Aristotle's wheel paradox

[Jon Letendre]

1 minute ago, merjet said:

You called yourself blind first. You said you can't see there is a paradox. 

You are so, so, very fucking stupid.

[merjet]

People resort to all ad hominem when they have nothing better to say.

[Jon Letendre]

1 minute ago, merjet said:

People resort to all ad hominem when they have nothing better to say.

And you are dishonest.

You can't bring yourself to describe honestly what is recorded and plain.

Because you tend to be a lying piece of shit.

[BaalChatzaf]

19 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

You did an extraordinary thing. I have walked up a few 14,000+ foot peaks and the last 1,000 feet are so sloooooow.

If I take a step too quick, I force a long resting pause.

The pace that I can maintain feels comically slow, but one bit faster stops everything.

At the time I was about 55 years of age  and in very good shape.  For the time I spent in Colo Springs  I did a lot of bicycling which built up my wind.  The first month in Colo Springs was like living death. It took me a month, maybe a month and a half to become  adapted to the altitude.   The O2 level up there is about 60 percent of what it is at sea level. 

 

[Jon Letendre]

Just now, BaalChatzaf said:

At the time I was about 55 years of age  and in very good shape.  For the time I spent in Colo Springs  I did a lot of bicycling which built up my wind.  The first month in Colo Springs was like living death. It took me a month, maybe a month and a half to become  adapted to the altitude.   The O2 level up there is about 60 percent of what it is at sea level. 

 

Right.

It is tiring riding up, the way I ride, anyway. I can feel the extra fatigue, but only a little.

Then, at the top, I get off the bike, take off backpack, unzip and remove gloves...and that exhausts me!!!

Wierd experience.

[BaalChatzaf]

Just now, Jon Letendre said:

Right.

It is tiring riding up, the way I ride, anyway. I can feel the extra fatigue, but only a little.

Then, at the top, I get off the bike, take off backpack, unzip and remove gloves...and that exhausts me!!!

Wierd experience.

By the way  Pikes Peak is "only" 7000 feet higher than Manitou Springs.  The first time I went up on Pikes Peak was by auto when I first got there.  Big mistakes.  I saw floating black dots in front of my eyes. I was undergoing hypoxia, which is a common thing with people who come to Colo Springs the first time. It takes about a month for the body to double the red blood cell count to deal with the lower O2 level at that location.  When I left Colo Springs I was sad.  I really got to like the area and I felt strange becoming a "low lander" again.

 

[Jon Letendre]

1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

By the way  Pikes Peak is "only" 7000 feet higher than Manitou Springs.  The first time I went up on Pikes Peak was by auto when I first got there.  Big mistakes.  I saw floating black dots in front of my eyes. I was undergoing hypoxia, which is a common thing with people who come to Colo Springs the first time. It takes about a month for the body to double the red blood cell count to deal with the lower O2 level at that location.  When I left Colo Springs I was sad.  I really got to like the area and I felt strange becoming a "low lander" again.

 

I would be sad, too. I live in the best place on earth (Denver.)

Yeah, oxygen deprivation stirs in the excitement.

Riding up, you feel some effects and then a little voice says,  "that means the fat shits behind the wheel could be seeing black dots, or NOT seeing. Don't let 'em hit you!!"

[Jon Letendre]

Earlier the same day, going up...

 

[Jon Letendre]

Photobucket isn't working anymore.

[Jon Letendre]

59 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

By the way  Pikes Peak is "only" 7000 feet higher than Manitou Springs.  The first time I went up on Pikes Peak was by auto when I first got there.  Big mistakes.  I saw floating black dots in front of my eyes. I was undergoing hypoxia, which is a common thing with people who come to Colo Springs the first time. It takes about a month for the body to double the red blood cell count to deal with the lower O2 level at that location.  When I left Colo Springs I was sad.  I really got to like the area and I felt strange becoming a "low lander" again.

 

My half-run, to the Brake Check at Glen Cove, last summer on my 1986 Honda VFR750F...

 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

My half-run, to the Brake Check at Glen Cove, last summer on my 1986 Honda VFR750F...

 

Yup.  I remember that.  These guys felt the the wheels to see if the brakes were over-heating.  

[Ellen Stuttle]

On September 26, 2017 at 4:58 AM, merjet said:

[See below.  I used the reply box just so Merlin will get a notification of reply.]

I wrote here:

[ES]  "The initial supposed paradox attributed to Aristotle includes as part of the setup the false premise that the inner circle is rolling in true contact with its imagined road.  It couldn't be doing that."

Merlin asked here:

[MJ] "Where did you get that notion? ...."

Subsequently, in a reply to Jon, Merlin wrote here:

[MJ] "Pardon me, but my question was not disputing what Ellen said. I asked the question because what she said wasn't clear to me.  What does "the inner circle is rolling in true contact with its imagined road", especially "rolling in true contact", mean? The latter was a first-time appearance on this thread.  There is plenty of misunderstanding of one another's terminology on this thread already, so I didn't want to guess what it meant and reply based on what I guessed. I have a hypothesis about what it meant, and if it is accurate, then I agree with those two sentences."

I meant what Bob called - here - "instantaneous roll round the point of tangency."  

That is, at each infinitesimally small succeeding instant of time, each succeeding tangent point - with the road or "road" - of the revolving circle or wheel is in exact contact, no slipping, sliding, skidding, or alternately being carried forward.  Instant-by-instant no-gaps contact.

The small wheel cannot have this instantaneous infinitesimally progressing contact.  But without the presumption that it does, there isn't a paradox.

(Jon makes the same point here and has made it in several other posts.)

If what I meant is what you thought I meant, and if you agree with it, then I don't understand why you'd still hold that there is a paradox.  Indeed, your own post "Resolving the Paradox" (here) shows mathematically that all points of all circles of the "paradox" setup - including the outermost one, which alone does have (assuming no deformation) continuous instantaneous contact with the tangent point - travel farther than the outermost circle's/wheel's circumference.

Ellen

[Jon Letendre]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Yup.  I remember that.  These guys felt the the wheels to see if the brakes were over-heating.  

Now they use a handheld, I don't know, infrared sensor, I suppose is what it is.

Held like a gun, they point it at the auto's brake rotor. Flatlanders don't get it, stay in a high gear and press the brakes all the way down the hill. Those rotors are too hot and the driver is directed to hang out in the parking lot for X minutes before proceeding down the rest of the hill.

We motorcycles are exempt, we are waved right through the Brake Check.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Now they use a handheld, I don't know, infrared sensor, I suppose is what it is.

Held like a gun, they point it at the auto's brake rotor. Flatlanders don't get it, stay in a high gear and press the brakes all the way down the hill. Those rotors are too hot and the driver is directed to hang out in the parking lot for X minutes before proceeding down the rest of the hill.

We motorcycles are exempt, we are waved right through the Brake Check.

 

Yeah.  An IR sensor would do the tricked.  Back in the day, they used  Mark I   fingertips. 

[merjet]

19 hours ago, Jonathan said:

And...still no post in which Merlin applies his borrowed math to the objects and motions in the video that I posted. Hahaha!

And also no math to back up his assertion that my video is an example of the optical illusion known as the "wagon-wheel effect."

He's evading!!!

LOL. Like I'm obligated to do the math for his video, which he is utterly incapable of doing himself.

[merjet]

On 9/27/2017 at 6:35 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

(Jon makes the same point here and has made it in several other posts.)

If what I meant is what you thought I meant, and if you agree with it, then I don't understand why you'd still hold that there is a paradox.  Indeed, your own post "Resolving the Paradox" (here) shows mathematically that all points of all circles of the "paradox" setup - including the outermost one, which alone does have (assuming no deformation) continuous instantaneous contact with the tangent point - travel farther than the outermost circle's/wheel's circumference.

Heh. Where's the math? Drawing little colored lines for small arcs doesn't suffice.

It seems to me you are confusing there being a paradox and resolving a paradox.

The outermost circle's/wheel's circumference is a maximum, not a minimum.

[Jonathan]

3 hours ago, merjet said:

LOL. Like I'm obligated to do the math for his video, which he is utterly incapable of doing himself.

You ARE obligated, assclown. The onus is on you. You've stupidly asserted that the video doesn't visually display what happens  in reality, but is a specific type of optical illusion (which requires a much higher rate of rotation to exist). Prove your assertions.

And, yeah, I'm not good at math. I've admitted that. The fact that I've admitted it is the only reason that you're aware of it.

But I think that you probably suck at math too, which is why you haven't posted your own solutions or specific demonstrations to either the "paradox" or the "wagon-wheel" illusion. You're capable of finding others' math online, but not of figuring it out for yourself, or even applying theirs to reality. You can't demonstrate that any of what you've found online is valid. You can't actually connect it to reality, due to your visual/spatial/mechanical ineptitude.

Heh. You believe that a 30-frame per second animation of wheel which completes one full rotation in 8 seconds can create a "wagon-wheel effect" optical illusion! Hahaha!

You've turned into something even less than a Randian villain.

[Jonathan]

17 minutes ago, merjet said:

Heh. Where's the math? Drawing little colored lines for small arcs doesn't suffice.

It seems to me you are confusing there being a paradox and resolving a paradox.

In a way, Merlin's kind of right. Since the "paradox" exists only in his mind, and in the minds of others who share his severe cognitive limitations, he and they are really the only one's who can "resolve" the "paradox." They feel that the setup makes certain things seem a certain way to them. Well, only they can say what has made them stop feeling that it seemed that there was a paradox where one didn't actually exist in reality.

[merjet]

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

You ARE obligated [snipped garbage and lies].

Hahahahaha.

[merjet]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

In a way [snipped garbage].

Hahahahaha.

[Jonathan]

Does the “solution” that Merlin found online actually solve the “paradox”?

No.

Here’s why: The “paradox” setup is about circles, which rotate and transition, and their relationships to a specific line length, but the “solution” that Merlin borrowed from online deals only with the paths of one single point on each of the two circles, not the entire circles. In order to address the “paradox,” any proposed solution would have to deal with measuring and totaling all of the paths all of the points on one circle and comparing it with the total of all of the paths of all of the points on the other circle.

And what happens when we consider all points on each circle? Well, we’re right back to the “paradox” of the circles appearing to travel the same distance and therefore having the same circumference!!!

See, there are an infinite number of points on each circle. So, let’s say that the common cycloid path of one point on the large circle is 8.36 inches, and the curtate cycloid path of one point on the smaller circle is 5.29 inches, we would take each of those two numbers and multiply them by the number of points on each circle. Each circle has infinite points. So, that would be 8.26 x infinity for the large circle, and 5.29 x infinity for the small circle. The product of both is infinity! So the total paths of each of the full circles (and not just one point per circle) are the same? It’s a “paradox”!!!

Oh noes, Merlin! Whatcha gonna do?

J

[Jonathan]

On 9/27/2017 at 7:27 AM, merjet said:

With the tire covering only about one foot per second, could you really see the rim "skidding"? If you believe so, make it rotate even slower.

Merlin, do you think that you could see the outer circumference of the tire skidding or slipping while rolling on the ground? Do you think that your visual/spatial/mechanical cognitive abilities are sensitive and potent enough to recognize that a wheel with a circumference of ten feet has actually rolled twelve feet in one full rotation, or eight feet in one full rotation, therefore skidding or slipping?

[merjet]

10 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Does the “solution” that Merlin found online actually solve the “paradox”?

No.

[Snipped nonsense.]

More nonsense from the idiot.

[merjet]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Merlin, do you [snipped nonsense]

Another stupid, mean-spirited innuendo disguised as a question from the idiot.

[Jonathan]

38 minutes ago, merjet said:

More nonsense from the idiot.

But it's a paradox, Merlin!!! It's real, and no one has ever solved it! How can two different sized circles have the same circumference?!!! The total of all of the length of travel of all of the points on each circle is exactly the same!!!