• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by BaalChatzaf

  1. 1 hour ago, jts said:

    I am surprised. I didn't think you of all people would have a weight problem. And how did you get the idea that we were talking about weight control?

    A healthy person can go without food for days or weeks without being weak or dizzy. Fasting is a truth revealer that reveals weaknesses that are not normally apparent.

    I eat anything I want (some things I don't want) as much as I want any time I want without putting on lard. My diet is high carb. I have no great interest in weight control and I tend to be bored by the subject. My interest in fasting has nothing to do with weight control.

    I can understand why you might go for low carb if you have a problem with carbs. But a truly healthy person has no problem with carbs and has no need of such an extreme and abnormal dietary restriction.


    I am just trimming a bit.  I started a low carb diet. It seems to be working.  Now I can get to my optimal weight.  I am not grossly overweight,  but I am carrying more pounds than I wish to carry.  So far my cardiohealth is good.  I have a resting pulse of 48 bpm  and I can ride 20-40 miles on my bike w.o. stopping to rest.  Not bad for an 82 year old codger.


    • Like 1
  2. Healthy hunger, after moderate intake  should not feel like anything.  You should not leave the table feeling weak or dizzy and you should not leave the table feeling stuffed up to your ears.   I am on a low carb diet  and I feel just fine.  No weakness, no dizziness, no pangs  and no overstuffed feeling either.  I have dropped 22 pounds in the last six weeks (mostly water weight) and I am losing about  a half pound a week  by not overeating and going to the gym every day or almost every day.  I exercise about an hour and half  and burn  400 calories by a combination of aerobic  and weight exercise.   I expect to be at my target weight  by next June  and I will have no trouble staying there.   I have said my fond farewell to bread, cookies, cake and bananas.   The only part of the potato I eat is the skin and no more white rice, just a moderate portion of brown rice.  Once at the target I will balance calories in  with calories burned  and no carbohydrates (or very little carbohydrates).


  3. 3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

    So far, so good. What about the rest?

    The challenge was to specifically identify the lengths that the 0.25 inch orange and yellow marks on the edges of the wheels are in contact with the lines.


    Yellow marks three times longer than the orange marks.  


  4. 56 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

    Earlier, I wrote:

    No takers?!!! C'mon, this is super easy stuff. The math is simple.

    Of course, the solution can't be found online, copied and pasted, but there shouldn't be any need for that.

    Here's an illustration of challenge that I issued above:


    The large wheel is 15 inches in circumference. The small one is 5 inches in circumference. Each of the orange and yellow marks on the wheels' edges are a quarter of an inch (0.25"). The black horizontal lines contact the bottoms of the wheels. The yellow and orange segments of the lines are the lengths that the yellow and orange marks on the wheels are in contact with the lines as the large wheel rolls freely and without slippage on the lower line.

    Identify those lengths. What is the length of each orange segment on the bottom line, and what is the length of each yellow segment on the top line.

    What do the lengths reveal about what is happening?

    Should we call this another "paradox," since the yellow marks are covering a greater distance than the length of their sides which contact the line? Or should we stop being retarded, and instead reject the false premise that the smaller wheel doesn't slip or skid in comparison to its line?

    Oh, and here's a version of the illustration for retards:


    The same is true as the above in this illustration: The segments that the smaller circle's yellow sections contact the upper line are much longer than the segments that the larger circle's orange segments contact the lower line.

    Do the math. Precisely how many times greater are the yellow segments on the upper line than the orange segments on the lower line?


    15/5 = 3/1


  5. 17 minutes ago, merjet said:

    I've already answered that multiple times, freaking retard. The center of the outer wheel and the center of the inner "wheel" are concentric. Do you know what concentric means? If one center moves a given distance, then the "other" center necessarily moves the same distance. Ditto for each wheel/"wheel"/circle as a whole, necessarily. Are you so geometrically deficient that you can't grasp that and translation?

    Actually "concentric" is an adjective  which describes  a ---set--- of objects   all with the same center point. 

  6. 54 minutes ago, merjet said:

    Excerpt from the linked paper by Richard Arthur: "But on a second line of interpretation, that misses the point of the paradox, as well as the fruitful lines of inquiry that are engendered by interpreting it properly. Galileo represents this line of interpretation. So do Robert Boyle and others who discuss the IRota AristotelicaI in the context of the composition of matter, and its rarefaction and condensation. According to [ ] this interpretation, the two lines AB and CD are in fact necessarily equal, and the point is to explain how this could be.  It is not legitimate to try to resolve a thought experiment, such as this seems to be, by an appeal to merely empirical factors like slipping and sliding. For them the problem is this: given that the two lines are equal, how can this happen without slipping or sliding?" (p. 9-10).

    By Jonathan's criteria Galileo, Robert Boyle, and Drabkin were morons, retards, and spatially/mechanically inept/deficient. It's also interesting that the paper talks about cycloids, which are only targets for ridicule by Jonathan in this thread.

    Arthur's article does not follow with an explanation why the two lines AB and CD are necessarily equal, but I did. 

    The difference between a thought experiment and a real physical experiment is good. Jonathan's videos are merely the former. There are no ledges in real physical experiments with ordinary real world tires, rims, or rolls of tape. Real rims don't slip or skid or screech on imaginary roads. Of course, my saying this is a "rejection of reality" according to Jonathan. ?. He believes his phantasm is reality!  ?

    "A more charitable interpretation of Galileo’s version of the thought experiment is that the hub skips over infinitely many infinitely small gaps, which sum to a finite
    length, namely 2pRN – 2prn. Mersenne and others regarded this solution as betraying the idea of a continuum" (p. 16)

    I note the affinity to Max's and Baal's ad hoc arithmetic.

    Ad hoc arithmetic?   If you want to do physics, then shut up and calculate


  7. Ask yourself what does it mean for a wheel to roll without slipping.  It means  that if a wheel of radius R  turns through an angle A,  the center moves  R*A.  So when A = 2*pi (one turn)  the center moves a distance  equal to the circumference of  the wheel.  (A is measured in radians). 

  8. 6 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

    Slips and drags relative to what?

    little wheel  slips and drags over its track, the purple line in your diagram.  By the way, the center of both wheels is one and the same point.. 


    From the wiki article on Aristotle's wheel "paradox"  --- "One way to understand the paradox of the wheel is to reject the assumption that the smaller wheel indeed traces out its circumference, without ensuring that it, too, rolls without slipping on a fixed surface. In fact, it is impossible for both wheels to perform such motion. Physically, if two joined concentric wheels with different radii were rolled along parallel lines then at least one would slip; if a system of cogs were used to prevent slippage then the wheels would jam. A modern approximation of such an experiment is often performed by car drivers who park too close to a curb. The car's outer tire rolls without slipping on the road surface while the inner hubcap both rolls and slips across the curb; the slipping is evidenced by a screeching noise"

    Here is the entire article:'s_wheel_paradox#Analysis


  9. 9 hours ago, anthony said:

    Huh? (Hi Bob) There is "no paradox", indeed -- for the reason that there is NO "slip and drag".

    One turn of the large circle = one turn of the small circle. Otherwise, a tyre on your car will be slipping on its wheel rim.

    The false implication drawn is made clear in your link - by the inner horizontal line tracing the passage of a point on the small wheel.

    Differing velocities, would you agree?

    Phenomenalism, yup.

    wrong.  The small wheel slips and drags because the center is carried horizontally by the outer wheel.  Do the math and you will see your error.  Or as I sometimes say  "shut up and calculate".


    • Thanks 1
  10. 50 minutes ago, Max said:

    It seems it's no longer a question of physics and mathematics, but of language and the meaning of sentences. Does "it's essentially the physical principle behind the gearing of a bicycle or motorcycle" mean the same thing as "it is claimed that gears and chains are essential for explaining Aristotle's wheel paradox". In particular, does "essentially" in the first sentence mean the same thing as "essential" in the second sentence? 


    I wouldn't think so, but I suppose there must be many people on this forum with a better knowledge of the English language than I have, perhaps they can enlighten me? Why is everyone here, with a few exceptions, so silent about this matter? Where are all the big names who give their opinion on practically any subject discussed here? Is it embarrassment?


    There is no paradox.   Please see:

    The small wheel mounted on the same  hub as the big (outer wheel)   slips and drags.. For an angle theta that a radius turns  the center is  moved  2*pi*theta*R  horizontally  where R is the radius of the larger outer wheel.   This  exceeds   2*pi*theta*r   where r is the radius of the smaller innerwheel.   R > r  so the distance that the center goes during a turn of angle theta is greater than the smaller inner wheel would have gone if it did NOT SLIP.  The resolution of the so-called paradox is that the inner wheel slips  by the quantity  2*pi*theta* (R-r).   As the article I quoted states  the appearance of a paradox is based on the  false assertion that the existence of a continuous one to one function between the points on the circumference of the inner and outer wheels in implies the length of the arc on the inner wheel corresponding to a turn  of   d theta (in infinitesimal turn) equal  the length of the corresponding arc on the outer wheel.   Not so.   the length of the outer arc is to the length of the inner arc  as R is to r.   Problem solved.   

    It is unnecessary to fall into the philosophical   tar pit  of Logical Positivism which denies  an external reality  and asserts all we have  are relations  between data, i.e. perceptions of the outer reality.  This is sometimes  called phenomenalism.   It says  that either there is no outer (external) reality  or all that our minds can ever get are the experience of the outer reality (if it exists).  This is also the premise that Kant used. He said there is an external reality,  but we only get what the mind filters in (of it).   To be truthful, I do not know of a satisfactory resolution of the disconnect between the external or "real" reality  and the  perceived reality that our intellects can deal with.  I do not resolve the paradox  (I am sorry to say). I  AVOID the paradox  by resorting to the "shut up and calculate" tactic in which I get an answer that conforms to what I experience each and every time I make a measurement and calculate an assertion of what I will measure.  This approach is never wrong, but it is totally unsatisfying to those who insist that the :"real" reality is there  and can be experienced or sensed.  Kant  denied this.  Me?   I avoid the disagreement. 

    I beg you to forgive me for not resolving the question you raised.  The best I can do for you is clarify the problem,  but I still leave you with the problem.  Sorry about that.

    • Like 2
  11. 10 minutes ago, Jonathan said:


    No, the only solution is the one that I've offered above. Canadians need to be in perpetual lockdown, and to be protected from themselves. They need to be handcuffed and manacled in public while being escorted by government protectors.



    quid custodiet ad ipso custodii?


  12. On 7/18/2018 at 11:59 PM, Peter said:

    Harry did not study science enough to mix science and philosophy. Some of his omissions and goofs are illustrated in the latest The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, in the article written by Robert Campbell called "What We Need to Know." The article discusses Binswanger's book, "How We Know: Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation." 

    Binswinger's grasp of the history of the human species  is  very much in error.  Our kind of human did not emigrate from Africa  until about 60,000 ybp.  This was the second wave of emigration by homo sapien.  The first successful emigration of hominids from Africa  eas Neanderthal,  about 300,000 ybp.  Neanderthal  was very successful  but the Ice Age and the competition from Homo Sapien Sapien finished Neanderthal off about 35,000 ybp.  Homo Sapien Sapien had a more gracile skeleton than Neanderthal and was less muscular.  However Homo Sapien Sapien caught on to human networking, exchanging ideas and trading stuff  so had much better hunting technology than did Neanderthal.  There is evidence that limited mating took place between H. S. S.  and H. N  and Homo Sapien Sapien outside of Africa acquired Neanderthal genes  to a limited extent.  The Human Race as it is currently constituted  has about 1 % of genetic material  inherited from H. Neanderthal.

    Our kind of human survived because he learned to use his wits and indulge in abstract thought to some degree. We can tell from the cave paintings that some of our ancestors has a "good eye"  and artistic imagination. 

  13. At least three genuine cheers for the rescuers he freed 12 boys and their team coach from a water blocked cave.  They were volunteers.  They differ from  normal people in several ways. Like firemen  who run into burning buildings while "normal" people  flee from them, these brave souls took their chances  swimming in total darkness to bring light, food and other supplies to the trapped boys and their coach. Sadly, one of the rescuers became lost and drowned.  However, that unfortunate soul know the hazards before he went into the caves  and went into the cave in spite of the hazard.

    We also note the Elon Musk proposed building a boy size submarine to get the lads out.  Which is better than building a Hyperloop system  to rescue the kids.

  14. On 8/20/2017 at 12:14 AM, Ellen Stuttle said:


    But here's the rub:  For alarmist blame-humans scenarios to look viable, it has to be the case that atmospheric CO2 concentration is the primary driver of global temperatures, and the longer the hiatus continued, the less viable this requirement became.  So what the alarmists started doing as their main tactic was to try to get rid of the hiatus with data maneuvering and verbal tricks.

    The Sun is the primary driver of global temperatures.  CO2, water vapor  and other trace "greenhouse"  gases modulate (in some cases)  or amplify (in other cases) the Sun's effect on the atmosphere.  The other modulator of the Sun's effects are the seas and oceans. Water has a very high heat capacity which means it can absorb a lot of heat with only small temperature increases.

  15. 10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    Not a bad idea.


    The story can be a thriller about a protagonist, let's call him Caysin Skylo, who works for a wind power company--an idealist in the progressive mold. One day Caysin inadvertently overhears a cartel of globalists (the details of which can be worked out later) discussing their plans to scam the world with a carbon credit scheme. But worse, he overhears them laughing about the future suicide of an eminent scientist who opposes manmade climate change and is in the way of their evil plans. As there are some very famous people in the middle of this cartel meeting, Caysin, conflicted and disillusioned, believes them.

    So off he goes to warn the scientist before he can be "suicided." Except he arrives too late and witnesses the murder of the scientist. The hired thugs are dressing it up to look like a suicide. Caysin stumbles across a lady secretly witnessing the same crime and their accident causes the thugs to botch the suicide staging. This is because the scientist has been meeting with several other famous scientists who oppose manmade global warming and they emerge to see what the fuss is all about. They discover the dead body of their colleague. The thugs take off. But one of the thugs panics, returns and kills all the scientists. He tries to kill Caysin and the lady, but they escape.

    The lady, let's call her Harper Hale, will turn out to be a private investigator for some small oil fields in Texas and Caysin's future love interest. Maybe she's even the daughter of the owner (Hale and Shale Corporation :) ). She's trying to build a case against the cartel, but Caysin, ever the idealist, barges in where several of the globalists are, confronts them and appeals to their sense of ideals that he has heard them preach for decades. He makes a very moving speech about saving the planet to them. They go along with him pretending to be friendly, but when he isn't looking, they try to kill him. Harper, who has been secretly following him (cussing to herself at his bullheadedness) saves him, but now the chase is on. The cartel people are after him and after this lady who, to them, appeared out of nowhere.

    The cartel frames the two for the murder of the group of scientists, so, in addition to the bad guys chasing them, law enforcement the world over is after them. The stakes keep getting steeper and surprising twists and turns keep unfolding as the chase goes through its ups and downs--including the introduction of some very colorful characters. There are some gruesome deaths, explosions, gun fights, and so on. Maybe there is an inside friend in a law enforcement agency they can communicate with who helps them a bit and believes them, but who is limited by the law and the regulations of the agency.

    They can even secretly meet with the lady's boss (or father), who is a good guy and who provides them with funds and resources to continue their running. He might even be a mentor figure. And there has to be an obligatory torture scene somewhere--maybe the mentor (father) turns out in a painful reversal for Harper and is actually one of the bad guys. He later tortures them both after offering his daughter part of the scheme, which she refuses. He not only wants to ingratiate himself more deeply with the leaders of the cartel, but also to get secret information out of them that he knows they have witnessed. This information will allow him to become one of the leaders of the cartel. They escape, obviously.

    The cartel is going to have a huge save-the-planet event that will be broadcast to the entire world. Once it is presented, the US President and leaders of the governments the world over are going to announce the adoption of the universal carbon credit scheme as a save-the-planet initiative, and sign a treaty to formalize it all. Some climate disaster somewhere can be part of this, a disaster secretly triggered artificially by the cartel, just to add urgency to adoption of the initiative.

    But Caysin has video evidence of the meeting of the cartel's leaders where they brag about their evil plans. He decides to use this event to expose them to the entire world. What's worse, the video also shows the Big Seven Oil Conglomerates (crony corporatists) are actually the ones funding the carbon credit scheme and the entire manmade climate change movement, including this event (these folks are crony corporatists, too). This is proven by statements and villainous laughter coming from the mouths of the most famous global warming people in the cartel meeting. They even joke about rationing air the globe over and seriously discuss how this can be achieved. At root, the elites on both sides are the same damn people. And they are working together to ultimately rule the world through dictatorship by technocrat.

    Things develop to a heart-pounding climax, the climate disaster is foiled, some of the bad guys are killed, some disgraced in front of the whole world and some arrested on the spot as the cameras catch them doing bad things. Caysin and Harper finally kiss in the middle of the chaos swirling all around them. (The music swells. :) )

    The evil father of Harper just barely escapes and lands defeated, but not broken, in a place, maybe a secret island he owns, where it is clear there will be a sequel.

    As to the stealing of clouds and snow, this can be a rich metaphor running throughout the entire story--the clouds representing idealistic innocence and the snow representing the painful hard-won truth about the evil elitists. Appearance versus reality. Or whatever. Anything worth stealing. :) This can be enhanced in the settings: snowy mountain climbs, airplane flights in cloudy skies, winter in the city with snow falling, etc. The climate change folks can even have a cocktail they invent called the Snow Cloud. There can be paintings that feature clouds and snow. Etc.

    That's just a brain dump I did on the spot and needs a lot of work, but whaddya think?

    :evil:  :) 

    (btw - Not to be difficult, but I prefer not to collaborate on fiction writing at this stage. After I have a few works under my belt and selling in the market, I might be game if you are serious. I mean, why not? You do have a creative streak. Somehow, though, I don't think this particular story will be to your liking. :) )


    Read State of  Fear by Michael Chrichton


  16. 11 minutes ago, gio said:

    I heard a lecture where Ayn Rand was answering a question where she was making a hypothesis about the number of people in Atlantis (it was about a thousand I think, but I have to check).

    I can not refind it, does that tell you something?

    Thank you.

    Atlantis  is the fictitious city appearing in a science fiction story by Plato (See Timeaus and Critias).  He never said how many people lived there.


  17. 1 hour ago, Peter said:

    From The BBC: Einstein's travel diaries reveal racist stereotypes: Newly published private travel diaries have revealed Albert Einstein's racist and xenophobic views. Written between October 1922 and March 1923, the diaries track his experiences in Asia and the Middle East. In them, he makes sweeping and negative generalizations, for example calling the Chinese "industrious, filthy, obtuse people." Einstein would later in life advocate for civil rights in the US, calling racism "a disease of white people".



    This is the first time the diaries have been published as a standalone volume in English. Published by Princeton University Press, The Travel Diaries of Albert Einstein: The Far East, Palestine, and Spain, 1922-1923 was edited by Ze'ev Rosenkranz, assistant director of the California Institute of Technology's Einstein Papers Project.



    Einstein traveled from Spain to the Middle East and, via Sri Lanka, then called Ceylon, on to China and Japan. The physicist describes arriving in Port Said in Egypt and facing "Levantines of every shade... as if spewed from hell" who come aboard their ship to sell their goods. He also describes his time in Colombo in Ceylon, writing of the people: "They live in great filth and considerable stench down on the ground, do little, and need little." But the famous physicist reserves his most cutting comments for the Chinese. According to a piece in the Guardian about the diaries, he describes Chinese children as "spiritless and obtuse", and calls it "a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races."



    In other entries he calls the Chinese "a peculiar herd-like nation," and "more like automatons than people", before claiming there is "little difference" between Chinese men and women, and questioning how the men are "incapable of defending themselves" from female "fatal attraction."



    Noted for both his scientific brilliance and his humanitarianism, Albert Einstein emigrated to the US in 1933 after the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. The Jewish scientist described racism as "a disease of white people" in a 1946 speech at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania. END QUOTE






    Einstein's attitude on race, on women, on politics were a product of the times in which he lived  and his upbringing.  While Einstein might have been Liberal in his political views he had a very typical (for the time) attitude toward women.  He treated his first wife Milava like shit after the lust wore off.  He treated his second wife, who was also his cousin, as a nurse maid  and a servant.   His attitude toward Asians was no doubt influenced by the prevailing views (of that time)  toward Asians. Very few people have the strength of mind and character  to fully  outgrow and depart from their upbringing.  Einstein  shed the then current prejudices concerning space and time and  blazed a different path.  He did not do the same for his regard of non-Europeans and women.  No one is perfect.


  18. On 6/3/2018 at 7:06 PM, william.scherk said:

    Everything steel and aluminum costs more now, so there's that.  If Canada matched the milk-supports of the USA, our dairy would be the cheapest in North America and would flood all the way to New Orleans. Our version of communist-based milk-price-support is not gargantuan cheese stockpiles but managing production, planned to demand.  This achieves the Canadian goal of market price stability and allows innovation.  So Quebec dominates all of North America with its cheeses' quality and reach  while its aviation and heavy rail products inch their way into every pantry.  Its circuses also crush everyone in the American market. What to do about these built-in advantages? What are we supposed to do?

    Our lumber is as always the finest in the Americas and stands on Crown land (cheap!) and our hydro is cheap because it's by nature's own powerful capitalist design; our oil is cheap and handy to the US, as are our coal and copper, nickel, uranium, molybdenum, diamonds and gold. Our grain is managed by national co-operatives, so that the prairies never again experience a Dirty Thirties.  I just don't see these things re-balancing to serve a Republican agenda.  No elected conservative in Canada has come down on the Trump side of the disputes.

    I don't really know the full outrage Canada has visited upon America via  trade, but Trump's tweets and statements indicate his displeasure with these areas above. How else to we f**k them over, I'll do some digging.

    The best way to make peace with Trump may be to blame it on those danged political structures designed by French-Canadians ... n'est-ce pas?


    -- for those tempted by the idea that Canada is simply a dominion, not really apart from America and actually "ruled" by the Deep Understanding that Canadian foreign policy will not be allowed to get seriously out of whack with America's, and tempted to view it as a backyard in the sense of property, then you need to court dissonance and point out that this suggests an ever greater union. Union, as in no cross-state impediments to commerce.

    Trade destroyed the old Japanese system. Trade destroyed the communism of Mao. Trade made the Soviet Union great.  Now the dwindling economies of the East are mad. The slumping work corps and birth rates in Russia are but one example of a system in decay. Almost psychotic levels of corruption abound in the former soviet lands.  What point to reward their countries with access and contracts?

    I am totally optimistic about US-Canada trade in the long-run. It churns back and forth every day and it will continue. I do see it mostly on Justin Trudeau's shoulders.  The two leaders should meet at some point if the dispute gets fiery and the lava splatters widely.

    Who'd have thought of a 'friendly' summit with Russia, and an 'unfriendly' summit with Canada?

    It use a phrase  of the (older) George Bush,  Canada is the kinder, gentler  America.

  19. 9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    The guard was not killed in revenge for anything, nor executed for having committed an offense against a power that be, nor murdered in a fit of rage. He was exterminated dispassionately like you do when you step on a cockroach or swat a fly.

    And ya' think Dagny felt a twinge of guilt later?

    Hell no.

    Of course not.  Dagny was part of a commando raid  to rescue Galt.   The ends (in that case) justified the means (in this case  killing the guard).  The Mission determined the tactics.