Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/06/2018 in all areas

  1. 1 point
  2. 1 point
    You put your hands tightly over your ears? You turned down the volume on your hearing aid? 🙂
  3. 1 point
    Okay, so it appears that the answer to my question -- "How would anyone go about gauging the 'most plausible explanation'?" -- is that one should read and consider only the sources that Billy posts, and disregard any other context of which one might be aware, and then conclude what Billy has concluded, or else one should be judged to be "hard of reading"? Trust local reporters, because it logically follows that if they are local, then they therefore have no personal political biases or agendas, will make no presumptions, and will present all sides fairly? No one on Our Side could have any motive to falsely portray Them as having nefarious motives. Let us not mention, or even think about, anything that Our Side might have done previously in relation to this issue. The Others' actions just popped up out of nowhere, out of their hatreds, and are not in any way connected to or a response to Our Side's having meddled or tampered in any way. Think not of any of those things. Look away. J
  4. 1 point
    You just don't get it, do you? The fact that the small wheel moves more than it would by just rolling is by definition called slipping, that is a simple fact and not "some theory without factual base". And nearly everybody can also see that in reality such a small wheel indeed is slipping. As I've said many times already. Again that nonsense about the "identity of wheel motion", a totally meaningless term. You apparently forget that I applied tangential velocities to show you how slipping occurs. Perhaps you should read again my post of November 29: That is true in the rest frame of the circle, the tangential speed of the outer circle is greater than the tangential speed of the smaller circle. But wait! We are considering the system in the rest frame of the track, where we see the wheel rolling to the right. In that frame you have to add the translation speed to the speed of the points on the circles. Due to the rotation, a point on the large circle continuously changes direction. In the lower half of the figure the horizontal component of the velocity vector of that point is directed to the left. So we have to subtract that horizontal component from the speed due to the translation to the right. In our rest frame, the point is moving slower than the center. In the 6 o'clock position the tangential velocity vector is exactly directed to the left. The speed in the rest frame (subtracting now the tangential speed from the translation speed) zero. At that one moment the point stands still. That is equivalent with the condition "rolling without slipping". *) Further rolling of the circle decreases the horizontal component of the velocity vector, so the speed in the rest frame increases again. In the upper half of the figure the opposite happens. After passing the 9 o'clock position the speed becomes greater than the translation speed of the center.At the 12 o'clock position the velocity vector points to the right and now the tangential speed is added to the translation speed, the point has now a speed twice that of the center. Logical, because after one revolution every point on the circles must have traveled the same distance to the right, so what they lose in the lower half, they must make up for in the upper half and vice versa. Now look at the small circle. When the segment AB of the large circle lines up with CD of line 1, around the point of zero speed, you see that the corresponding segment EF of the small circle is swept to the right along a much larger segment GH of line 2. If the small circle would roll without slipping, like the large circle, it would in the same way line up with an segment GH that is just as small as EF. But as the tangential speed of the smaller circle is smaller than that of the large circle, the amount that is subtracted from the translation speed is smaller, and therefore it doesn't cancel the translation speed at that point (as in the case of the large circle), therefore instead of zero speed, there is a net translation to the right. That net translation we call slipping, and it is very well visible in this animation. *) For cycloid lovers: this is the point where the cusp of the cycloid touches the line. As you see, I give at least some useful information that you can check, instead of some vague comments about the "identity of the wheel", a "floating abstraction" indeed! You're again evading, I've shown that different curvatures are irrelevant. If you don't believe that, you should perhaps visit a bicycle factory.
  5. 1 point
    Jon, You convinced me. I bookmarked this. I agree that Q methods are absolutely genius. Here's what I'm beginning to see from a persuasion perspective. The Deep State (and fellow travelers) either fights public information it wants gone with mockery alone, or mockery with barrages of gotchas from "experts." Mockery alone works up to a point, but doesn't have good legs with influencing the public after a certain point of obviousness has been reached. (For example, people who warned about the existence of the Bilderberg Group were mocked ruthlessly for years with no rebuttal needed. Until it became obvious that the Bilderberg Group did exist, of course. Then the elitists simple stopped the mockery and moved on to the next subterfuge.) They discovered a far more effective form than plain mockery was first, present a mountain of gotchas, then do mockery based on those gotchas. Note that the gotchas don't have to be true, they just have to sound like someone knows what they are talking about. No substance needed, just the illusion of substance. This is how they have been putting over manmade climate change, the Muh Russians hoax and many other things. The mainstream fake news media runs on this method. But how in hell can someone gotcha QAnon? It was made to be mocked directly. All the elements are there, the cryptic messages, the symbols, the infiltration by copycats, etc. The only thing the elitists and fellow travelers can do is point and mock. But here's the rub. Enough truth is now coming through that the general public is taking notice. It has simply become too late to do the Gotcha Then Mock routine and be effective anymore. QAnon critics blew their wad overdosing on straight up mockery. Now that the general public is coming around to QAnon, the critics are starting to look like crass manipulators who are power mongers and enemies of the public. I don't know if this was done on purpose, but that's the way it is turning out. I suspect it was done on purpose. And that catches my interest big-time. Michael
  6. 1 point
    Hey, 'member back when Merlin posted this link to the video that he though was very helpful? Heh. The nice thing is that it's not Wikipedia, and therefore Merlin can't meddle with it! Anyway, it's fun going back to that old video that Merlin endorses, and to revisit taking a closer look, frame by frame. For example, check this out: As the circles leave their starting points (white dots on the black lines in this video), notice what happens! See the difference in distance already covered by the point on the smaller wheel? <Gasp!> Tony, can you see it? The same happens as the circles near the finish line. What does it mean, Tony?!!!! Merlin?!!!! Is it a hawgwarsh crutch? Heh. J
  7. 1 point
    He knows they exist. He saw. But he cannot see what any of it has to do with Aristotle’s Wheel Paradox. To review, here is Tony’s current state of mind with regard to the paradox: - A wheel goes from there to there in one rotation. - Drawings on the wheel and things bolted to the wheel go with the wheel. - Some people say they see a “paradox” - the small drawing of a wheel goes farther than its circumference! - But there is no paradox, it’s just going where it has to, since it is just a thing on a wheel. The End.
  8. 1 point
    Tony, Who suggested the track and who slipped it in to attract and/or trap people? Who set the trap? Aristotle? Well, yes he did. Only, I don't think his intention was to deceive people. OK, Max said it a few posts above and it looks like I'm squatting on his post, it, but still... If you think you have won something over all others, don't forget, you won over Aristotle, also. Right? But this is not a competition. It's epistemology. The problem in the disagreements is not recognizing reality, though. Both sides do. The problem is staking a claim to the One True Truth on visual representation, then claiming the other side does not see reality because they are referencing a different situation. However, what both sides are seeing is reality, just not the same set of real referents the other is seeing. Open any dictionary and you will find at least two definitions for all words. The same goes for visual representations when they are ambiguous. Liberal (a symbol that we call a word) means freedom lover and big government advocate. Or with languages, chair in English and cadeira in Portuguese refer to the same thing. Which is the One True Truth in connecting referent to symbol? (Psssst... the Objectivist way of determining that is correctly identifying "context," then going the percept to concept route. ) As to visual ambiguity, it's easy to show how the mind can trick us. Different parts of the brain process differently the initial electro-chemical signals the eye transforms photons into. Sometimes the seams are rough between those different parts of the brain, they don't communicate with each other well, but they communicate well with the command center, so to speak. Then we get visual paradoxes and illusions or even the inability to hold one interpretation of a visual representation in our awareness without it flipping to another interpretation (and in those cases, it keeps going back and forth). The reason I'm saying this is that we all have brains that work in the same manner. When a difference in representation is subtle because the symbol is ambiguous, it's reasonable for some people to favor one interpretation over another. Both are true in the case of the wheel paradox, just not at the same time, as I keep saying. Here's some proof about visual paradoxes and illusions due to the way the brain processes them. Take a look at the images below. In the first, are the two middle circles the same size or is the left smaller than the right? Measure them and you discover they are the same size. Below left, is it a sax player or a woman's face? After you decide on one, try to keep it in mind without seeing the other. You can't. If flips back and forth. Ditto for the image on the right below. Is it a goblet or two faces looking at each other? There are a ton of these things out there. So which alternative is the One True Truth? All three images obviously represent something in reality. They are symbols that refer to concepts that refer to something in reality. Yet they seem to refer to different things at the same time. (Ditto for the diagram of the wheel paradox.) Another point. You keep talking about an automobile tire for Aristole's wheel paradox, but you must be aware that automobiles didn't exist at the time Aristotle was alive. Right? Would it be correct for me to say I've debunked your argument because it was premised on an anachronism as concerns reality? That's kinda like the way you are coming off in insisting the wheel paradox can only refer to the context and referents you assign--none others, that all other contexts and referents are false. What's more, you express satisfaction in a belief that you think better than others because of this insistence. But here's the thing. I don't mind your perspective because it's one of the true ways to interpret the diagram. Everybody agrees that the object you are talking about exists in reality. Everybody. But other things exist, too, and I demand the right to assign any conceptual referent to any symbol I please. I demand it, I say! You will not determine the referent content of the symbols in my skull! Begone invader! Oddly enough, even when Jonathan or Jon show you images and videos of something in reality, something as real as an automobile tire, things like stone wheels and bicycle chains, you refuse to admit they exist. Why? They exist. And presuming they exist, after all, we can see them and the photographers can touch them, feel them, taste them, and even hear them if they move and make noise, then by default they are reality referents that can be assigned to a visual symbol that stands for a concept, yet you deny that is possible. For that matter, the two wheels stuck together as in the way you keep portraying exist, too. And this works the same way. You can assign the object made of two wheels to a visual symbol that stands for a concept. So why does a tire exist for you and a bicycle chain not? The only thing I can think of is primacy of the visual symbol, i.e., primacy of consciousness. So which takes primacy for you, a visual symbol or the things in reality to which a symbol (or a word) can refer? If reality is primary for you, then you have to admit objects in reality exist (or allow them to exist if you are in God mode )in all their variety and different contexts. Like roads, for instance... Michael
  9. 1 point
    A reminder, again, that this is how the "paradox" was originally stated in antiquity, in opposition to how Merlin has falsely and dishonestly altered it at Wikipedia: In antiquityEdit In antiquity, the wheel problem was described in the Aristotelian Mechanica, as well as in the Mechanica of Hero of Alexandria.[1]In the former it appears as "Problem 24", where the description of the wheel is given as follows. Note that the large wheel and the smaller wheel each has its own line beneath it upon which it unrolls. Repeat: in the original description from antiquity of the "paradox," as opposed to Merlin's dishonest Wikipedia shenanigans, both circles have lines beneath them with which they are in continuos contact as they roll. J
  10. 1 point
    Jon, Me too... (btw - You just stated one of the major emotional goals for creating great stories. ) Michael
  11. 0 points
    Steve, You mean like this thread? There's a lot of great stuff on it, including a lot of deep thinking and the evidence you seek. But in your mindset right now, I'm not sure you would see it as evidence. That sounds awful, but I don't mean that in a derogatory way. It takes awhile to see it when a strong ideology like Objectivism has been one's main link to reality. (I speak as one involved, not as an accusation.) People like us don't deal much with brick and mortar, big real estate business or things like that. Hell, people in our subcommunity don't even get hits in entertainment. Well, some do (like Terry Goodkind), but then again, they are not really in the subcommunity. They just like Ayn Rand and say so. But I'm not going to repeat everything I already wrote. I'll just affirm that there is plenty of evidence to allay your fears about Trump and leave it up to you to decide whether to look at it or not. (I won't blame you if you don't, though. This is a long-ass thread. A real long long-ass thread... ) Let me just say that I believe Donald Trump is one of the most moral men ever to run for high office in the USA. Since you know I am not a silly man, I'll leave the cognitive dissonance hanging in the air. This is not a trick, though. I truly believe that and have argued it earlier (argued it well, in fact). Here's just one item. I have a principle I use a lot and it serves me well the vast majority of the time. Whenever I see a disparity between what a person says and what he does, I go with what he does as the better indication of what he will do in the future. Trump talks smack at times and he hustles, but he builds. A lot. Big things. He's consistently on time, under budget and with top quality. Right now he has well over 500 successful companies (see here) and he does business the world over. Also, he does not make money from the endless war for profit machine. He never has to my knowledge. He builds things. (Don't get me started... ) There are several people who have followed this thread as it grew and came over to Trump. I don't know of any Trump supporter who went the other way due to this thread. In fact, outside of this thread, I only know one person personally who initially leaned toward Trump in a half-hearted kind of way, but who eventually turned into a vitriolic Trump hater. He's a thriller author named Michael Prescott. I consider him a friend (an online friend, but still good people). He, like many other Trump haters, is going through the Five Stages of Grief right now. Michael