Max

Members
  • Content Count

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Max last won the day on January 24

Max had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

76 Excellent

About Max

  • Rank
    $$$

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Max Keller

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Brad, There have been a lot of apocalyptic stories in the media about rising sea levels that would threaten to flood whole countries or at least a large part of them. But then I read in a recent (October 2018) report by the IPCC (not really an organization known for covering up climate problems): ( https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf ) So, with a 2°C global warming, the expectation is some 50 cm, at least < 1m, sea level rise in 80 years, which is a period of several generations. I can’t see that as very threatening. What’s your opinion on this - am I missing something?
  2. Max

    Newbsie

    I see, quod licet Iovi non licet bovi.
  3. Max

    Newbsie

    Just a few comments about Newberry’s article – a complete analysis would be far too long. The objectivist ideal is of course that they should be bent backwards, like these: http://cordair.com/artists/jensen/works/ascending/index.html http://romanticrealism.com/dellorco/images/imagination_th.jpg http://romanticrealism.com/denys/images/icarus.jpg Compare with the ugly bent forwards man in Vermeer’s painting: https://tinyurl.com/yd8q8ksq He also has a dangerous weapon in his hand, not a pretty picture! I thought it wasn't unusual that in winter trees don’t have leaves. Perhaps they’re just conifers, that remain green in winter? I can’t judge from this very tiny image. Anyway, this symbolism is just your interpretation, it doesn’t have any general validity. When I see a road, I don’t think it must lead either to happiness on earth or to a murky despair. Sometimes a road is just a road. False dichotomy, just as meaningless as the benevolent vs. malevolent universe. One could say that some men are to be valued as good and some men are to be despised as evil (and many are something in between), but “man” as such isn’t anymore good or evil than “nature”, or “the universe”, that would be a primitive religious viewpoint. Ah, those evil landscape painters. Often they don’t paint any humans in their landscapes, and when they put them in the picture, they’re almost always quite small. Time for a metaphysical judgment! Even worse are still life painters, they never paint humans, unless it’s a skull that is quite dead. What does that say about their psychoepistomology?!
  4. Let's ask the horse itself, IPCC Special Report, October 2018: https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf Model-based projections of global mean sea level rise (relative to 1986–2005) suggest an indicative range of 0.26 to 0.77 m by 2100 for 1.5°C of global warming, 0.1 m (0. 04–0.16 m) less than for a global warming of 2°C (medium confidence). Doesn‘t sound so alarming to me, particularly because it comes from the IPCC.
  5. I saw just for a second or so the Windows hourglass, and then everything was the same as before, filename etc. No message or other symbols appeared. But since today it suddenly works! As far as I know, I didn't change anything since the last time it wouldn't work, so it's a great mystery. The only thing I can think of is that one of those attempts to remedy the problem I mentioned in my previous post, did in fact have the desired effect, but only after restarting the computer, although there was no message to that effect. But I'm glad that I now can explore the program on my big screen. It looks great!
  6. As I already wrote, the program runs fine on my laptop (Windows 10 home). I copied that file to my PC (Windows 10 Pro), but there it just doesn't do anything, not even saying "Unknown Publisher". I tried changing protection settings, run as Administrator, compatibility mode, all to no avail.
  7. I've no such things that could be used, but Amazon is your friend: I ordered a set of laces, flat and 160 cm long and a set of 10 cm styropor balls.
  8. I copied the file from my laptop to my PC, but there it still doesn't do anything...
  9. Nothing happened, at least I didn't see anything happen, I downloaded it again, but with the samer result. This was on my PC with Windows 10 pro. I just tried it on my laptop with Windows home, and now it worked! Strange. I'll try it later again on the other computer and compare the files.
  10. This is a fascinating subject, quite counterintuitive. I downloaded the program, but that doesn't do anything on my computer (at least I hope it doesn't do some hidden damage...). I'd like to play with such a system, but I don't have flat shoelaces or something similar that can be used to observe the twists clearly. Parhaps I should order aome of them on Amazon... I'd like some hands on experience. Rotating twice to get the original configuration back, that seems to be tied(!) to the SU(2) group and its difference from the SO(3) group. I should lookup those things again... Let me guess: if 1,2,3 works, so do 2,3,1 and 3,1,2, or just the other three?
  11. That is of course the fallacy. The interval [0,2] contains infinitely many points, and infinity is not a natural number, therefore the notion of density doesn't work, as the density is also infinite, and 2 * ∞ = ∞. Cantor, cardinality, continuum and all that. It isn't surprising that people like Aristotle and Galileo didn't understand such things well. Therefore those helpless attempts to consider circles "jumping" or "waiting" to make up for differences in traveled distance in Aristotle's paradox.
  12. I know, this was in fact just a first attempt, with the idea that I later could improve on it, I had also doubts about some of my assumptions, but as the result was fairly close to what one might expect (perhaps I was lucky?) and enough to falsify Merlin's argument, I decided to write it up. I used the frame that you posted earlier.
  13. As I wrote, it was an approximation, not an exact calculation. I neglected the vertical shrink factor, as the relevant vertical distance differences are much smaller than the horizontal differences. I used the width of the wheel, because the height could not accurately be measured, When I try to make an estimate for the height, I get 489, i.e. 1% less than the widthI measured. I could of course make more estimates by drawing lines with various angles through the center of the wheel, but as this "rough calculation" as I called it gave already a result that is quite close to the value expected when the wheel rolls without slipping, this was for me enough to falsify Mernlin's claim that the video didn't show a non-slipping wheel. But of course you may improve the results by using more exact calculations.
  14. I’ve tried to use a simple approximation for testing the video picture. First I tried to measure distances on the screen, but then I realized it would be easier and more accurate to copy the image to a graphics program and use the pixel coordinates in that program. First I calculated a “shrink factor” f by measuring the height of the wooden blocks: 123 left, 94 right (pixel coordinates in my copy of the image): f = 94/123 = 0.764 The white dots at the left give the start position and the corresponding dots at the right the end position. To measure the distance the wheel travels, I drew “vertical” lines through the dots at the left and at the right, and a line through the center of the wheel “parallel” to the lines of the system (that is, using the same shrink factor for perspective). Then I measured the distance between the intersections of this line with those “vertical” lines = 1819 – 470 = 1349. This is the “shortened” distance, DS. Next I measured the diameter of the wheel, right – left = 969 – 475 = 494. Calculating the “real” distance of the wheel, rolling without slipping during one revolution: π * DR = 1552. (DR – DS) / DS = 0.15. That is where Merlin’s “20%” comes from. He probably measured the distance at the bottom, which is extra shortened by the “up-down” perspective, increasing the deviation further. To calculate the “shortened” distance from the “real” distance we should integrate the variable shrink factor over the line from start to finish. But in the linear approximation this boils down to the average value (1 + f) / 2 = 0.882. Then we get 0.882 * 1552 = 1369. Compare with the direct measurement 1349 gives a difference of 20, a deviation of 1.4%. Not bad for such a rough calculation, I’d say.