BaalChatzaf

Behold!

That is why I put sand on my steps when the sleet falls on them.

Thank you for your thoughtful essay. You have grasped Kacynski's situation correctly. We are all the product of the experiences we have and to some extent the blows which have been inflicted upon us. Even so, we broken clocks tell the right time now and again. L.L.A.P \\//

I am computing the transverse of the center of a circle of radius r. If it doesn't slip and it turns through angle theta then it will traverse r*theta (theta measured in radians). Now look at the outer wheel radius R where R > r. If the little wheel rigidly affixed to the outer wheel turns an angle theta so does the outer wheel. But the outer will will bring the common center R * theta to the right which exceeds r*theta hence the inner wheel must have been dragged for a distance of (R - r)*theta. Attaching a wire or cable to the inner wheel does not change the geometry. L.L.A.P \\//

Who wrote this: "Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful." Answer: Ted Kazcyski, the Unabomber in his Manifesto published in the New York Times and Washington Postl. Are you surprised?

the inner wheel will slip until its cable is taught at which point the entire rig stops. The outer wheel will have done only part of one turn.

Even with the cable the inner wheel is dragged of the outerwheel does not slip.

No true. The outer wheel move further per revolution because its radius is larger. That means the inner wheel is partly dragged, partly rolled. Because one revolution of the inner wheel corresponds to to shorter length than one revolution of the outer wheel. Since the wheels are rigidly affixed to a common axel both turn together rigidly. Pay attention to the mechanics, the motion and the geometry of the rig..

If the outer wheel does not slip, the inner wheel does.

The entire rig comes to a screeching halt when the inner wheel has rotated once. Which means the combined wheel does not make it to the other side.

what paradox? angles 1, 5, 4, 8 are equal and angles 2, 6, 3, 7 are equal. <7=<6=<2=<3 what is the problem <7 = <6 by alternative angles < 3 = <2 by alternate angles <7 = < 3 by corresponding angles, <2 = <6 by corresponding angles. A similar proof applies to angles 1,4, 5, 8. No paradox.

Hawking was cargo. If I were to go up, I expect to work on the flight. My flying days are over. I have a solo licence to fly soaring planes (aka gliders) but I no longer have the reflexes to be a first rate pilot any more so if I go off the ground, I go as a passenger. In an emergency I could still pilot a plane but I would rather leave that you people who are younger and more fit.

Yes I did. Some of the most creative people who ever lived did physics and they used the metric system. The English system does not work based on powers of 2. However binary arithmetic does and the computer folks do well with powers of two.

I am not physically fet for orbital flight. I live that to the professionals.

The correspondence between points in continuous sets (areas, curves, lines, volumes) are correspondences of the cardinality of the sets, not their metric properriwa. For example a one inch line and and a one mile line have the same cardinal number of points, but the two sets have widely differing length. Ditto for volume. A sphere one inch in diameter has the same cardinal number of points as a sphere one mile in diameter but differ widely in volume and surface area.

Nonsense. Physical science has not suffered one bit from its exclusive use of the metric system. The good part about the metric system as that measurements among like attributes (mass, length, time etc) the different quantities are related by powers of 10. This is not the case with the British System which is the system for non scientific applications used in the United States. We still measure our distances in inches, feet, yards and miles and the quantities have no simple interconvertability. One must remember 12 inches to the feet, 3 feet to they year 1760 yards to the mile etc. Likewise for ounces of weight), pounds, tons. It is a mess, but we can manage it. The only time the issue of measurement really mattered was in a Mars probe where the American engineers used the British system and the parts made in Europe were metric. The probe failed miserably and it cost millions of dollars to place a bundle of scrap on Mars.

Capes and Dollar Signs???????? Good grief!

Yes Paris. France is the nation which originated the metric system. Thomas Jefferson wanted to adopt the metric system for the U.S. but his pro-French leanings annoyed Congress and the system was not adopted.

The kilogram is a mass standard. Since the late 19th century it was defined as something that balances a standard kilogram, a platinum-iridium metal mass kept under lock and key in Paris. The standard K is also kept in a nest of bell-jars to prevent dust and particles in the air from settling on the weight. The new kilogram standard is defined in terms of Planck's Constant used in conjunction current in an electrical weighing device. In short, the standard of mass is now defined solely in terms of physical constants. Please see https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-kibble-balance for the details. See also https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-kibble-balance for details on the special scale (Kibble Balance) used to iimplement the new standard and weight against it. L.L.A.P \\//

the LP s "defend" Islam because the conservatives and patriots dislike Islam intensely.

Liberal Progressivism is a godless religion. As you indicate LPism has all the irrationality and anti-empiricism of Christianity or Islam even thought is does not have an immortal God-King-Who_Knows-All. And it has the one Bad Thing that Christianity has: if a person is not of the "body" he is damned and he is evil. That is why Liberal Progressives cannot abide people who are political neutral.

How typical of Governor Moonbeam, the Lord of the Medflies.

34 pages!! This is what happens when philosophers discuss a straightforward problem in mechanics! We are sufficiently advanced scientifically and historically to safely ignore anything the Aristotle had to say on matter and motion. He totally failed in addressing these matters. Listen to Aristotle on descriptive biology, politics, rhetorics and literary style. The only part of science that Aristotle did well on was descriptive biology based on naked eye observations (the Greeks never developed lenses). No less a naturalist than Charles Darwin gives Aristotle high marks in this endeavor. Live Long and Prosper \\//

good point! the only situation I can see for low-blade placement is for hovercraft that skim at low altitude over the surface. At sufficiently low altitude (say less than 10 feet) flipping over is not a major danger. .