Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/10/2019 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Btw, I get a kick out of Merlin's attempt to believe that the disk travels a shorter distance than its circumference. It means that he's still sticking to his retarded belief that the disk has another, smaller disk behind it which is riding on what he has misinterpreted as a ledge. Take a look at the still shot here on the video's cover page: See how low the alleged "ledge" is? Watch how the height of the alleged "ledge" changes throughout the video. What do these visual indicators reveal? They reveal that it's not a ledge at all, but a continuation of the horizontal board surface behind the groove. Merlin doesn't see and understand these visual indicators, and definitely doesn't want to see or understand them. He wants to -- needs to -- believe that there is a ledge and an invisible wheel riding on it. Why, that would show the big stupid meanies! So he went looking to support his belief, and he measured a foreshortened space laterally, and believed that he came up with vindication. And once again he overestimated himself. He's been caught out showing that he doesn't know anything about projective geometry. J
  2. 1 point
    Never underestimate the willingness of a Rand-follower, most especially one who has spent a lot of time pursuing having his opinions published in his friends' Objectivish journals, to reject the simplest, most obvious piece of reality when he has made errors and his fragile ego is on the line. It's very common. Merlin is merely the latest in a long line of O-vish self-immolators. Light yourself on fire. Admit to no errors. Reality be damned. J
  3. 1 point
    Concrete you want. But are you sure ~your~ calculations and proof are reality based? As you've seen, I've been repeatedly concerned with real world "content", like friction, velocities, mass, force, drag and torque. Those factors have been generally ignored, in the 'track hypothesis'. Unless your calculations account for these, plus a physical track, not imaginary, they amount to abstractions. A "line" which escapes having "concrete" attributes, i.e. friction, for the wheel to sorta glide upon ("slippage") isn't good enough proof. Concrete, you want. A real world challenge for you: Two identical, rotating wheels A, B, on separate axes, both turning clockwise are brought firmly together, perimeter meeting perimeter. A has a Vt of 6m/s, B has the Vt of 4m/s. What will be the effect? Both A and B will turn at 10 m/s? Both will turn at 2m/s? Both at 0m/s? Think about it. Max - "B. It is of course the other way around: it is the integrity of smaller and larger wheel as a rigid body...that causes the Vt's to differ". No, you have it in reverse, which answers itself if you'd paid any dues to Aristotelian metaphysics. What pre-exists all the above? A wheel. What are its attributes? Just for one, different tangential velocities of different radii/points within it. [An entity acts according to its nature]. Only then, for the Paradox, is there an add-on feature (an accessory) -- an extra wheel, "with a common center..." etc. This extra wheel acts according to the nature and actions of the first wheel: Revolution (1 : 1), tangential velocity (proportionally to where it is positioned - its radius), angular velocity, translational velocity, direction.
  4. 1 point
    It's hard to imagine an easier visualization. --Brant
  5. 1 point
    You have not proven it. You merely assumed that an arc at the edge of the disk is the same length as a straight length on the bottom of the groove. The bottom of the groove is not visible. The bottom edge of the disk -- approximately 1/12th its circumference -- is not visible either, since it is also hidden by the board in front of it. If you were a smarter person you would understand that.
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
    I'll trust my recall. I began remarking on this t-velocity (whatever I named it) several months ago and have tried to explain it and its ramifications several times, before, in the last few days, it's now gained purchase. Of all of you, only Darrell, Merlin and yourself even alluded to Vt. The v-s experts were silent. Now, everyone acts as if they knew all about it. (But won't admit to the effects this must have on the group theory). However, one inconvenient fact - different Vt's: A) blows away the 'track and slippage' idea - B. explains why and how an inner, smaller wheel maintains its 1: 1 integrity with the larger, outer (and travels laterally as identically far and as fast as the latter).
  8. 1 point
    The moron was referring not to disks rolling in general, but to the specific setup in the video that people have been posting. The moron's new idiotic position is that the disk's circumference is "20% longer than the distance along the wires." He believes this because he doesn't understand perspective and how it affects measurement. He has measured the apparatus laterally without taking into account perspective foreshortening, and, in fact, without being aware of it and having no knowledge how to account for it. I've addressed that idiocy here: J
  9. 1 point
    The best visual depiction of the different Vt's of inner circles. For the visuo-spatial experts who doubted that.
  10. 1 point
    The point of my post wasn't to get you to open up about your feelings for your ex-boyfriend, but to get you to recognize that he and others, who are infinitely more intelligent than you, long ago grasped the solutions to the puzzle that you, so far, have been too stupid to grasp. J
  11. 0 points
    I have proven it. The still pic of the video proves that the plate is rolling true, as the plate’s circumference applied to road is equal to the road length traveled. You have not commented beyond to say it fails. If you were a smarter person you would understand the demonstration.