merjet

Aristotle's wheel paradox

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Very cool vids. I especially like it when there are more riders out front. With the wide lens, that gives a better sense of scale, distance and speed.

Tanx fer sharing.

J

I understand. Thanks for the feedback. I want to pull out engaging clips and it helps to hear which elements make it more relatable. You may have noticed I clipped out some following other riders situations. If they are going at your speed or a little faster, having them in front of you makes  you faster. It is hard to get pursuit clips that flow because we are all on different machines and with different skills,

This video was intentional, the Triumph is a friend a have ridden with for years - his task was stay close behind me the whole time.

I shot a bunch of rear-pointed GoPro that day and I think I have everything in this video, from my perspective, looking back at the Triumph.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, anthony said:

We gotta cue in a dose of reality to puncture the slippist balloon.

I ask that anyone goes look at a car wheel. At least for once do some visualization of the original entity: an everyday wheel in motion.  See the car maker's badge in the center of the rim which is at the center of a tire? Nominate that to be the inner wheel. Same exercise, just that this tiny circle makes it more graphic.

Observe carefully: as the tire makes one revolution, so does the badge make one revolution. But the badge is +/- 6 cms. in diameter, the tire diameter +/-  60 cms. Further, the badge can be calculated to revolve about 18cms. and the tire's track is 1.8meters --their relevant circumferences!. Strange!  What's going on here?

Therefore the outer wheel traverses a distance 1.8m. But equally does the badge/inner wheel travel this far, despite a differential of 1:10 circumference. Strange!

Any slippage observed - or needed to be induced?

Nope. The wheel (and Aristotle's diagram of a wheel) behave as their reality dictates. The single driver and cause is the motion of the outer wheel, the inner wheel conforms.

Perhaps if one imagines a wheel containing an infinite quantity of inner concentric circles, each of which has a 'turn speed' - i.e. tangential velocity - which decreases as their radii decreases, one can imagine a physical, inner wheel transposed onto any circle - and not relevant if a very small wheel or one almost the full size of the outer wheel.

These varying tangential velocities of the imagined 'concentric circles' are what 'hold' (so to speak) the turning wheel together. Mess with them at any point, and THEN you will get slip/skid inside the wheel, causing jamming and breakage.

While a few respondents have appeared to have taken Vt into account, they don't seem to get the ramifications of it  - or - have argued that Vt is precisely what causes/necessitates track and slip. (Placing the cart before the horse). 

From the get-go, the entire premise of inducing track/slippage, clearly has been built on the wheel - only - possessing *angular* velocity. Thereby, erroneously assuming upon a velocity which is identical at any point inside a wheel (and of a wheel within the wheel).

I.e. True, the rpm's are a constant--but the Vt is variable, the product of angular velocity -and- radius..

If angular velocity were all there is, a wheel self-evidently could not function, not to mention this denies the observable identity of a wheel. From one faulty premise, all subsequent exploratory stages will be faulty also. ("Cognition", mechanics, experiment, etc.)

Anthony,

Please take one considered post opposing your position and piece by piece tear it to pieces instead of stating and restating yours.

You can't do it because reality is the primary referent. But that's not the case of your opponents. They--and I--keep referring to reality and you to something you've created. That only works in philosophy and art.

I do think you are a captive to some serious extent to the reality created by Ayn Rand. 

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anthony,

Your mission is to argue the opposite position to what you think is the true and ccorrect position. Get into your opponents' heads  and do them one better.

You won't do this. Instead you will ask me to first do the same. But since I asked first such will give you no birth.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Living in an alternate reality excludes to the necessary extent the actual reality. But I don't think Ayn Rand would have had any trouble with the paradox.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Anthony,

Please take one considered post opposing your position and piece by piece tear it to pieces instead of stating and restating yours.

You can't do it because reality is the primary referent. But that's not the case of your opponents. They--and I--keep referring to reality and you to something you've created. That only works in philosophy and art.

I do think you are a captive to some serious extent to the reality created by Ayn Rand. 

--Brant

I don't know where and what is the 'reality' claimed by these Opponents or you. I assume the process began with what we all saw - by the posed paradox and diagram - but some reacted to as if it were a kind of Brain Teaser. So they began with a diagramatic theory and kept on theorizing until they've nowhere to go, but to conclude with an abstractive theory you can't see functioning in reality. (Apart from a test bench - perhaps). All the while, attempts at solidifying the theory by some experiments and appeals to math and mechanics which lend it apparent authority.

 The mental processes that were at work? What combination of rationalism, pragmatism and imagination have there been to arrive at this consensual conclusion?

And what is the apparatus they have fabricated to explain or correct ...etc.  the paradox, how it behaves and what it looks like and where to apply it, in reality? Whatever the outcome is imagined to be by the group that put it together, the best I can say is this is not a wheel any longer. More of a free-floating idea, or a piece of machinery, tracks included.

Obversely, I put forward the simplest and most practical-theoretical explanation, based on the wheel identity - what is see-able, self-evident, logical - and mathematical. I relate the diagram to what knowledge I've picked up about wheels/circles, "concretizing" I suppose. To mention one property of the wheel I knew from experience.

Simplistically, the inner speeds of a wheel are not the same as the outer rim. 

"Trivial" this was called. Ha. Yes - much of the identifications we make by observation, are indeed "trivial".  'Given'. Inducted knowledge. Trivial, until identity-identification is all that counts.

I have a fair notion of the others' explanation, one involving necessary skid or slip. (However, in that line, we know the one about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence) If something you are told has few referents to reality, one doesn't have to try to bend one's head to make sense of it and visualize it. And certainly - when an obvious, functioning and rational alternative is available. No - the explanation has to be concisely (and if necessary, repeatedly) made by its proponents and held up for criticism. I did this, as repetitive as some may take it.

What has become very clear is that the thinking began from a premise which overlooked, down-played or denied this wheel-property - IOW, based on an error that all parts of a wheel rotate at an equal speed ("angular velocity"). Their theory does not even begin to make sense without this initial error. And after having this knowledge of wheel rotation speeds by which an inner wheel turns identically 1:1 -- AND in the identical time -- while having (e.g.) a 3:1 circumference-ratio to the outer? Less distance turned - same time period -> less velocity.

Signifying, the slower speed (Vt) of the inner wheel obviates ~any and all~ need and/or existence of 'slippage'. After that the theory is untenable, as was the practice. 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anthony said:

I don't know where and what is the 'reality' claimed by these Opponents or you. I assume the process began with what we all saw - by the posed paradox and diagram...

Have you actually seen, comprehended and accepted the existence of the original formulation of the "paradox"? You still seem to be operating on Merlin's molested version. You seem to want to operate on that false version.

 

2 hours ago, anthony said:

...but some reacted to as if it were a kind of Brain Teaser... 

 

Yes, and those "some" are you and Merlin, and not only have you treated it as a brain teaser, but one which you prefer to reconstruct at whim to your own liking, keeping what you wish from the original formulation while arbitrarily discarding parts that displease you.

 

2 hours ago, anthony said:

So they began with a diagramatic theory and kept on theorizing until they've nowhere to go, but to conclude with an abstractive theory you can't see functioning in reality.

YOU can't see it in reality. WE can easily see it. We have the visuospatial/mechanical abilities to grasp it.

Go back and look at the beginning of this thread. We weren't stumped and "theorizing," but immediately identified reality. Hundreds, if not thousands, of others all over the interwebnets have done the same. We all get it. You do not. You cannot grasp reality in this case. Your mind is not set up to handle it.

The rest of your babbling is your weak ego trying its hardest to not accept the reality that you are visuospatially/mechanically deficient. You're indulging in nothing but self-grading. You've begun by selecting yourself as the standard of cognition, given yourself an A, and judged everyone else (except Merlin?) to have failed. They've all invented the same lying false fake "solution." It might be a conspiracy. They're up to no good. The reality of it cannot be -- must not be -- rhat Tony is lacking in any way. That idea must not be considered.

J

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Incredible.

--Brant

Incredible, yes, but unusual, no. Tony's mindset is common in O-land, maybe even the majority mindset, especially in regard to visuals and aesthetics. The mindset of, "I can't see, experience or comprehend something, therefore no one else can either, and anyone who claims to be able to is lying," is a core part of the Objectivist Esthetics. It is Michelle Kamhi's entire argument. It is the mindset of His Royal Published Highness, Roger Bissell, and that of his wife. Their motto is, "That we cannot see is proof that no one can see. Give us a break!"

They each MUST be the universal standard and limit of human cognition and experience.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

The mindset of, "I can't see, experience or comprehend something, therefore no one else can either, and anyone who claims to be able to is lying," is a core part of the Objectivist Esthetics.

Jonathan,

Ditto for science.

I once had long arguments on other forums over my idea that there is no reason to assume that humans have stopped evolving, so it might be possible we are slowly acquiring new sense organs or sensory capacities that we can't fully use right now. Instead, we might be getting glimpses that are not 100% reliable, which would align with the idea of an emerging faculty. This, at least, would explain why so many anecdotal reports of weird things are so similar across so many disparate cultures and so many centuries. (An example is near death experiences, but there are many things.)

I was basically told I was evading reality, given several lessons on axiomatic concepts, and told emphatically that there is no proof humans are still evolving.

:) 

That hasn't happened here on OL, though. At least not yet.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

Ditto for science.

I once had long arguments on other forums over my idea that there is no reason to assume that humans have stopped evolving, so it might be possible we are slowly acquiring new sense organs or sensory capacities that we can't fully use right now. Instead, we might be getting glimpses that are not 100% reliable, which would align with the idea of an emerging faculty. This, at least, would explain why so many anecdotal reports of weird things are so similar across so many disparate cultures and so many centuries. (An example is near death experiences, but there are many things.)

I was basically told I was evading reality, given several lessons on axiomatic concepts, and told emphatically that there is no proof humans are still evolving.

:) 

That hasn't happened here on OL, though. At least not yet.

:) 

Michael

Now that you mention it, I've run into that, too.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

The human race is going to self evolve. Smarter and no more male pattern baldness. 

--Brant

More like no more hair. That's direction that we've been heading.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The human race is going to self evolve. Smarter and no more male pattern baldness. 

--Brant

Michael also wrote: I was basically told I was evading reality, given several lessons on axiomatic concepts, and told emphatically that there is no proof humans are still evolving. end quote

I think evolution will continue through human ingenuity and invention, and not necessarily though “natural selection.” Gene splicing will be used, not to produce universal soldiers, but Olympic athletes, as crass as that may seem. And better brains will be successfully produced and not just smarter brains but also with better temperaments and rationality. Not even the Chinese are dumb enough to create really smart “mad hatters.” Peter     

Universality of Preadaptation for the Human Condition By Cadell Last | Scientific American. I have often wondered about whether key human adaptations (e.g., bipedalism, large brain size, opposable thumbs) represented universal traits for the development of high intelligence and technological complexity. In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012) by evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson, he posits that they are. Wilson argues that highly intelligent, technologically complex species have been so rare in the history of life because there are specific universal preadaptations required to produce the human condition. He contends that without these preadaptations, a species intelligent enough to "build a microscope, deduce the oxidative chemistry of photosynthesis, or photograph the moons of Saturn" is an impossibility (Wilson, 2012: 45).

From Wilson himself: "Overall, it now seems possible to draw a reasonably good explanation of why the human condition is a singularity, why the likes of it has occurred only once and took so long in coming. The reason is simply the extreme improbability of the preadaptations necessary for it to occur at all. Each of these evolutionary steps has been a full-blown adaptation in its own right. Each has required a particular sequence of one or more preadaptations that occurred previously. Homo sapiens is the only species of large mammal - thus large enough to evolve a human-sized brain - to have made every one of the required lucky turns in the evolutionary maze." (Wilson, 2012: 45)

So what are these "lucky turns"? And are they as universal as Wilson supposes? First I think it is appropriate to explain what is meant be an "evolutionary maze." An evolutionary maze is a metaphor to understand the probability of an organism acquiring a certain trait (i.e. large size, flight, echolocation, intelligence, etc.). By using this metaphor we can say with certainty that descendants of contemporary pigs could become aquatic, but will never be able to fly. This is because their ancestors acquired adaptations that "closed the door" to flight as a future adaptation through the evolutionary maze. In essence, Wilson uses this metaphor to illustrate how many, and what type, of preadaptations it took for evolution to produce a highly intelligent, technologically complex species. So that brings us back to "lucky turns". What were they for us? And can we deduce that these preadaptations represent a universal process for biological evolution? Is the human condition a singularity? According to Wilson there were four major turns, and these turns can be seen as prerequisites for biological evolution to produce another species with our abilities:

1. Land. The first of Wilson's lucky turns is an adaptation to a terrestrial environment. This is the first key preadaptation because Wilson argues that technological evolution past simple stone tools requires fire. This means that in the evolutionary maze aquatic species could develop technology, but could never develop technologies with evolutionary trajectories of their own. Therefore, no descendant of the octopus or dolphin could deduce oxidative chemistry of photosynthesis, or photograph the moons of Saturn, without first adapting to land.

2. Large body size. Wilson's next preadaptation is large body size. The reason for this adaptation is fairly self-explanatory: in order for a species to develop human-level intelligence, they must have a body that can support the evolution of a human-sized brain. Wilson draws on his experience studying the highly complex societies of ants, bees, and termites to support the inclusion of this preadaptation: "[body size is the] one reason why leafcutter ants, although the most complex of any species other than humans, and even though they practice agriculture in air-conditioned cities of their own instinctual devising, have made no significant further advance during the twenty million years of their existence." (Wilson, 2012: 46). In contrast, we acquired this adaptation gradually over time within the order primates.

3. Grasping hands. The third preadaptation is grasping hands. For Wilson, a species that has not acquired this ability will never be able to manipulate the environment in the way necessary to produce complex technologies. Of course, this is a preadaptation that our lineage acquired within the order primates. Grasping hands distinguishes primates from all other mammals.

4. Meat/Control of Fire. The fourth preadaptations are the consumption of meat and control of fire. Meat is a necessary adaptation for Wilson because it yields higher energy per gram eaten, and because of the cooperation between individuals required to acquire meat. In our lineage, meat was first consumed regularly within the genus Homo. Before this the australopithecines subsisted off of vegetation, although they were potential scavengers as well. Regular consumption of meat was followed shortly by the control of fire. For humans, control of fire allowed us to catch larger game, and created a central common cooking space, which facilitated the development of an even more complex social environment dependent on altruistic sharing of resources.

The Evolutionary Maze. The metaphor of the evolutionary maze is a useful one. It can help us conceptualize biological evolution. However, Wilson depicts the human journey through the maze to be the only possible way for biological evolution to produce both high intelligence and technologically complex species. Of course, I agree that the maze towards these evolutionary developments is narrower than the maze towards less complex adaptations. I also agree that a great number of preadaptations are necessary for a species to achieve high intelligence and technological complexity. However, the human condition may not be a singularity. Unfortunately, we know of only one species that has developed high intelligence and technology with an evolutionary trajectory of its own. Therefore, our sample size is too small to be definitively sure that our path through the maze was the only one.

As a consequence, I believe questions about the universality of the human condition must be relegated to a grey borderland between philosophy and empirical science. Are there universal preadaptations? I think it is possible, but we can't scientifically determine that yet. Take for example Wilson's first preadaptation: adaptation to land. Is it impossible for a lineage adapted to an aquatic setting to develop high intelligence and technological complexity? I am just not sure how we can scientifically rule that out. Just because it hasn't happened on Earth, doesn't mean that it can't happen in the future, or on some other planet similar to our own.

As Wilson point out in the book, alien scientists studying our planet three million years ago would likely think nothing special of the australopithecines. However, they were part of the maze that ended up producing us. Could our species be making a similar mistake as Wilson's hypothetical alien scientists if we conclude that the evolutionary maze to high intelligence and technological complexity is shut to the descendants of octopuses and dolphins? Furthermore, we can't conclude that consumption of meat and control of fire are necessary preadaptations, even though they were for us. Although meat yields higher energy per gram eaten when compared to vegetation on Earth, it may not be the case on other planets. I would argue the same with the preadaptation for control of fire. It was important for our lineage, but could technology develop without control of it in an aquatic setting? We don't have the data to rule it out.

On the other hand, I believe the preadaptations Wilson explored do give us important insight. For example, I would think it to be highly unlikely for a species with a small body size to develop human-level intelligence. As he mentioned, the lack of advance among the social insects is likely attributable to this variable. Also, I am in general agreement with Wilson that a species like us would require some type of grasping preadaptation. Of course, grasping hands could be supplemented for the evolution of some other type of appendage (e.g., fin, tentacle, etc.) that could be used to manipulate the external environment.

This means all intelligent science fiction aliens should be equipped with some type of grasping appendage, in order to be scientifically appropriate. Jokes aside, this type of question is worth exploring. However, I think we should be cautious and hesitant to make any broad conclusions. A scientific consensus will not likely be reached until we have more data, and that requires understanding life off of our island of life: Earth.

References:  Wilson, E.O. 2012. The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: W.W. Norton.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Peter said:

Universality of Preadaptation for the Human Condition By Cadell Last | Scientific American.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/universality-of-preadaptation-for-the-human-condition/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DNA doesn't much value intelligence.

Language seems to be almost as important as the opposable thumb.

We may be the smartest beings of our galaxy, for several reasons. But there may be trillions of galaxies.

Etc.

--Brant

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did life even begin on Earth or was basic DNA seeded? Lightning striking the primordial ooze doesn't begin to account for the complexity of DNA.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

Did life even begin on Earth or was basic DNA seeded? Lightning striking the primordial ooze doesn't begin to account for the complexity of DNA.

--Brant

Is lightning striking the only possible explanation other than seeding?

If so, then, okay, where and how did the seeding originate? Lightning strike on a different planet?

Dawkins offered a variety of other potential options which were more complex than a mere lightning strike, but nevertheless plausible.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Did life even begin on Earth or was basic DNA seeded? Lightning striking the primordial ooze doesn't begin to account for the complexity of DNA.

--Brant

No, I don't think any evolutionist thinks that.

I'm no chemist or biologist but I think what they say is that simple carbon-based compounds were created that way. Just basic amino acids or some such. They're all a little different as carbon is so chemically sociable, so it goes, and some can self-replicate. Life proceeds from that point, eventually developing DNA, without any more lighting required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Language seems to be almost as important as the opposable thumb.

Brant,

More than language, storytelling.

Or, let's say story preceded language and even caused it to become complex. All concepts are based on story at root. I came to that realization after a long circuitous mental route and a hell of a lot of reading.

Story put the past and future within the awareness of prehistorical primates. Everything else epistemologically arose from that. I would even argue that math arose from the wonders and opportunities engendered by the taming of time through story. Why measure if you can't predict outcomes? And a prediction is a story.

I heard Jordan Peterson say that ritual sacrifice arose from prehistorical primates perceiving time and establishing trades with the gods (for good weather and so on), all of which is story. That means the trader principle itself arose from story. (Jordan commented at the time on the mental capacity of the primates when ritual sacrifices presumably started: "We were chimps, for God's sake." :) )

Most important of all, prehistorical primates couldn't even lie without stories. And what good is a society without lying?

:) 

(btw - For the overly-literal-minded, that last one was a quip. :) )

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeding seems reasonable to me because conditions amenable to development of life have existed since a very, very long time ago. There has been quite a long while for life to spread around.

The early universe contained only hydrogen. The first round of supernovas created more elements, but not the heavy ones essential to life. Later rounds of supernovas made the heavier elements that life requires. That wasn't just a few hundred million years ago, but more like ten thousand million years ago. The dinosaurs have only been gone for 63 million years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ya got yer ooze and ya got yer proteins. Then what?"

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Did life even begin on Earth or was basic DNA seeded?

Underground life has a carbon mass hundreds of times larger than humans' -- from Phys.org

Quote

[...]

The report includes several other striking findings:

    70 percent of all earth's bacteria live underground. This realization dramatically expands the visualization of the tree of life, a biological analogy first proposed in Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species to explain the relationship between living and extinct organisms.

    The deep biosphere—the zone of life underneath earth's surface—has a volume of between 2 and 2.3 billion cubic kilometers. This is almost as twice the volume of all oceans.

Since climate change is linked to carbon emissions, understanding how these microorganisms interact with carbon could help scientists produce mitigation strategies against climate change with additional time and research, Lloyd said.

"Some of these underground organisms emit carbon and some others sequester it and turn it into rock, for example. But we don't know any of that yet. We have a lot to discover," said Lloyd.

[...]

See also Space.org for Incredibly Weird Microbes Found Deep Underground Could Change Search for Life on Mars

Quote

 [...]

Because they're so tiny, cyanobacteria don't always get much love, but they're what turned Earth from an inhospitable rock (to us, anyway) into a green, growing world and first put the oxygen we rely on into the atmosphere. "What the cyanobacteria have invented has been brilliantly important through the history of life on Earth," Lynn Rothschild, an astrobiologist at NASA's Ames Research Center in California not involved in the new research, told Space.com. [Photos: Ancient Mars Lake Could Have Supported Life]

"They were able to turn our Earth into a place that is habitable for the animals that evolved here," Rothschild said. She called cyanobacteria "one-stop shopping" for turning what was easily accessible about 2.7 billion years ago in the early days of Earth — compounds like water and carbon dioxide — into the oxygen and sugar that animals need to survive. Some cyanobacteria can even turn the nitrogen that makes up most of our atmosphere into biologically useful ammonia.

All of that relies on the bacteria getting enough sunlight to conduct photosynthesis, the reaction that allows cyanobacteria, plants and similar organisms to feed themselves. So, deep within the surface of Earth is an unlikely hideout for cyanobacteria. But that's what the authors of the new research say they've found: cyanobacteria living 2,000 feet (600 meters) deep below the surface of a region called the Iberian Pyrite Belt in southwest Spain.

If the new research holds up, it suggests that some cyanobacteria found themselves unable to gather enough sunlight to complete photosynthesis, then threw in the towel and figured out how to feed themselves on hydrogen instead. (Hydrogen also fuels microbes found at the ocean bottom near deep-sea hydrothermal vents, which are also studied as potential analogues of extraterrestrial life.)

That big switch from photosynthesis to chemical subsistence is intriguing, because while Mars today isn't the sort of place life as we know it could thrive, it was many, many years ago. So, if cyanobacteria on Earth snuck below the surface and found a new way to make a living, does that increase the odds something similar happened with hypothetical cyanobacteria-like organisms on Mars?

It's an exciting proposal, Rothschild said. [...]

She would say that, wouldn't she, the satanic whore.

Edited by william.scherk
Added one t
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2018 at 2:37 PM, anthony said:

We gotta cue in a dose of reality to puncture the slippist balloon.

I ask that anyone goes look at a car wheel. At least for once do some visualization of the original entity: an everyday wheel in motion.  See the car maker's badge in the center of the rim which is at the center of a tire? Nominate that to be the inner wheel. Same exercise, just that this tiny circle makes it more graphic.

Observe carefully: as the tire makes one revolution, so does the badge make one revolution. But the badge is +/- 6 cms. in diameter, the tire diameter +/-  60 cms. Further, the badge can be calculated to revolve about 18cms. and the tire's track is 1.8meters --their relevant circumferences!. Strange!  What's going on here?

Therefore the outer wheel traverses a distance 1.8m. But equally does the badge/inner wheel travel this far, despite a differential of 1:10 circumference. Strange!

Any slippage observed - or needed to be induced?

Nope. The wheel (and Aristotle's diagram of a wheel) behave as their reality dictates. The single driver and cause is the motion of the outer wheel, the inner wheel conforms.

Perhaps if one imagines a wheel containing an infinite quantity of inner concentric circles, each of which has a 'turn speed' - i.e. tangential velocity - which decreases as their radii decreases, one can imagine a physical, inner wheel transposed onto any circle - and not relevant if a very small wheel or one almost the full size of the outer wheel.

These varying tangential velocities of the imagined 'concentric circles' are what 'hold' (so to speak) the turning wheel together. Mess with them at any point, and THEN you will get slip/skid inside the wheel, causing jamming and breakage.

While a few respondents have appeared to have taken Vt into account, they don't seem to get the ramifications of it  - or - have argued that Vt is precisely what causes/necessitates track and slip. (Placing the cart before the horse). 

From the get-go, the entire premise of inducing track/slippage, clearly has been built on the wheel - only - possessing *angular* velocity. Thereby, erroneously assuming upon a velocity which is identical at any point inside a wheel (and of a wheel within the wheel).

I.e. True, the rpm's are a constant--but the Vt is variable, the product of angular velocity -and- radius..

If angular velocity were all there is, a wheel self-evidently could not function, not to mention this denies the observable identity of a wheel. From one faulty premise, all subsequent exploratory stages will be faulty also. ("Cognition", mechanics, experiment, etc.)

Hi Tony,

There are basically three scenarios being discussed:

1. An ordinary wheel or tire that runs on a road or track.

2. A pair of adjacent wheels or gears that run on adjacent rails or tracks at appropriate levels.

3. A bottle or Dixie cup whose ends run on widely spaced rails or tracks --- widely spaced relative to the sizes of the ends.

Your explanation works perfectly fine in the first case, but it doesn't begin to explain the other two scenarios. You agreed that a cone shaped object would veer off to one side, but you haven't explained why you think that to be the case.

Darrell

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me take this discussion in a slightly different direction.

It turns out that people have widely varying levels of ability to recognize faces. There was a 60 Minutes episode on this topic. At one end of the spectrum are the so called "super recognizers" who are able to walk down the busy streets of New York City bumping into people and remember virtually all of the people they meet. They might run into someone in the afternoon and say, "Oh, I saw that guy over on 23rd street this morning." One woman who was being interviewed was shown a high school year book picture of someone and she figured out right away that it was a picture of Mike Wallace. At that time, I believe, Mike Wallace was dead and gone so she couldn't have seen him recently.

On the other end of the spectrum are people who have a very difficult time recognizing faces. Some people have a difficult time recognizing friends. Some have trouble recognizing their own family members. Some men had difficulty recognizing their own wives. And some people even had difficulty recognizing themselves in a mirror.

But, even the people who had difficulty recognizing themselves were able to recognize ordinary objects --- a cup, a table, a chair, a car, etc. So, it seems like facial recognition is a very specific mental function. It is a function that is handled by a very specific part of the brain. That makes sense because facial recognition is very important to humans so having a particular part of the brain dedicated to facial recognition makes it possible to recognize subtle differences between faces that might not be immediately obvious with regard to other kinds of objects. Although we might learn to recognize particular apples, for example, differences between apples aren't as immediate and obvious as differences between faces.

One man on the 60 Minutes program was discussing how he had learned to recognize himself by concentrating on individual parts of his face. He would look at his lips, his mustache, his nose, his eyes, etc., and could convince himself that he was looking at himself by studying his face carefully. Presumably, he could apply the same method to recognize other people as well --- I have a big nose; my wife has a small nose, etc.

From the foregoing conversation, it would seem that visuospatial/mechanical reasoning is another specialized mental function. So, one has to wonder whether a person that lacks the ability to easily and naturally perform such reasoning can learn to answer questions about mechanics by concentrating on simple aspects of the problem and reasoning at a higher, conceptual level about their interrelationships.

I should say that know that I have limitations of my own. I'm lousy with people's names. When I was young, I realized I didn't know the names of the some of other students in one of my elementary school classes and made the unfortunate decision at that time that it wasn't important and that I didn't care. As I grew to adulthood, I realized that my inability to remember people's names was a definite handicap, so I reversed my earlier attitude and attempted to get better at remembering. When I watch a movie, I attempt to name the actors and actresses in it. At the end of the movie, I watch the credits to try to learn new names. When I meet people, I focus on getting to know their names. Sometimes, I still forget to pay attention, but I try.

Not everyone has such difficulty with names. My own daughter has a natural ability to learn people's names. She's in her twenties now, but when she first started kindergarten, she learned the names of all of her classmates before the first week was out. She must have gotten that gene from her mother.

At any rate, I don't know the extent to which cognitive deficits can be compensated for, but I find the question interesting. I also wonder if there are other kinds of common cognitive deficits.

Darrell

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now