• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by BaalChatzaf

  1. 24 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:



    When science is funded by its victims, there's not only a big honking lot of morality in it, there's a ton of immorality.

    Let's do like this. Remove government from science and let the scientists survive on the free market. Do you think that's a good idea? I think it's wonderful.

    Another thought, to you believe it's possible for people to become corrupted by unearned money, even scientists?



    These are moral issues that go right to the heart of scientific credibility.

    If you want to know "how the world  works," really works, cut government funding from science. Then talk to me about ethics.


    The funding of science is a separate issue from the science itself.  As I said, Science, as such,  is concerned with the way the world works, not what is right or wrong.  Nature does not care what is right and wrong. Humans care what is right and wrong.

  2. 4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    A scientist is not an automatically virtuous person who is interested in truth. He creates weapons of mass destruction just as easily as he creates marvels of life-enhancing procedures. Hell, he creates propaganda scams on a massive scale like manmade global warming knowing what his work will be used for. And he goes to bed happy in all cases.


    Science and Morality have nearly an empty intersection. Science is about how the world works,  not about what is right and what is wrong in the ethical sense.

  3. On 12/24/2018 at 7:06 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    That's not all you did. You said "this kind of reasoning" leads to superstition, implying that those poor parents in the video are superstitious fools who believe in black cat stories. You know, the parents who watched their triplet infants be vaccinated, then watched each immediately turn into an autistic zombie, one after another, then concluded there was a connection with the vaccines.

    Come on, man...

    What's more, the "that kind of reasoning" that you disparage so much can also lead to scientific breakthroughs. In fact, that's the ONLY way scientific breakthroughs happen.

    Not one scientific discovery started out as an already proven fact. Every single one started out with "that kind of reasoning."


    THe difference is with sloppy thinking cause is immediately inferred  from a before-after observation. Jumping to the conclusion is a fallacy which has a name:  Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  After this therefore because of this.  In a scientific context   the connection between a possible cause class of events and a class of possible effect events is thoroughly examined and a --mechanism-- of connection is hypothesized.  The mechanism then is thoroughly tested in a lab.  BTW  if  event  A  happens  and event B does not always  happen following A   then  type(A)  cannot be a cause for type(B).  The aforementioned  issues illustrates the difference between  superstition (black cat  stories)  and  physical science.   Immediately jumping to the conclusion of a causal connection is sloppy thinking. 

    When the connection between smoking and cancer  was discerned the tobacco companies  claimed (of course)  it was an example of the post hoc fallacy.  But further investigation showed that cigarette paper when burned leaves small amounts of radioactive polonium in the  air sacs of the lungs.  Smoking long enough  produces enough of the radioactive polonium deposits to increase the probability of lung cancer.   Here it was discovered that a radioactive substance is left in the long  so as to increase the probability of lung cancer.  In short  a mechanism connecting cigarette smoking with lung cancer was uncovered.  

    Clinical studies of the various immunizations  have uncovered no  genetic changes that might cause autism.  BTW  no one knows for sure (at this time) what causes autism.  Genetic anomalies are suspected but not yet proved by clinical  examination or laboratory studies.   So the firm conclusion that immunization leads to autism   is  yet to be shown.  The firm belief without the underlying establishment of a mechanism for genetic change  is  a clear example of "black cat"  thinking.  Sloppy, sloppy.   

    I will give you a hint.  When someone says events of type A  causes events of type B,  the burden of proof is on THEM.  At this point there is no lab based evidence that immunization causes autism and the counter examples I gave  support the doubt that immunization causes autism.   

    • Like 1
  4. 4 hours ago, jts said:

    Some years ago I knew an elderly woman who slipped on ice and broke a bone and had to go to the hospital. That was happenstance. The slipping on ice had nothing to do with the breaking of the bone. I slipped on ice, fell down, and didn't break anything.


    quite so.  Sometimes falling produces breakage, sometimes it doesn't.  One cannot make a general statement the falling will break bones.  It all depends on the type of fall and on what fallen.  To say A causes B means  whenever A happens then B follows.  That is cause. There is a firm connection between A and B.   if A happens and B does not,  then A is not a sufficient reason for B to happen.  


  5. 11 hours ago, jts said:

    Is this a statistical possibility if it's not causation? A math problem.

    Does the source (Brighteon) invalidate the video?


    Happenstance.  All 4 of my children were vaccinated. None of them are autistic.  All five of my grandchildren were vaccinated.  None of them autistic.  We we have is happenstance, not cause.  This kind of "reasoning"  leads top superstition and black cat stories. 

  6. 9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:



    Madmen often speak the truth in the midst of their madness and delusions.

    More often than not, when they are right (at least in the writings of the madmen I have studied, including L Ron Hubbard), like in the case of Kazcyski here, they attain profound insights about specific things they look at and identify.

    Sometimes one part of the brain is laser-targeted genius level while other parts are cockeyed. You deal with science. How many mathematicians and inventors does my comment apply to? 

    From the things I have read by Kazcyski, and about him, he falls into the same general category. Including the math part, for that matter. But instead of talking to imaginary friends, washing his hands 180 times a day, or switching into a wolf when the mood stuck him, he liked to play with bombs.


    Actually, the mind control stuff done on him by the US government and Harvard of all places were filthy crimes concocted by elitist assholes who used the Cold War as an excuse to treat humans like lab rats.

    Kazcyski has agency and free will, so there is no excuse for his letter bombs. But emotionally he is damaged goods--and he was damaged by the very people who were supposed to educate and protect him.

    Kazcyski in my view is not evil. He's a damaged man and genius who did a number of specific evil things. The evil fucks for real--that is, people who are evil and not just do sporadic evil things, people who promote evil on purpose as the way they want the world to be--are the ones who damaged him.


    Thank you for your thoughtful essay.  You have grasped Kacynski's situation correctly.   We are all the product of the experiences we have and to some extent the blows which have been inflicted upon us.  Even so,  we broken clocks tell the right time  now and again. 


    L.L.A.P \\//

  7. 5 hours ago, Jonathan said:

    False. The inner wheel will roll. It will not slip at all. It is not physically possible for it to slip. Its cable prevents any slippage. The inner wheel will roll without slippage until it reaches the end of its cable, which is one rotation.

    False. The two wheels are affixed to one another. When one completes a full rotation, the other does as well. However, since the large wheel must over-spin in comparison to its surface (any point on its perimeter will create a prolate cycloid during the wheels' motion), it will have travelled a distance shorter that its circumference, and its cable will have let off slack (the length of the slack will be equal to the length of the large wheel's circumference minus the length of the small wheel's circumference).

    Bob, you're not properly envisioning the scenario, especially the effects of the cables. I would suggest building a model and observing how the reality of it differs from your mistaken imagining of what happens. A couple of spools of thread with different diameters, glued together and a nail for an axle would work.


    I am computing the transverse of the center of a circle of radius r. If it doesn't slip  and it turns through angle theta then it will traverse   r*theta  (theta measured in radians).   Now look at the outer wheel radius R  where R > r.  If the little wheel rigidly affixed to the outer wheel turns an angle theta so does the outer wheel.  But the outer will will bring the common center R * theta to the right  which exceeds  r*theta  hence the inner wheel must have been dragged for a distance of   (R - r)*theta.  Attaching a wire or cable to the inner wheel does not change the geometry.

    L.L.A.P \\//

  8. Who wrote this:

    "Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image
    of being strong, good and successful. They hate America,
    they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they
    hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating
    the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real
    motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike,
    imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but
    where these same faults appear in socialist countries or
    in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them,
    or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas
    he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly
    exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western
    civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the
    leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He
    hates America and the West because they are strong and


    Answer:  Ted Kazcyski, the Unabomber in his Manifesto published in the New York Times and Washington Postl.

    Are you surprised?

    • Like 2
  9. 18 hours ago, Max said:

    That is half the story. The other half is the fact that in this case the large wheel cannot "roll without slipping". That would namely imply that the smaller wheel would be dragged along, slipping to keep up with the large wheel (as we've already shown in about 10000 posts). But the small wheel is held back by its shorter cable, so that's the only wheel that can roll without slipping. That again causes the large wheel to slip: it is held back, rotates more than its "rolling distance", causing its own cable to become slack.

    the inner wheel will slip until its cable is taught at which point the entire rig stops.  The outer wheel will have done only part of one turn. 


  10. 17 hours ago, Jonathan said:

    Correct. The shorter cable on the small wheel limits the entire rig to moving with the small wheel's roll, while the large wheel over-spins/spins-out, and generates slack it its cable.


    Even with the cable the inner wheel is dragged of the outerwheel does not slip.


  11. 18 hours ago, Jonathan said:


    No  true.  The outer wheel move further per revolution because its radius is larger. That means the inner wheel is partly dragged, partly rolled. Because one revolution of the inner wheel corresponds to to shorter length than one revolution of the outer wheel. Since the wheels are rigidly affixed to a common axel  both turn together rigidly.  Pay attention to the mechanics, the motion and the geometry of the rig..

  12. 1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

    Indeed! But, you haven't answered any of the questions.

    Describe what must happen during the rolling, not after it. Which of the wheels must roll without slipping, and which must roll with slipping, and why? Do you see the blue and green dots on the wheels? One is on the small wheel, and the other is on the large wheel. What path will each take, and why? One will create a proper cycloid. What type of cycloid will the other create, curtate or prolate? Why?


    If the outer wheel does not slip, the inner wheel does.


  13. 2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:


    If everything in the scenario is unbreakable and can't be distorted in any way---which includes the spools themselves from crushing, the axle from bending, and the wheels becoming unaffixed---nothing can make them move.

    The entire rig comes to a screeching halt when the inner wheel has rotated once. Which means the combined wheel does not make it to the other side. 

  14. 16 hours ago, Jonathan said:



    Line m is parallel to line n. Transversal p intesects lines m and n. Angle 1 is equal to angles 4, 5, and 8. Angle 2 is equal to angles 3 and 6, but not to 7. Angle 7 should be equal to 2, 3, and 6, but it‘s not! It’s a paradox! Resolve the paradox.

    what paradox?  angles 1, 5, 4, 8  are equal  and angles 2, 6, 3, 7 are equal.    <7=<6=<2=<3    what is the problem <7 = <6  by alternative angles  < 3 = <2 by alternate angles   <7 = < 3 by corresponding angles, <2 = <6 by corresponding angles.   A similar proof applies to  angles 1,4, 5, 8.  No paradox.

  15. 10 hours ago, jts said:

    Stephen Hawking was physically fit for going to outer space. And you are not?


    Hawking was cargo.  If I were to go up, I expect to work on the flight.  My flying days are over. I have a solo licence to fly soaring planes (aka gliders) but  I no longer have the reflexes to be a first rate pilot any more so if I go off the ground, I go as a passenger.  In an emergency I could still pilot a plane but I would rather leave that you people who are younger and more fit.


  16. On 11/20/2018 at 1:46 PM, Jonathan said:

    Yeah, you didn't read and comprehend what I wrote, did you? Heh. Not at all. None of it.

    Yes I did. Some of the most creative people who ever lived did physics and they used the metric system.  The English system does  not work based on powers of 2.  However binary arithmetic does and the computer folks do well with powers of two.  


  17. On 11/21/2018 at 1:48 PM, Peter said:

    Your next goal should be going up to resupply the Space Shuttle or is MIR still up there? As for jumping out of an airplane, Never is enough. I would pee my pants. Oh, and add rock climbing / clinging to my do not do list, and seeing how fast your new car can accelerate. I tried that with my Chevy Malibu years ago and blew a gasket. But the car lasted 16 years after that I think.  Now I drive an older Mercury Marquis and though it is a big car, it is pretty fine, but harder to park.

    I am not physically fet for orbital flight.  I live that to the professionals.