merjet

Members
  • Content count

    2,816
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

merjet last won the day on June 24

merjet had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

2 Followers

About merjet

  • Rank
    $$$$$$
  • Birthday November 10

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Ohio

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Merlin Jetton
  • Description
    retired actuary (Fellow of the Society of Actuaries), Chartered Financial Analyst
  • Articles
    Objectivity http://www.objectivity-archive.com/abstracts.html ; Journal of Ayn Rand Studies http://aynrandstudies.com/jars/index.asp V7N2, V11N2, V13N2, V17N1, V18N1, more to come; My blog: http://merjet46.blogspot.com
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

10,943 profile views
  1. merjet

    Correspondence and Coherence blog

    A Life of Discovery #3 A Life of Discovery #4
  2. merjet

    Correspondence and Coherence blog

    A Life of Discovery #1 A Life of Discovery #2
  3. merjet

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    Pitiful. Suppose for the wheel and axle pictured here: 1. The diameter of each wheel is 12 inches and the diameter of the axle is 3 inches. The wheel and axle roll one revolution, or 12*pi = 37.7 inches. According to self-deluded Jonathan: 1. The axle must slip 28.27 inches, or some other non-zero distance his diseased imagination severed from reality can fabricate. 2. There is an invisible, 2nd support tangent to the axle that the axle slips on!! Baal: "The inner wheel [e.g. axle] is rigidly affixed to the outer wheel. since it has a smaller radius its circumference is less than the circumference of the outer wheel so it slip on its rail by a distance equal to the difference of the circumferences." (Link, my bold). Max: "When the larger wheel makes one rotation without slipping, it travels over a distance of 2 π R. So does the smaller wheel [e.g. axle], but if this wheel [e.g. axle] wouldn't slip, it would only travel over a distance 2 π r (r < R). However, it has to travel over a distance of 2 π R, so apart from its rotation it must also slip with respect to its support, to keep up with the larger wheel." (Link, my bold). Its rail?? Its support?? Anyway, to both: 2*pi*R = Rotation + Translation + Slippage 2*pi*R = 2*pi*r + 0 + 2*pi*(R-r) Both imply that translation is irrelevant. Alternatively, Translation = Rotation + Slippage, which is ad hoc and far short of comprehensive. Me: "Translation fully accounts for [the smaller circle/axle] moving the horizontal distance 2πR, like it does for its center and the wheel with radius R and the same center." (Link).
  4. merjet

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    You are wrong again. It is pure rolling that does not include slipping (link). You are welcome to use the formula and say the small circle's amount of slippage is zero. I would.
  5. merjet

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    What an idiot! Can you read this? It says "rolling while slipping." Can you read this? It says "rolling and slipping."
  6. merjet

    Correspondence and Coherence blog

    LeBron, Trump, Altruism
  7. merjet

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    Here's another challenge. Aristotle's Wheel Paradox says the smaller circle moves horizontally 2*pi*R, R being the larger circle's radius. Given that and rolling = rotation & translation, use the following framework to decompose 2*pi*R quantitatively. Rolling = Rotation + Translation + Slippage 2*pi*R = Rotation + Translation + Slippage If you wish, add another free variable to define and use: 2*pi*R = Rotation + Translation + Slippage + X How much is each variable on the right side of the equation so that they add to 2*pi*R? Zeroes and negative amounts are okay.
  8. merjet

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    I second that. Jonathan's remark was rot.
  9. merjet

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    Yes, I understand it well enough to identify your fallacies. First, the inner circle for a roll of tape or tire depicts the boundary between the roll of tape or tire and the hole, not merely the hole. Second, your argument assumes that a moving object implies a traced path. By modus tollens no traced path implies no object. Apply those to a bullet or arrow that's shot upwards in the air and then falls to the ground. By your faulty premise the bullet or arrow doesn't have a trajectory/path because it doesn't leave a trace for you to see afterwards. 😃
  10. merjet

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    Try finding a kindergarten and relearning how to count. If you want to see who's confused, look at your image in a mirror. Invite your con artist pal to join you.
  11. merjet

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    I've already answered that multiple times, freaking retard. The center of the outer wheel and the center of the inner "wheel" are the same. 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?
  12. merjet

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    Is your reading comprehension that inept or are you that dishonest? I didn't appeal to Galileo's authority any. I only alluded to your obsession to insult your superiors. I have not endorsed Galileo's response to the paradox, and nowhere have I endorsed such solution like you imply, moron. Regardless, it's much better than your "solution." Forgive me, everyone, for even responding to J's moronic nonsense. It was fun for a while, but it has become stale and boring. A friend asked me why I even bother to respond to a creature so pathetic that Ellsworth Toohey would adore him. Excellent question. I do have better things to do than pay attention to the obnoxious, self-deluded dimwit.
  13. merjet

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    Is your reading comprehension that poor or are you lying again? Jon -- not I -- wrote "slippage between the two wheels." I don't claim there are two wheels in the paradox setup. Like the Wikipedia talk page says, Aristotle's wheel paradox has nothing to do with two wheels of different sizes. Also, unlike you, I don't arbitrarily assert there is a second horizontal surface. My wheel examples are realistic, yet you treat them as irrelevant. Your wheel examples are unrealistic, yet you treat them as the only ones that matter. You like to pretend that real world examples, such as a tire or roll of tape count for nothing, while the figments of your diseased imagination untethered from reality are all that count. The obnoxious ignoranus's toolkit consists of name-calling, distorting, lies, evasions, con games, and spewing more reality-denying, illogical hogwash. Beware, J. Wile E. Coyote. My simple, elegant solution to the paradox is like a 10-ton boulder poised to plummet and demolish you if you look up at it. 😄
  14. merjet

    Correspondence and Coherence blog

    Marconi #7 Marconi #8 Marconi #9 Marconi #10 Marconi #11
  15. merjet

    Aristotle's wheel paradox

    😃 Yes, like Jonathan pretending there is a visible ledge tangent to the rim of this wheel and there are visible ledges tangent to the rim of my car's wheels and every other car, truck, and motorcycle on the road. What supports these alleged ledges? Skyhooks? Why has my car never crashed into the ledges of another car, truck, or motorcycle? Why does nobody else claim the real existence of such ledges? I assume there are some who don't want to kick Jonathan when he's down by telling him that he's wrong. He has shown himself to be willing to go down with his ship on this one, reality be damned. Poor Jonathan resembles Wile E. Coyote. Every trick he tries not only fails, it backfires on him. Beep beep. Vroom. 🙂 😃 "These are facts of reality. The small wheel slips." Repetitive hogwash. He fantasizes that his half-baked* thought experiment using con art is as telling as a real world experiment using a real physical wheel. * for reasons I have given plus a few more He asserts that his personal phantasms are facts of reality because he made an animated video! 😄 In animation Wile E. Coyote can demolish himself to bits and return unharmed seconds later as if nothing happened. Sorry, reality doesn't work that way.