created by leftists, though, is consistently egregious--like the description of Jussie Smollett's attackers, for example (pretty much every right leaning person knew it was bullshit immediately). Again, it's a generalization. Obviously not all right-wingers understand the left's talking points, but for the most part, they get it... while for the left, the opposite is true. They can't even conceive of what they are arguing against. So what you end up with is ignorant, and possibly stupid, people who the right is gently trying to point out as ignorant and stupid... which reaffirms the leftist's belief that people on the right are immoral (mean). Obviously accusing someone of being immoral is worse than accusing someone of being stupid... so it's insane. This is pretty much just venting... but it's really annoying that this is the case. Politics has become a chore where people with good ideas have to hold the hands of their attackers to help them see what they're missing.
  12. 2 points
  13. 2 points
    You are saying either A always causes B, or A never causes B. It can't be A caused B in this particular case. Causes have contexts. The elderly woman in my example probably had weak bones. The weak bones would be a context. It is not necessary to say vaccination always causes autism in order to say vaccination caused autism in this case.
  14. 2 points
    The suicide note left by Fidel Castro’s eldest son has rocked the Cuban nation this week, with the most astonishing revelation being the claim that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was his half-brother and the son of the late Fidel Castro. http://whatsupic.com/index/cuba-justin-trudeau-fidel-castros-son/
  15. 2 points
  16. 2 points
    So today I had an interesting post on my twitter feed. A person looking to purchase a rights managed image for an add campaign. So I sent her my personal email via Message in order to get more details. i sent her a link to the image she wanted and ten minutes later BAM! https://fineartamerica.com/saleannouncement.html?id=9becce4a0811b1bc99e633e17bff67ee Kinda cool eh?
  17. 2 points
    Alex Jones is a fighter. He will kick their asses so hard that they will have to clear their throat to fart. They will wish to God they never tangled with Alex Jones.
  18. 2 points
    The perjury trap ...
  19. 2 points
  20. 2 points
    Heh. Why pick on InfoWars? Sure, it's often goofy, but it's really no more goofy than anything else. CNN, New York Times, Time. It's equal to or possibly a little less goofy that The View, Dan Rather and any of the former Democrat politicians and operatives who are now calling themselves "journalists" (like George Stephanopoulos, for example). Why single out InfoWars? MSK is supposed to be embarrassed by his goof balls while the other side reveres theirs and pretends that they're not good balls?
  21. 2 points
    Can a person really be economically coerced, or is it simply a choice? Was Cohen using the tapes for insurance or a way to blackmail President Trump? Can he be disbarred? In Maryland I don’t think you can record someone unless they know what your are doing. Peter From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:29:41 -0500 a.d. smith wrote: "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force. I was wondering how my fellow Atlanteans would reply to this argument I think I did a fairly good job in elucidating the differences between physical force and "economic coercion," but I could have done better. What would you guys have said in this situation?” I find that well-constructed examples and counter-examples can sometimes communicate the distinction better than abstract arguments, or at least serve as an introduction to them. Many years ago, during a college seminar on Marxism, my professor gave the following popular example: Suppose I am stranded in the middle of the desert, and I run across the only oasis in my vicinity. It is privately owned, and the owner tells me that I must (a) work for him at fifty cents per hour, or (b) stay off his property. And since he is charging $5,000 for the food and water that are required to sustain my life during the remainder of my journey, this means that I am being economically coerced -- indeed, enslaved -- since I must either accept the offer or face certain death. I responded by changing one condition of the example. The same oasis owner has more money than he knows what to do with, so (as before) he tells me that I must take a job to earn my supplies, but he now offers me $10,000 per hour instead of fifty cents. So now I can earn what I need in 30 minutes (during which the owner, who is starved for intellectual companionship, only requests that I talk to him about philosophy) and even walk away with a handsome surplus. The professor then protested, "But that's not a realistic example." "Neither is your example," I replied, "but that's not the point. The purpose of the example is to isolate the key elements that generate what you call economic coercion. If your example, in which I am economically coerced to work for 50 cents an hour is valid, then so is my example where I am economically coerced to work for $10,000 per hour by discussing philosophy. I didn't change anything essential in the hypothetical; all I did was change some details, which should be irrelevant to the point you are making. So if you claim that my example doesn't qualify as economic coercion, then why doesn't it? I will die just as surely if I turn down the offer for $10,000 as if I refuse to work for fifty cents. What's the difference? According to your definition, I am being coerced in either case -- but it sounds a little strange to say that I am being 'forced' to work at the higher wage. You are loading the example in your favor by including very low wages, but the amount of the wage is immaterial to the point you wish to make. Surely the validity of your argument should not depend solely on its emotional appeal, so it should make equal sense to take about a wage-slave who is forced to discuss philosophy at $10,000 per hour." I don't remember my exact words, of course, but the preceding is a fair representation of my argument. It took the discussion in some interesting directions that might otherwise have been overlooked – such as whether the CEO of a multinational corporation is also economically "coerced" to accept his multi-million dollar salary -- and the discussion ended when the Marxist professor said, "Well, I'll have to give some additional thought to your example." That's about as close to an unconditional surrender as a student is ever likely to get from a professor. Ghs From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 04:40:33 EDT A. D. Smith wrote "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force.” There is no such thing as "economic coercion." We owe it to people not to use force against them; we do not owe it to them to supply them with employment nor to keep them employed if we do not choose to. People have a right to seek jobs; they do not have a right to *have* jobs if the employer finds them unsuitable. So to threaten an employee with firing is in no sense of the term "coercion." The job is not his by right, but only by the decision of the owner of the business. Barbara From: "a.d. smith" To: "George H. Smith" Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 05:06:07 -0400 (EDT) On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, George H. Smith wrote: The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later. These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it.(I pointed that historically most examples of land speculation of this type were made possible by the state, but his point was that even in a stateless society, this type of engrossing could be possible. My reply was that under a system of competing governments, a protection agency that enforced an obviously illegitimate claim to unimproved natural resources would likely arose the anger of the community at large). From: "William Dwyer" To: Atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:34:02 -0700 a.d. smith wrote, >The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later. These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it. > I fail to see how this is an argument against capitalism, since capitalism doesn't sanction this kind of unearned appropriation. In order to acquire property under capitalism, you need to mix your labor with a previously unowned resource, or acquire the property from its previous owner by mutual consent. Obviously, there are issues with regard to the specifics of acquiring previously unowned land, but these cannot form the basis of any serious argument against capitalism. I n any case, the Coase Theorem in economics (for which Ronald Coase was given the Nobel Prize) states that if property rights are clearly defined and transaction costs are low, resources will tend to flow towards their highest valued uses, regardless of who owns them. In other words, even assuming that people could appropriate land without mixing their labor with it, in a free-market economy, the land could be bid away in exchange for money. The highest bid would tend to reflect its most profitable uses, by reflecting what consumers would be most willing to spend their money on. Thus, under capitalism, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference how the property is initially acquired. It will eventually be allocated toward its most popular and desired uses. If laissez-faire capitalism existed in Latin America, for example, the large landed aristocracies would not last, because they would either be induced to sell their land at an exorbitant price, or to use it in ways that are the most profitable and consumer-friendly. Bill
  22. 2 points
  23. 2 points
    Folks , Trump did not win an election but orchestrate a coup d’etat against the establishment . This ain’t left and right , nor liberals and conservatives . It’s We The People v The Establushment Bullets are not the weapon of choice in this Revolution , it’s memes . I called this a Revolution near the beginning of the thread . I thought that the establishment would win , hence I called for Rubio to win the nomination . Trump won , he is digging in and personally , I would love to see The Constitution to be amended to give him three terms , but that cannot happen so hopefully President Ivanka will continue what we have started in 2024 . Who is Donald Trump ? Reread Atlas Shrugged
  24. 1 point
    Penultimate. Trap gun slogan [OBS]. Think thank thunk. One hour of old glory as touted by the mysterious entity ... this does not seem like Q-level insider knowledge. They may need to get caffeinated and a bit blasted on marijuana, to clear away the staleness and low energy.
  25. 1 point
    Um, who came up with the bullshit that the question about Parrish was about an artist trying to cash in on Rand's popularity? Was it Mark, or was he linking to someone else's site? Heh. Anyway, WTF? Slop. Never heard of Parrish? Um, okay, but even then, how hard is it to look up? And, seriously, how in the hell did the story get twisted so that Parrish, who preceded Rand, and enjoyed much more fame than she had, and still does, followed after her and was cashing in on her lesser fame? Is the rest of the article as sloppy? As for Minn's art -- eeesh. J
  26. 1 point
    Heh. I hadn’t visited Billy’s Twitter page in a while. The stuff he’s interested in and reposting is instructive. It seems that there are quite a lot of false things that he savors and needs to believe. J
  27. 1 point
    Slither slither ... Ellen
  28. 1 point
    If Epstein were murdered, with the stage subsequently set to make it look like a suicide by hanging, the perpetrators would have made it appear it was an accidental hanging, specifically a case of auto-erotic asphyxiation. Because reasons. But they didn’t, so it wasn’t a murder. QED. Moron or lunatic? http://sorbusaucuparius.blogspot.com/2012/08/umberto-ecos-four-types-of-idiot.html Hint: no reference (above) to the Templars. But seriously, if evidence of a struggle emerges, such as injuries to the hands, fingernails etc, then the probability space will have to be reallocated. Jeffrey Dahmer and John Geoghan were murdered in prison, but neither death was confused with suicide. As it is, suicide is the most likely explanation for the facts we have.
  29. 1 point
    Can you perhaps point to a specific moment when this idea of "equality before God" became important in Christian thought? Because for most of Christianity's history, the religion was considered to be perfectly consistent with absolute monarchy. Christian theology was used to justify the Divine Right Of Kings. Where would you suggest the "turning point" is?
  30. 1 point
    I am back to not reading Army Ants posts so I don't know what you are satirizing. But thanks anyway, Brant.
  31. 1 point
    One does not even need any math to resolve the paradox (explain the apparent contradiction). It was resolved at the beginning. It only takes a little thought and a discovery of the fallacious assumptions in the statement of the "contradiction." One can state things in mathematical terms afterwards, but that is not necessary. The thread is useful only in showing how screwed-up a mind can be, and still seem brilliant (and perhaps be such, in certain quite limited aspects).
  32. 1 point
    Fight Barry? Team members don't fight.
  33. 1 point
    Don’t celebrate the perversion of my country’s system of justice quite yet, pedophile. 😆😆
  34. 1 point
    I was saying - one millimeter of track height difference - anywhere - in that demonstration, and it becomes arbitrary. You've got rolling resistance and the weight-disparity of a massive main wheel and a tiny inner wheel, like a hub. Even so, you can see the 'hub' gripping and turning for a while. A dubious experiment that proves little..
  35. 1 point
    Oh, now you reply to me! Too funny. Look Tony, whenever I go too fast on my motorcycle, the inner circles go slower than the rest of the wheels. When I slow down, they catch up. Reality. Try it and you’ll see.
  36. 1 point
    Yeah, they can't deal with it. And the animated version that you requested, provided here, won't help them either: Length AB is equal to length EF, as well as to length CD, but not to length GH. Point E on the smaller circle contacts Line 2 at point G. Point F contacts Line 2 at point H. Point A contacts Line 1 at Point C. Point B contacts Line 1 at point D. History's math eggheads, who happened to be visuospatially/mechanically inept, got all eggheady about infinite single points, and, jeepers, they couldn't figure out shit because any one point on one circle corresponds with a point on the other circle! Heh. So, instead of limiting ourselves to single geometric points (which do not have any length, area, volume or any other dimensional attribute), and thus remaining retarded math eggheads, let's put pairs of points at a specific distance apart on both circles! Yay! What does it show? Merlin? Tony? Heh. They still won't get it. J
  37. 1 point
    I usually give them 5 bucks at Christmas time as I walk into Walmart. I will reconsider giving them nothing. Sometimes the person ringing the bell is someone local who I know.
  38. 1 point
    Michael, Thanks for the thoughts, links and videos.
  39. 1 point
    William, You once said you wanted a recent example of a false flag. Well, you're looking at it. Unfortunately, this is a false flag made by idiots who can't even shoot straight and, what's worse, it's a Hail Mary pass to get media attention to bump some lame-ass stuff damaging to the Democrats off prime time instead of hiding an actual dastardly deed, but there it is. Friggin' amateurs... In the same vein, there's a highly racist robocall going around in Florida aimed at Gillum. It's attributed to one eminent group called "Road to Power" in Idaho that's supposedly a white supremacist group. I listened to part of their recent podcast (on Bitchute) to see what they were about and this is another staged bullshit fake-out. The guy started preaching that we need to abolish freedom of the press and put the all the press under government control. The problem is, white power people just don't talk like that. Friggin' amateurs... This shit is not even worth debunking. Everybody sees what's going on. I hope they enjoy their Blue Wave bye-bye... Michael
  40. 1 point
    Many of the Cordair kids, as well as Rand-follower artists who are not represented by Cordair, have called themselves "Romantic Realists™." Cordair's own subheader is "The finest in Romantic Realism." I don't think that's an accurate descriptor of most of this type of art. The visual style is indeed realism: The objects/entities depicted are easily identifiable and realistically rendered. However, the environments and situations are highly artificial and unnaturally overly orchestrated. Forced. And the aesthetics of the poses aren't really romantic, but stiff, empty, lifeless. It's as if the artists think that hanging nightgowns on a rigidly posed figure in a architecturally rich environment mathematically equals "romanticism"? Instead of "Romantic Realism," wouldn't it be closer to the truth to call this stuff something like Posed, Staged, Overt Signalism? Or Conspicuously Exaggerated Bursting With Bodily Physicality While Remaining Facially Calm and Expressionless In An Odd Environment That Was Selected Not Because Of Any Contextual Relevance But Because The Artist Maybe Thought That It In Itself Would Clearly Signal Romanticism ("Um, today I think I'll put on my ballet slippers, but maybe go topless, and bring some strips of cloth to let the wind swirl around me while I balance on something like a classical column or globe out in the middle of the ocean.")? J
  41. 1 point
    No more excuses. Styx finally has his shirt on! When I say the giant social media platforms are not strictly private property anymore because of their integration with the government, Styx lays out a really good case for this in this video. There's even more to it, but at least this is in plain language and it's really hard to refute. If taxpayers are footing the bill, they should not be selectively banned. Besides, didn't the courts say that President Trump could not ban offensive comments to his tweets (although that is a feature Twitter offers) because it was a public service or something like that? Well... Pandora's box is now open... On another note and in defense of Korben, I have to admit, the skull with an eyeball in it is an improvement over the scrawny chest. He's still gotta work on that John Lennon look, though. Michael
  42. 1 point
    Here is a good start of what I am talking about. Note, President Trump is not an ideologue disconnected from reality. He's a fixer of problems and a builder--all in reality. If he has to choose between fixing a problem or watching a situation degenerate until all is lost just so he can peg his inaction to a story in his mind, he will act and fix the problem. So be careful what you wish for. Reality might have a different opinion... At least, if the social media giants don't stop, the Trump administration will probably start by canceling or chopping up government contracts with social media giants, getting rid of government employees who formerly came from social media giants, cutting access of social media giants to the underbelly of the government's informatics infrastructure, and things like that. Thing about those juicy Pentagon connections... We can probably expect to see some of the head honchos of the social media giants head to Washington for a powwow with the President soon. Tim Cook was just there. I wonder if the things he was promised are suddenly being reconsidered... Leverage and all... But if that doesn't work, and I mean before the midterms, I have little doubt President Trump's legal advisors are ready, willing and able to craft legal approaches and even bills for Congress to fix this out-of-control assault on Alex Jones and, now, on countless conservative voices, some as benign as PragerU. If ever there were a time for principled voices from our end to speak up about something other than the rights of elitist crony corporatists, that time is now. Michael
  43. 1 point
    LOLOL... I found this on the Interwebs somewhere. Michael
  44. 1 point
    Criteria 1) "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution." Criteria 2) "The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines" Criteria 3) "The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines, which are apparently the wheels' circumferences. " Criteria 4) "the two lines have the same length" Criteria 5) "the wheels must have the same circumference" ____ I'm going to comment on these, but I'll just say first that the entire paradox is set up fallaciously. First the wheels do not have the same circumference as Criteria 5 says. Criteria 4, however, is correct that the lines do have the same length. But what the two lines represent are the distance between the midpoints of the circles from point A to point B, (Criteria 1 does say the wheels roll). So these two lines do not represent circumferences like Criteria 3 says, "the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines, which are apparently the wheels' circumferences." Criteria 1, "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution."----What point are they referring to that do not slip? It's ambiguous as written. So: If Criteria 1 is saying the point is the midpoint of the circles that the wheels do not slip on, then that part is true. They rotate on their axis without any slippage from point A to point B. If Criteria 1 is saying the point they do not slip on is on the lines drawn at the bottom of the circles and that the wheels are fixed along their tracks, then this is wrong in saying that they can move from point A to point B without slippage. One wheel can have a fixed track at a time and not have slippage, but they cannot both have fixed tracks at the same time and not have the inner wheel slip, to explain: If the outer wheel were fixed along its track the inner wheel has slippage along its track. If the inner wheel were fixed along its track, the outer wheel would not make a full revolution. Why? Because the inner wheel's circumference is less than the outer wheel's circumference. (Which again, Criteria 5 is fallacious saying that, "the wheels must have the same circumference.") So to summarize: Criteria 1) "The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution." -- FALLACIOUS Criteria 2) "The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines" -- TRUTH Criteria 3) "The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines, which are apparently the wheels' circumferences. " -- FALLACIOUS Criteria 4) "the two lines have the same length" -- TRUTH Criteria 5) "the wheels must have the same circumference" -- FALLACIOUS The only thing paradoxical to me is how this thread keeps going!
  45. 1 point
    Jules, I've been working on learning how to draw, starting with owls. Here's one method I've been studying, but it's taking time for some damn reason. Michael
  46. 1 point
    You asked Jon a legitimate question? What was it? If you're willing to have a grown up discussion, I'd be interested, even if Jon's not? Please, repeat the question. Oh, wait, was it the snicker snicker tee hee about Trump's comment about 62 percent of Hispanic people believing that they're doing better under Trump, 42 percent of all respondents believing the same, 30% feel that they're doing the same, and 26% feel that they're doing worse? Was that your big "legitimate question"? J
  47. 1 point
    NXIVM is a good example of the sort of tactics that dark systems utilize. It is hard to imagine keeping many individualists in a line, but that’s not the personality type these groups harness. The news reporting about this group and what is happening is not honest. For one thing, the news keeps saying “sex cult,” like it’s just some orgy club. Yet Allison Mack is charged with trafficking young children. And now this latest news about one of the cult’s doctors. Keep in mind, my fellow innocent-minded, non-naive, rational Objectivists, he was NOT doing research, this wasn’t a “study” or “experiment.” Rather, this is simply how members (by the many hundreds, probably many, many thousands before the investigation is over) were kept in line - with mind-numbing psychological terror. Members were shown what had happened to other, past members. These were group cohesion exercises. (There are goodies, too, obviously, for good behavior.) We normal healthy people simply do not have the perspective with which to imagine how mafias, cults and secret societies are kept in unison. We don’t want to imagine it either, generally. “NXIVM 'sex cult' doctor is charged with conducting 'fright study' experiments and showing members videos of rape, dismemberment and a man being forced to eat his own brain “actual video of the horrific and brutal murders and dismemberment of four women by machete” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5695523/NXIVM-cult-doctor-charged-conducting-fright-study-experiments.html#ixzz5ElgwMg2B
  48. 1 point
    Because they assume that if A has more than B, A must have taken something from B or A has denied B an opportunity to be better off. This position is a variation of the Zero Sum Lie.
  49. 1 point
    The cycloids are not relevant for the solution of the paradox, as they are a description of the movement of one point of the wheel in the z-x plane (z = up, x = direction of rail/ledge/road). The paradox is about the interface wheel-rail/ledge/road, however. That is: the points of the wheel and of the rail/ledge/road where they touch each other. The position of these points form a straight line along the rail/ledge/road. When the wheel rotates without slipping on its support, the length of that line is 2πR after one revolution of the wheel with radius R. With the two concentric wheels (radius R and r, r < R) in the paradox, the length of those lines would after one revolution without slipping be equal to 2πR and 2πr respectively. However, the actual length can only have one value, as those wheels are part of a rigid body, so at most only one wheel can rotate without slipping, for example the larger, outer wheel. The smaller inner wheel then has to travel the same distance 2πR over its support. In the same time interval its proper slip-free rotation distance is only 2πr, which is not enough, so it has also to slip over a distance 2π(R – r) to keep up with the outer wheel. Jonathan’s animation shows this clearly. Further, I’m reminded of this joke: https://tinyurl.com/y7hly2al
  50. 1 point
    Ellen, Sure. That's easy. There are different words that can be used and I am not comfortable with some Objectivist jargon, so I will use several options, but they all mean the same thing. Induction is a mental process [genus] of integrating and differentiating observations into a single mental unit [differentia]. Here is the same idea in different words. Induction is a mental process [genus] of recognizing a pattern and creating a single idea for it [differentia]. Here is even another way to say it in different words. Induction is a mental process [genus] establishing a category based on observation [differentia]. OK. I figured you'd suggest something along those lines. I see all three of the variants as just alternate ways to define Rand's meaning of "concept-formation." (I like the 3rd best and the 2nd least, as having the most ambiguity.) However, I think that if such a defintion had been all that Rand meant by "induction" in the statement we're talking about (from pg. 28, ITOE), then she'd have been writing a redundancy -- in effect she'd have been saying: "Concept-formation contains the essential pattern of concept-formation." I strongly doubt that she wouldn't have noticed that she was being redundant if all she'd meant by "induction" was along the lines you indicate. I don't agree that your proferred definitions would suit for "principle" or "conclusion" or "any name we can think of just so long as it is a single name or description" (or for types of "idea" other than concepts). Nor do I agree that "[your] definition above is covered in the definition 'a'" you give from Free Dictionary: The difference between "a" and "b" is that "a" is definining the process and "b" the result. "Induction" in the "b" usage would be prefaced by an article: He formed an induction [via the process described in "a"]. The induction "all swans are white" has a famous history in philosophy. Ellen ___