Aristotle's wheel paradox


merjet

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Maybe everyone has a few soft spots in their reasoning ... nothing a round of water fasting can't fix.

Shelton writes:  Levanzin says: "But if physical strength is not lost during a fast, the mental power and clarity are extraordinarily increased. Memory develops itself in a wonderful way, imagination is at its best." One of the most remarkable things about the fast, one that impresses patients even more than the physical gains made while fasting, is the mental benefit that accrues from a period of abstinence. The clearness of the mind, the ease with which previously difficult problems can be handled, the improvement of memory, etc., all surprise and please the patients. These improvements must be attributed to the clearing of the brain of toxins.  
 

I understand this is not a peer reviewed scientific experiment. Also fasting usually does not have that effect on me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This story is based on a peer-reviewed study ...

Life's Harsh Lessons 'Make You More Gullible'

Quote

People who have suffered life's hard knocks while growing up tend to be more gullible than those who have been more sheltered, startling new findings from the University of Leicester reveal.

A six-month study in the University's School of Psychology found that rather than 'toughening up' individuals, adverse experiences in childhood and adolescence meant that these people were vulnerable to being mislead.

The research analysing results from 60 participants suggest that such people could, for example, be more open to suggestion in police interrogations or to be influenced by the media or advertising campaigns.

The study found that while some people may indeed become more 'hard-nosed' through adversity, the majority become less trusting of their own judgement.

Kim Drake, a doctoral student at the University of Leicester, conducted the research with Professor Ray Bull and Dr Julian Boon of the School of Psychology. Kim said: "People who have experienced an adverse childhood and adolescence are more likely to come to believe information that isn't true- in short they are more suggestible, and easily mislead which may in turn impact upon their future life choices; they might succumb to peer pressure more readily."

'Adverse life experiences' examined included major personal illnesses/injuries, miscarriage (from the male and female perspective), difficulties at work (being fired/laid off), bullying at school, being a victim of crime (robbery, sexual violence), parental divorce, death of family member and others.

 

-- NB:  Jerry quotes from a book published by Herbert Shelton in the 1920s (Shelton was a Natural Hygiene pioneer, though not a medical doctor) From Wikipedia, on his training:

Shelton attended Bernarr Macfadden's College of Physcultopathy [sic] in Chicago and interned at Crane's Sanatorium in Elmhurst, Illinois. He also attended Lindlahr College of Natural Therapeutics for post-graduate work and served at Lindlahr's and Sahler's Sanatoriums. Shelton later continued post-graduate work at Peerless College of Chiropractic in Illinois and served an internship at Crandall Health School in Pennsylvania.

scienceFineArtOfFASTING.png

-- from the Amazon.com blurb for the book:

"Science stubbornly clings to its errors and resists all effort to correct these. Once an alleged fact has been well established, no matter how erroneous it is. all the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Nowhere in this fact so well illustrated as in the history of the efforts to break down the stubborn resistance of science to the idea that the human organism, like the organisms of the lower animals, can safely abstain from food for prolonged periods. Long after thousands of men and women had fasted for periods ranging from a few days to several weeks and were benefitted by the experience, science persisted in repeating, as though it were a fully demonstrated fact, its stupid notion that man cannot fast for more than a few days without dying. Indeed, after some of these long fasts had received much world-wide publicity and some of them had been studied by men of science, the devotees of the modern infallible god. science, continued to repeat the old fallacy that if a man should abstain from food for six days his heart would collapse and he would die."

No cites available for "Science persisted in repeating."  So sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

No cites available for "Science persisted in repeating."  So sad.

You might want to look up Dr. Tanner's attempt at suicide by fasting and the result and the response of the medical profession. They are not quite so ignorant now. But most people on quora who answer questions about fasting don't know the difference between fasting and starving.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   On 7/26/2018 at 2:38 PM,  Jon Letendre said: 

That’s the setup the paradox prescribes and Bob, Jonathan, Max and myself understand that well. None of us are suggesting slippage between the two wheels.

On 7/30/2018 at 8:12 AM, merjet said:

Wrong. Jonathan implied it. "He would claim that the physical slippage -- the grinding, screeching friction -- is a tactile and aural illusion" (link).  His ridiculing implies that such grinding, screeching friction from slippage is not a mere illusion; rather it's physically real. Whether he intended it or not doesn't exempt him from the consequences.
 

Jesus H.  Try to follow along, Merlin. I have not claimed that there is "slippage between the two wheels." I've specifically stated, over and over again, that the two wheels move as one, that they are affixed together, and all of my illustrations and videos show exactly that. The friction that I was referring to, you absolute moron, was that of the slippage of the smaller wheel over the surface that it contacts. Repeat, there is no slippage between the wheels. You dunce! The wheels are locked together. If the larger wheel rolls freely on its surface, and the smaller wheel is glued to it, then the smaller wheel must slip ON ITS SURFACE, IT DOES NOT FUCKING SLIP AGAINST THE OTHER DAMNED WHEEL, YOU FREAKING RETARD!!!!

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, anthony said:

The "wheels" - plural - roll without slipping ... is explained ambiguously. a. are the wheels autonomous and rolling separately on different tracks (not mentioned)? in which case, slipping isn' t feasible - or b. are the wheels fixed together, the outer one rolling, the inner one complying? We can't have it both ways.

Read the entire wiki link and the history that it refers to.

 

6 hours ago, anthony said:

I've been assured that everyone thinks they are fixed, I agree and that's how I proceeded. If b., then the inner wheel matches exactly the rotation of the outer one, albeit at a slower linear speed. And so far there's no problem. Inner circles (and points) conform to the motion of the outer one.

Yes.

6 hours ago, anthony said:

The visual take-home by way of unnecessary lines in the diagram is where the confusion enters. 

Perhaps that's where confusion enters for YOU. I don't know if that's where it enters for Merlin or for others like him. Confusion never enters for ME, nor for others who have posted on this thread. We never get fooled into buying the faulty premise. There is no paradox, and to us, nor is there even an apparent paradox, or the slightest appearance of a paradox.

6 hours ago, anthony said:

A so-called paradox. Is "fixing" the paradox (with gears) the objective? It can't be. This was not set up as a mechanical problem.

Actually, it WAS set up as a mechanical problem. The premise refers to wheels, to rolling, to slippage and the lack thereof.

6 hours ago, anthony said:

No, looking at the diagram one can see the circles turn true to reality...

Which "one" are you referring to? You? Merlin? I don't share either of your lack of ability in visuospatial/mechanical-reasoning. I can envision what happens "true to reality."

6 hours ago, anthony said:

1. that a fixed circle within a larger circle will indeed act that way - without slip (like a wheel and tire) BUT, 2. the coincidence of line-lengths, measured (to confuse viewers) at BOTH the wheels' bottoms is extraneous  and superfluous- ONLY the outside wheel and its circumference can determine the distance, and this is the line that matters. The ~attached~ inner wheel must comply.

And the above causes the smaller wheel to slip/skid on its surface (a surface which is represented by the line beneath it in the initial setup).

6 hours ago, anthony said:

There can't be "a solution" to a contradiction, so one must give it up.

Huh? That's your notion of what to do went confronted with a contradiction? One must give it up? Heh.

No. What one must do is resolve the contradiction by identifying the false premise. 'Member when Rand said that contradictions do not exist? And that whenever you think that you are facing one, then you need to check your premises? Yeah.

Both wheels cannot roll freely on the lines at their bases. If the larger one rolls freely, then the smaller must slip/skid. If the smaller one rolls freely, then the large one must overspin or "spin-out" (like a drag racer at the starting line). To propose the idea that both roll freely is a contradiction. It is retardation, and nothing but let's-pretend make-believe to try to come up with a "solution" which accepts the contradiction. You just end up with magical "voids" like what Galileo came up with, and similar nonsense. Merlin doesn't understand it, but his cycloid solution is one means of demonstrating that both wheels can't roll freely on their separate surfaces at the same time. Only one can. He just doesn't have the cognitive capacity to grasp it.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me, everyone, for savoring Merlin's posts, but they really are so much fun.

On 7/30/2018 at 8:17 AM, merjet said:

By Jonathan's criteria Galileo, Robert Boyle, and Drabkin were morons, retards, and spatially/mechanically inept/deficient.

I love the above appeal to authority. Oh, my God, these men were giants, and little Jonathan has the unmitigated gall to suggest that their having been fooled by the faulty premise in the wheel "paradox" reveals that they were cognitively visuospatially/mechanically deficient.

Galileo was never wrong about anything. Ever. How dare anyone suggest otherwise. It is not possible that he had any deficiencies or was mistaken.

So, therefore, magic voids it is. They must be real. When the larger wheel rolls freely, the smaller one does not slip/skid, but has magic voids that sort of turn into points that then disappear again or something or whatever. It's not silly at all, because Galileo said it.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, anthony said:

Image result for rotation speed of a wheel at various points

Unfortunately, this Ferris wheel broke loose from its mounts one night, luckily no one was killed. It rolled over the ground for 65 meters, exactly its own circumference, would you believe. The inner ring (of lights) rolled too (naturally) and when everything stopped, altogether, the wheel was at the identical position it began, as pictured here. No slippage between outer and inner rings was reported. "The path traced by" the inner ring which has a smaller circumference naturally, was equally 65m.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

All this time we've really been talking about three wheels two of them stuck together when rotating and one freely. Guess who chose what two. Can Merlin explain the entirety of three wheels?

Brant   

Please, go and read the first page on this thread.

In my very first post, I wrote: "

Quote

 

Huh? Who said anything about the inner wheel slipping "relative to the tire"?!!!

One of the wheels must slip relative to the line that represents it's alleged "circumference" line.

 

 

In my fourth post, I posted a video in which the two wheels are stuck together.

In my fifth post, I repeated and stressed that the wheels are stuck together, glued together, and that they roll without slipping with each other.

I also gave the example of different sized gears locked to the same axle.

Throughout the rest of this thread, I've said the same thing many times, and illustrated and animated it in a variety of ways.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Sure, I know I'm only recasting, but I was trying to do it in a way that Merlin might get his brain around it. Faint hope.

Brant

Ah. Sorry. I read what you wrote and immediately thought of all of the ways that it might add to Merlin's confusions.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2018 at 3:02 PM, Jonathan said:
I have not claimed that there is "slippage between the two wheels." 

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. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2018 at 4:35 PM, Jonathan said:

Forgive me, everyone, for savoring Merlin's posts, but they really are so much fun.

I love the above appeal to authority. Oh, my God, these men were giants, and little Jonathan has the unmitigated gall to suggest that their having been fooled by the faulty premise in the wheel "paradox" reveals that they were cognitively visuospatially/mechanically deficient.

Galileo was never wrong about anything. Ever. How dare anyone suggest otherwise. It is not possible that he had any deficiencies or was mistaken.

So, therefore, magic voids it is. They must be real. When the larger wheel rolls freely, the smaller one does not slip/skid, but has magic voids that sort of turn into points that then disappear again or something or whatever. It's not silly at all, because Galileo said it.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2018 at 12:27 PM, Jonathan said:

So, how is it possible that the orange line, which traces the motion of the inner wheel's rim, is equal to the circumference of the outer wheel?

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?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2018 at 9:21 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Can Merlin explain the entirety of three wheels?   

Try finding a kindergarten and relearning how to count.

On 8/1/2018 at 2:16 PM, Brant Gaede said:

I'm quite willing to add to his confusions. They aren't my problem. 

If you want to see who's confused, look at your image in a mirror. Invite your con artist pal to join you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, merjet said:

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

Actually "concentric" is an adjective  which describes  a ---set--- of objects   all with the same center point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, merjet said:

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.

Heh. "Like the Wikipedia talk page says"? You're now referencing a talk page?!!! The Wikipedia talk page isn't a single person, let alone an authority to whom you can appeal, but, rather, it has several opinions by several people, including ones that reference wheels just as the Wikipedia article does. The Wikipedia article is what you initially posted, idiot, and it properly presents the "paradox." I don't give a rat's ass what someone -- probably you -- opines about on a mere talk page at Wikipedia.

Heh. That's what you're doing, isn't it? You're referring to your own opinion there to support your position here, aren't you? Dolt.

Here's the setup, again, from the Wikipedia article that you linked to in the initial post on this thread:

"Aristotle's wheel paradox is a paradox appearing in the Greek work Mechanica traditionally attributed to Aristotle.[1]There are two wheels, one within the other..."

Two wheels. Get it through your thick skull.

8 hours ago, merjet said:

Also, unlike you, I don't arbitrarily assert there is a second horizontal surface.

Again, from the Wikipedia article that you linked to in the initial post on this thread:

"The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels"

Wheels' paths are surfaces. Plural. Do you understand what plural means?

8 hours ago, merjet said:

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. ?

What a doddering old fool.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, merjet said:

I only alluded to your obsession to insult your superiors.

My superiors? Hahaha. Yeah, that's what this is all about -- your need to believe in your superiority despite your revealing your visuospatial/mechanical ineptitude.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, merjet said:

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

Dopey, you missed the point of my post. See, the idea was to notice that I moved the smaller wheel's line to the top of the wheel rather than leaving it at the bottom. You don't seem to understand why I did that. Try to figure out my purpose in moving the line to the top of the smaller wheel. Think about it. Think hard, gramps.

Here's the image again:

paradox.jpg

 

Personally, I doubt that you can figure it out. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I know that you can't. You don't have the cognitive capacity to understand why I changed the setup by putting the smaller wheel's line on top of the smaller wheel.

 

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, merjet said:

...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...You like to pretend that real world examples, such as a tire or roll of tape count for nothing...

A reminder. The Wikipedia article tells us where the "paradox" comes from:

Aristotle's wheel paradox is a paradox appearing in the Greek work Mechanica traditionally attributed to Aristotle.

Merlin, do you understand what the word "mechanica" means, what it refers to?

Here's a very important line from the premise of the "paradox":

"The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels..."

Read that again, Merlin, and focus on understanding its meaning. The bottoms of the wheels. In discussing mechanics (mechanica) and mechanical relationships, when someone says that paths are traced by the bottoms of the wheels, do you understand why a tire or roll of duct tape is not an appropriate physical example? Those items are not appropriate because the inner circle is not a wheel that can trace out a path on a surface, but rather is a void. So, the idea would be to choose an appropriate physical setup in which the smaller wheel CAN trace out a path as it moves along attached to the larger wheel which is rolling on a surface and tracing out its own path. Understand yet?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2018 at 8:00 AM, Jonathan said:

My superiors? Hahaha. Yeah, that's what this is all about -- your need to believe in your superiority despite your revealing your visuospatial/mechanical ineptitude.

 

What rot.

Brant

from the head

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a challenge.  Models  a slipping wheel on a track.  See if you can do it.  I can but I will hold off until you guys try it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I have a challenge.  Models  a slipping wheel on a track.  See if you can do it.  I can but I will hold off until you guys try it.

 

Been there, done that:

I have another challenge. Model the following setup: Two concentric wheels, one large, one small, affixed to each other, with each in contact with a horizontal line or surface, exactly the same as in the Aristotle's Wheel "Paradox." Make the large wheel's circumference 15 inches, and the smaller one's circumference 5 inches. Place marks on the circumferences of the wheels at 45 degree intervals, and make each mark exactly 0.25 inches wide. Roll the set of wheels so that the larger one rolls freely and without slippage or skidding. As the wheels move, mark on the surface or line that each contacts the precise point at which each wheel's 0.25 inch mark begins to make contact with its surface or line. Then, as the wheels continue to move, mark the surface or line that each contacts the precise point at which each 0.25 inch mark ceases to make contact with its surface or line. Do this for all of the marks on the wheels' circumferences.

Now, here's the challenge: Identify the length that each of.the larger wheel's 0.25 inch marks make contact with the surface or line that the large wheel rolls on, and also identify the length that each of the smaller wheel's 0.25 inch marks make contact with the surface or line that the smaller wheel moves along.

J

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