Aristotle's wheel paradox


merjet

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

But the wheel is not constructed the way you imagine it to be. It is not rolling on an imaginary road we cannot see.

The wheel in your video is rolling on the bottom of the groove. We know because the pink arc is the same length as the pink line.

Arbitrary assertions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, merjet said:

Note how J tried to sweep my second part under the rug by lopping it, saying "That's what I had suspected." after including only the first part in his post.

Heh. I didn't try to sweep anything under the rug. Your interpretation of what's happening in the video does not match reality. There is no ledge that a hidden, back wheel is rolling on. In your state of visual ineptitude, you are only imagining a ledge. For the third time, I will say take a closer look at the visual details.

Actually, it probably doesn't matter. If you're not getting it at this point, you probably never will. You're a ridiculous combination of visual/spatial/mechanical ineptitude, arrogant self-certainty, and willful denial of reality.

But thanks again for sharing your interpretations of what you think you're seeing. Witnessing the depth of your limitations has been valuable to me, and will continue providing value long into the future.

J

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Is it even possible for this thread to get any more entertaining?

Perhaps!

What if another pompous twat O-job, like, say, His Royal Published Highness, the Majestic Roger Bissell, happens to share Merlin's degree of visual/spatial/mechanical ineptitude, agrees with his nonsensical position on this thread, and would be willing to step up and help to argue Merlin's case?

There is no justification whatever to call my position nonsensical – along with another of J’s megadoses of ridicule. Here is my position again: “You call it "skidding," which is a weak metaphor. I call it translational-rotational motion, which is literal.” Baal has already supported my case. “We are talking about wheels (not static circles) which means there are three motions: rotation (turning), translation (sliding/skidding), rolling which is rotation + translation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling#/media/File:Rolling_animation.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Your interpretation of what's happening in the video does not match reality. There is no ledge that a hidden, back wheel is rolling on. In your state of visual ineptitude, you are only imagining a ledge. 

Actually, it probably doesn't matter. If you're not getting it at this point, you probably never will. You're a ridiculous combination of visual/spatial/mechanical ineptitude, arrogant self-certainty, and willful denial of reality.

Arbitrary assertion.                  Ditto.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, merjet said:

I think the different perspectives the two models show has added a lot of the friction on this thread. Of course, that's not all bad. It affords a learning opportunity.

Please, please, make use of that opportunity! Learn already!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

You're not grasping kindergarten-level stuff. You're willfully denying reality.

You can't grasp the math that can track the moving points on the circumferences. It's way over your head. By the way, what's the highest level math course you have taken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jon Letendre said:

 

Good vid.

But Merlin won't get it. What will his objections be? Maybe that the tire squishes and causes enough distortion to disrupt the entire scenario? Maybe that the inclusion of red tape and markings taint the experiment? Maybe he'll imagine seeing a  ledge on which the green plastic disc is rolling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, merjet said:

You can't grasp the math that can track the moving points on the circumferences. It's way over your head. By the way, what's the highest level math course you have taken?

What does that matter when all that is needed is grasp and hold simple facts about movement, rotation and rolling?

No schooling, no math, is required to see around the "paradox."

All that is required is a minimum of spatio-temporal facility that you do not have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Good vid.

But Merlin won't get it. What will his objections be? Maybe that the tire squishes and causes enough distortion to disrupt the entire scenario? Maybe that the inclusion of red tape and markings taint the experiment? Maybe he'll imagine seeing a  ledge on which the green plastic disc is rolling?

Duh! Rotate the wheel 360 degrees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, merjet said:

You can't grasp the math that can track the moving points on the circumferences. It's way over your head. By the way, what's the highest level math course you have took?

Hahahaha! That's right, lash out! Thump your chest! Appeal to your own authority!

Where's your math? I haven't seen any on this thread.

The highest level math course that I took? Trig in high school.

Heh. Have you ever been test for your visual/spatial/mechanical reasoning abilities? If so, I'd love to see the score. Hahaha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Hahahaha! That's right, lash out! Thump your chest! Appeal to your own authority!

Where's your math? I haven't seen any on this thread.

The highest level math course that I took? Trig in high school.

Heh. Have you ever been test for your visual/spatial/mechanical reasoning abilities? 

Whoop-de-do!!

Several post-grad math courses here.

It was tested in the Vietnam War -- artillery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, merjet said:

Duh! Rotate the wheel 360 degrees. 

Will the green "wheel" keep traction with its "road" after more rotation?

No, it won't.

Are you capable of understanding what it means for Aristotle's "paradox" that the green "wheel" is not rolling on its "road" but is rather sliding over it?

No, you manifestly are not capable of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

What does that matter when all that is needed is grasp and hold simple facts about movement, rotation and rolling?

No schooling, no math, is required to see around the "paradox."

All that is required is a minimum of spatio-temporal facility that you do not have.

Yeah, do a Google search for "Aristotle Wheel Paradox," and then look at the various hits that you get. Several of them have comment sections. Almost the entire population very easily grasps what's happening in the scenario and recognizes the fact that there isn't a "paradox" at all, and they do so without any math.

Merlin is clearly visually/spatially/mechanically deficient compared to the general population. He's mega deficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, merjet said:

Whoop-de-do!!

Several post-grad math courses here.

It was tested in the Vietnam War -- artillery.

I didn't ask you about math courses. I asked about your having been tested for visual/spatial/mechanical reasoning abilities.

Heh. You didn't do so well when tested, did you?

 

Link to comment
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