Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/19/2018 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    William, rumors of Bill Dwyer's demise have been greatly exaggerated! ;-) I don't know who Mary Ann is or was, but Bill is still going strong at age 78. Dennis
  2. 3 points
    And I'm not too proud to admit that I started leaning into the corners by the end of the second vid. J
  3. 2 points
    The true north pole? This can't be the answer; it's too easy. Des Moines? --Brant
  4. 2 points
    We now know that this is the mechanism behind the further rolling, but Aristotle didn't understand it, as I've shown in one of my previous posts. Therefore it is no longer a real puzzle for us, while it was an enigma for those guys in the past. But I'm glad to know that you now have also been converted to the Slipping School.
  5. 2 points
    As I've shown before, cycloids are a completely unnecessary element added by you, allegedly "proving" that both wheels travel the same distance. Well, that they do, Aristotle already knew, you can read that in his text. So in that regard you don't prove anything that isn't already in Aristotle's text. The cycloids are just an irrelevant extra.
  6. 2 points
    No, it isn't. Artistotle wrote: "nowhere does the greater stop and wait for the less in such a way as to remain stationary for a time at the same point" and "the smaller does not skip any point", so he considers only stopping of the large circle and skipping of the small circle as possible explanations for the problem. As he rejects these possibilities, he cannot solve the paradox, because he is not aware of the possibility of slipping (forwards for the small circle, forced by the large one, and backwards for the large circle, forced by the small one), which enables a continuous movement that explains the problem.
  7. 2 points
    These are not solutions. "Solution" 1 is nothing else than a short recapitulation of the paradox: Aristotle: If I move the smaller circle I am moving the same centre, namely Α; now let the larger circle be attached to it [...] it will have invariably travelled the same distance [i.e. case 1: the smaller circle forces the larger circle to travel only the distance of the circumference of the small circle] [...]Similarly, if I move the large circle and fit the small one to it [case 2: the large circle forces the smaller circle to travel the distance of the circumference of the large circle] [...] nowhere does the greater stop and wait for the less in such a way as to remain stationary for a time at the same point [Aristotle doesn't understand how in case 1 the large circle is forced to travel the smaller distance] the smaller does not skip any point [neither does he understand how in case 2 the smaller circle is forced to travel the larger distance] [...]When, then, the large circle moves the small one attached to it, [in other words, when the large circle forces the small one] the smaller one moves exactly as the larger one; when the small one is the mover, [that is, the small circle forces the large one] the larger one moves according to the other's movement. Compare that with your "solution" 1: If the smaller circle depends on the larger one (Case I), then the larger circle forces the smaller one to traverse the larger circle’s circumference. If the larger circle depends on the smaller one (Case II), then the smaller circle forces the larger one to traverse the smaller circle’s circumference. This is the simplest solution. It is clear that this doesn't tell us anything new that Aristotle hadn't written already. That "solution" 2 and "solution" 3 are not solutions, I've already shown in earlier posts. In fact they are also just recapitulations of the paradox.
  8. 2 points
    Ultimately all scientific hypotheses and theories are validated by 1. observation and measurement 2. laboratory experiment and testing 3. clinical testing which generally uses some statistical form of hypothesis test. The bottom line is: the predictions have to match what nature shows through either observation or experiment. Science of any kind has to be subject to testing and potential empirical falsification. Obviously the details of the experiments and observations depend on what is being studied. Some things can be corroborated by conditions in imposed in the laboratory. Other things have to be observed and measured as they happen naturally. Astronomy, as you pointed out, is such a science. So is cosmology. Particle and Field physics are tested in such installations as CERN. Chemistry is tested in the lab. Biology is test both in the lab and in the field. The essential thing that distinguishes the physicals sciences (that work) is ultimate empirical testing and possible falsification, from philosophy which is all vapor and abstraction. Mathematics is a peculiar thing. It is not a science because it is not empirical but its claims have to be validated by proofs which are formulated by mathematicians, then read and checked by other mathematicians. Checking a proof for correctness is empirical even though all of the subject matter is abstract.
  9. 2 points
    Well, okay, then, I'll just believe that guy's opinion rather than my own observations of what happened at the time. Yeah, his charts and graphs nullify the things that were being said at the time. I didn't hear those things because your Doctor Kimball C. Atwood didn't look for them, but instead presented charts and graphs. And I haven't seen interviews of Marshall or Warren in which they discussed the dogmatic mindset that they faced, because your Kimball C. Atwood didn't see such interviews. If he didn't look for them, find them or see them, then they never happened. It's settled science that it's just a silly myth. Everyone was actually very nice and open minded to the ideas of Drs. Marshall and Warren. It was all smooth sailing. And it's all very "nuanced" to take a subject which, by its nature, involved mostly oral expressions of resistance to new ideas, then to not look for any evidence of those expressions, then to not find any of them, and to conclude that it was all a myth! Were absolutely certain that it was a myth. Atwood's comments prove it. Let's say "myth" some more just to make it even more true. Max, you're demonstrating the illogic and pompous stupidity that we're criticizing. Your linked source doesn't address the actual issue, but attempts to bypass it with non sequiturs, obfuscation, equivocation, and sloppy assumptions. J
  10. 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.
  11. 2 points
    It's a truncated transcript. In their own words ... There will be supporting testimony if this is true. Which 'the shot'? At which point in infant life was this shot given, by whom, where? Vaccination records are kept, the family will have access to this. Which was the 'trigger' shot of the vaccine schedule? -- did the triplets complete the vaccines schedule? Was it done at a doctor's office or clinic? Did the parents seek medical opinion on the triplets' sudden change in behaviour/development? The parents will have access to those medical files if so. What is the diagnosis, and when was it given -- what year? By whom? Knowing that, you can get a better picture of the family's position. It is a possibility that each triplet reacted to "the shot" in the similar way. It is a possibility that otherwise genetically-identical children each was later given a diagnosis of autism. One question I would seek an answer to was if the family recorded contemporaneous video of the children, near the time of their 'trigger' event. Given the opportunity, the details sort themselve out. Discussion is possible without slanging or defamation. Notice, I did not say it is causation. I asked a question. You can always come up with your own answer. In so doing, when you do a probability analysis, you should declare your priors, in a kind of Bayesian enterprise. I take the question in two parts, with two possible dependencies. The dependencies are 'triplets with autism' and 'triplets with documentation of 'immediate onset' autism after 'the shot' as claimed. For the first question, "Are autism rates in triplets, twins, quadruplets, etc measurable with precision?" The second: "Given the 'rate' of autism diagnoses shared within twins/triplets/etc 'sets' ... as measured, is it a statistical abnormality to have three geneticially-similar infants show signs of autism?" I'll come back to answer the questions posed, which answers necessitate a view of the entire video.
  12. 2 points
    Have you actually seen, comprehended and accepted the existence of the original formulation of the "paradox"? You still seem to be operating on Merlin's molested version. You seem to want to operate on that false version. Yes, and those "some" are you and Merlin, and not only have you treated it as a brain teaser, but one which you prefer to reconstruct at whim to your own liking, keeping what you wish from the original formulation while arbitrarily discarding parts that displease you. YOU can't see it in reality. WE can easily see it. We have the visuospatial/mechanical abilities to grasp it. Go back and look at the beginning of this thread. We weren't stumped and "theorizing," but immediately identified reality. Hundreds, if not thousands, of others all over the interwebnets have done the same. We all get it. You do not. You cannot grasp reality in this case. Your mind is not set up to handle it. The rest of your babbling is your weak ego trying its hardest to not accept the reality that you are visuospatially/mechanically deficient. You're indulging in nothing but self-grading. You've begun by selecting yourself as the standard of cognition, given yourself an A, and judged everyone else (except Merlin?) to have failed. They've all invented the same lying false fake "solution." It might be a conspiracy. They're up to no good. The reality of it cannot be -- must not be -- rhat Tony is lacking in any way. That idea must not be considered. J
  13. 2 points
  14. 2 points
    Now let's ride world-class auto racing track, High Plains Raceway, a 2.55 mile track developed and owned by a handful of Colorado car clubs. I am in the white helmet on the same INTERCEPTOR, up ahead. We are following me onboard a modern 1050cc Triumph Speed Triple. Unlike my 750cc VFR, this bike has major power for the straights, modern wide tires, fantastic suspension. The Triumph's sound is cleaner and a higher pitched whizzing. You can see the Triumph's rpm needle, her sound is the one going up and down with that needle. Mine is the foghorn sound. The gauge displays mph. The long straight is only 0.65 miles long and I can consistently reach about 130mph on the old VFR once the tires are warmed up and I get in the groove. Here I am pushing harder than on Squaw Pass, a public road. On the street, about 75-80% is my maximum. This is 90-95%. I want to keep my vintage bike, I don't want to crash, but it is acceptable to crash. There is an ambulance on site on the track days that I attend. Clockwise ...
  15. 2 points
    It is time now to ride my V4 1986 VFR750F INTERCEPTOR up Squaw Pass. Our course is outlined in red on the maps. We travel uphill and west, away from Denver, from the right to the left. We begin at 8,430' elevation, just northwest of Evergreen, Colorado, and climb 315' in one minute and 54 seconds. The speed limit is 30mph but we will cover 1.63 miles, averaging 52mph. 25mph is the slowest we will go, in the tightest three turns. Then 70 and 80mph in the straights. For example after passing the car we're in a long straight and at the end of it, when we are directly beside the yellow sign advising an imminent "15mph" hairpin right, we are still traveling at 80mph. (Funny thing about brakes, they work supernaturally well when you're going steeply uphill!) The GoPro™ video camera is Chesty™ mounted at about my sternum. I'm crunched leaned over, so my eyes are only a few inches higher. Pretend you are really there, my passenger, and see if you can feel some of what the terror and adrenaline is like. This will help: We are in elk, bear and deer country. If an elk walks out on a straight we are going to die. If a bear is in the road in a corner, we will crash and he is going to try to kill us when he gets back on his feet. We will try to shoot him when he comes to kill us, but it's a 50/50 thing who emerges from crash-stun first.
  16. 1 point
    You are standing on the surface of earth. You walk one mile south, then you walk one mile west, then you walk one mile north and you are back where you started. Where are you?
  17. 1 point
    Causes are not necessarily that simple. What if cause c1 and cause c2 must both exist to produce effect e? Then the statistics might show that only 2% of the cases of c1 have e and you would conclude that their is no causal relationship between c1 and e. Here is a question to look into. What is the autism rate in populations that reject vaccines? ALS is an example of multiple causes, or maybe we should say cause factors. ALS means simply motor neurons die. The question is why do the motor neurons die? ALS (death of motor neurons) can be produced in lab animals at will. One way is a combination of low motor neuron energy and excess concentration of glutamic acid near the motor neuron. Either one alone will not do it but both together will. It gets more complicated than that because we can ask what causes low motor neuron energy and what causes excess concentration of glutamic acid, and in both we have multiple cause factors Another example is breaking a bone. Let us imagine most of the population slips and falls on ice but only 1 in 90 breaks a bone. If you are consistent in your reasoning you would conclude that the hypothesis that slipping and falling on ice causes broken bones is poppycock. Falling on ice is only 1 cause factor. Another cause factor might be weak bones. Maybe autism has multiple cause factors, like most things have.
  18. 1 point
    Hypotheses are only accepted as hypotheses. This you have here done. Proof creates theory. This is evidence that your applied idea of the scientific method is dogmatic. --Brant
  19. 1 point
    Your actual standards of evidence and proof are quite weak So is your reasoning. You have a dogma about vaccinations equivalent to standing on a street corner shouting out about Jesus. --Brant
  20. 1 point
    Except for "apparent", I made the terms bold. Max has no solution without his crutch – a second surface, track, or support. He needs a crutch so he can claim slippage. When the problem conditions are met, the smaller circle horizontally moves the circumference of the larger circle (or vice-versa) with or without a second surface, track, or support. The paradox does not appear and disappear depending on whether or not there is a second surface, real or imagined. My solutions hold with or without a second surface, track, or support. Max has refused to acknowledge my solutions as solutions. He has even denied they are. No good reason given; it’s mere ego and stubbornness.
  21. 1 point
    Back in the 80s, the medical and scientific communities ridiculed the hell out of doctors Barry Marshall and Robin Warren for going against the "settled science" that no bacterium could live in the acids of the human stomach, and that ulcers were caused by spicy foods and stress. Even after proving their case on helicobacter pylori, it took the snarky authorities years to accept reality, let go of their pissy mindsets and judgments of Marshall and Warren as kooks and snake oilers. Which mindset is more disturbing and dangerous, that of kooks who make false speculations and come to mistaken, unsupported conclusions, or that of people who pose as authorities and impede or shut down advancements because of their own brand of kookiness? Whose ulterior motives are worse, the creep trying to make a buck off of families of affected children, or established authorities whose reputations and pocketbooks will suffer when, say, Tagamet is instantly no longer bringing in billions easing ulcers? J
  22. 1 point
    William, In today's culture? The hell you don't. Try it sometime. Look at your own reaction just now. And this is after a lot of snark softening. The hostility of those who ask questions these days is not gratuitous. There's a lot of history there. And it ain't been pretty for your side over time. Your side deserves to be called Big Brother bootlickers. They earned it through long-standing repeated actions. Michael
  23. 1 point
    Slavery ended in 1865? That's a naïve statement. It wasn't even a "mistake" to begin with unless it was an Arab/Muslim mistake. It was historical inertia powered by pre-industrial economics. To call this monstrosity a mere mistake begs the question of whose mistake? The white man's? The difference between Muslims and Japanese is wider than the Pacific. It's 1500 years of on again off again conflict, mostly on. ---Brant
  24. 1 point
    Just to put a nice tail on this story: Michael
  25. 1 point
    Do your children bring your posts to school for "show and tell?" I'm sure they are mighty proud of strong, brave Internet Dad.