• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Jonathan last won the day on December 11

Jonathan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

172 Excellent

1 Follower

About Jonathan

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Jonathan Smith
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Jonathan

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    Hmmm. So, you're not receptive to things like irony, parody or sarcasm, huh? Um, see, what's going on with that quote is that he is mocking the view that a wheel can unroll freely without slipping and end up after one rotation traveling a length other than its circumference. Get it now? No? Man, you're sure revealing a lot of your deficiencies on this thread. J
  2. Jonathan

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    That doesn't get anywhere toward addressing the ancient eddheads' concerns. It only adds more burdens to the "paradox." They couldn't grasp how two wheels of different circumferences could unroll without each slipping on its own path of the same length as the other's. Informing them of cycloids would only provide them with another set of facts that contradicted their false premise. "Now we not only have a circumference that unrolls, without slipping, the other wheel's length instead of its own, but we also now have two differing cycloids, which despite not being the same length or shape, nevertheless travel the same horizontal distance and have one-to-one corresponding points at any and all moments during travel. Therefore, are there voids and other eggheaded infinity stuff?" Cycloids are pretty, and they're interesting, but they don't address the actual problem of the "paradox." The actual problem is that it contains the mistaken premise of both wheels rolling freely over their surfaces with neither slipping. That premise is just as mistaken as the premise in the three gear challenge that I posted. One cannot solve a "paradox" which contains a false premise without addressing and correcting the false premise. Observing that there are different cycloids while maintaining the false belief that there is no slippage of either wheel on its own surface is failure. The only success involved with cycloids would be to take the position that they are one of many means of confirming slippage and of confirming which single circumference is rolling freely and not slipping. J
  3. Jonathan

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    Yep, more hawrgwarshing con art scammers! Loozhuns! J
  4. Jonathan

    Credit Where Due

    Turdeau, yes, but also Carol. She caused most of it. J
  5. Jonathan

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    This page is pretty cool. You can roll the wheels by click-hold-dragging them, you can change the ratio of the wheels, and also decouple them (the "decouple" button is in the "click here for explanation box"). Merlin and Tony, crank it all the way up to 5:1. I doubt that you'll be able to grasp it even at that ratio, but it's your best chance. Merlin, you might want to see if you can figure out a way to hack the site so that you can molest it like you did with Wikipedia. J
  6. Jonathan

    Credit Where Due

    Well, I have no doubt that you approve of state-approved torture and murder. It's your philosophy And, no, you don't debate moral principles. You only boast that your opinions, about what you wish to use the state to compel others to do, are highly "moral." You don't back it up with anything resembling "debate." J
  7. Jonathan

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    Heh. "It says line." The line that you intentionally omitted from your Wikipedia diagram. Does the Mechanica say to remove the line? In what way is it a crutch? You've made that accusation many times, as if it's devastating. Explain. How is reality a crutch? How is my referring to reality "faking reality"? Does the Mechanica state that the "paradox" shall not be solved by mechanical means? There are many substantive criticisms and questions here that I and others have put to you, but that you haven't answered. Your refusal to address them is curious. Are you incapable of answering? Stumped? You seem to think that anger and name calling is a sufficient means of countering all of the substance that we've posted. That and molesting the Wikipedia page. It's not sufficient. J
  8. Jonathan

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    There's nothing tortuous about it for the rest of us. It's actually really simple. No, it doesn't necessitate putting in a track. The track is already there. It's been there all along, all the way back to Aristotle's day. Your response is nonsense, and reveals that you don't grasp any aspect of the alleged "paradox." Ignorance is bliss. Stupid is easy. J
  9. Jonathan

    Credit Where Due

    Your brain is not functioning well today, dear. Maybe take a break from the outside world. You're too worked up with your hatred of Trump. Step away from it for a while. Cool off. Take some time to get a grip. J
  10. Jonathan

    The Story Wars of Hot Political Issues

    Ish. She's no Anna Chapman. J
  11. Jonathan

    Trump humor

    And yet you're flapping your mouth. That's right, just make shit up. Just outright lie. J
  12. Jonathan

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    We know. You don't like the track and slippage. You dislike the surface beneath the small wheel so much that you blank it out of existence. You tell us the lie that the original formulation of the Aristotle's Wheel Paradox did not include it (line "HK" in the original formulation). And beyond that, even if you accept the surface only for the sake of argument, you refuse to accept the reality of slippage. You don't want to hear it. You don't want to consider it. We get it: You don't accept reality. J
  13. Jonathan

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    Homer Simpson. J
  14. Jonathan

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    That's seriously terrifying. J
  15. Jonathan

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    False. The concept of traction is not an all or nothing proposition. It comes in degrees. Full traction, partial traction, minimal traction, no traction. Wheels turning in the direction of travel while slipping is not a contradiction.. Tony, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You've abandoned reality, and are trying to talk us into joining you. You're not convincing anyone, if you haven't noticed. J