Max

Thank you, Ellen.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Of course I've got one.

It's called independent thinking instead of accepting argument from intimidation.

What intimidation? Do you find it intimidating when someone points out an error in your argument? Apparently you've no answer, as you every time come up with new arguments, ignoring the previous one.

Quote

And especially using one's own observations and brains over the stories people want to impose on you through misrepresentation and other idiocies.

Like this crap (which is one of many examples from your posts I could have chosen).

No I didn't try to ridicule the picture of the statue. (And I never claimed it didn't have a beard--that's your invention, not mine--but that's beside the point I want to make.) 

Now who is misrepresenting an argument? You never claimed it didn't have a beard? Well, neither did I say that you did, I said that you claimed "that it didn't have a real beard". Is that so strange after you wrote: "A beard that runs past the side of his eyes, up the side of his head, on up to the top and top-front of his head?" and "That's a beard? A UFO alien beard maybe?"

Quote

If I was ridiculing anything, I was ridiculing you.

Yes, I could have expected that, I suppose.

Quote

Actually, I wasn't ridiculing anything at first. When I posted the highlight, I was merely pointed out a real artifact (that you say doesn't exist) 

in the statue's face in the picture. Then I made a quip that included your own ridiculing of others for daring to see things like the artifact (your snark involving UFOs).

The only artifact there is, is the low resolution and the overexposure. There isn't any evidence of a deliberate, human-made alteration in that picture, you're imagining things that aren't there, and therefore the comparison with UFO's that some people see as evidence for traveling aliens, is justified.

Quote

Not everybody who disagrees with you, or who sees the artifact, or even who who caused artifact, is a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist, but you have ended a lot of your posts with that claim or insinuation, always from a tone of snark, of course. (Granted, self-congratulations of the sort you do always comes with a hit of serotonin and dopamine--and that feels pretty damn good. But there are better ways to get your fix where you can provide value instead of putting others down based on your own errors and digging in.)

Sure, doc.

Quote

Even when I told you of other potential scenarios for altering a picture, you blanked them out and repeated snark about conspiracy theorists (a fundamental part of the story in your head) as the only alternative in your flawless elocutions of technique and what other people think.

You don't have to tell me potential scenarios for altering a picture, I've a lot of experience in that direction, more than you, I'm sure. However, the point is that you don't have any evidence that such scenarios have been used here. Any argument you brought up, I've refuted, and you blanked out all those refutations.

Quote

And speaking of that, you worry a lot about "psychologizing," yet can't imagine why anyone would alter an image unless they were "evil conspirators" (your words, not mine).

This thread is about such evil conspirators, who for political purposes pretend that a dead woman is still alive. We're not talking here about altering images for fun or for artistic purposes.

Quote

The artifact in the statue's face in the picture is real. Real like in reality. That kind of real. You not only don't see it (I believe you do, but pretend you don't), you just now stated that pointing to it is ridiculing a friggin' picture of a statue.

That artifact exists only in you imagination. I think no one else sees it. Look at the second picture that I showed, where the same statue can be seen, only much sharper. Also an artifact?

Quote

Nice and rational, right?

Who's psychologizing now? 

(Like I said, that's just one example of many--in this thread alone--I could point to.)

Here's the deal. I don't live in the story in your head. Nor do other readers. So fortunately, you don't control what they think. They do. Instead, your perception of me--and of them--lives in that story. And that perception, going from what your write, seems to be hopelessly flawed.

I live out here in reality, separate from your opinions and stories of heroically trouncing conspiracy theorists and proving to yourself your own superiority and belonging to the right scientific (rational, etc., etc., etc.) tribe.

But out here in reality, not only can I alter pictures in the manner I stated using image altering programs,

I can also alter pictures, and I'm sure that you also can put a figure in a photo by using a clone tool. But that is totally irrelevant, the question is: has this picture been tampered with? You haven't given any valid evidence for that.

Quote

Now let me psychologize for real.

Yeah, that is what you really crave to do, isn't it?

Quote

I know enough about life to know you have been conned big-time several times (in love, in business, or both) and it hurt like hell. Yet you never questioned your own dogmatic method of thinking as the weakness that allowed the con to occur. Your craving to be right and above the other was too strong for you to question what you may have done to create vulnerabilities. My guess is that you hate the person or persons who conned you to an unhealthy degree and can't get them out of your head once you start thinking about them in waves of cognitive dissonance. I don't know the details, obviously, since I have never met you except online, but I do know that this happened. That's why you constantly put down others right at the outset of any discussion. Human nature doesn't change for anyone.

Well, you do have an enormous fantasy, I must grant you that. Alas, I can't remember having been conned ever. At least not big-time, because then I surely would remember it. You'll have to read some more self-help books to improve you thought-reading skills.

Quote

But I tire of trivialities.

Answer me this, Mr. Rational Dogmatist. I've tried to bring the following up a few times indirectly, but indirect doesn't work with you. So let's do it the direct way.

What value are your current comments to me or to most readers right now? You know, value for the people who want to discuss RBG? Or who want to discuss her and the collectivist soul (like in the title of the thread)?

I'll tell you if you can't figure it out.

Very little to nothing.

I'm not interested in what value my comments have to others. I just have to to correct invalid arguments, whether they are about Aristotle's paradox of tampering with pictures, that's all.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That's the value of your posts right now. Nobody cares about your wounded vanity.

Ha ha, in psychology that's called projection. I think your vanity has been wounded, as you've several times been shown to be wrong in your pompous statements about that picture being tampered with. Time to exit for you.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

No. On the basis of the story in your head.

"Knowing" the story in my head is the essence of psychologizing.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The one where anyone who disagrees with you is defending conspiracy theory dumbasses. We talk about images, but notice that your posts always end there at your caricatures of conspiracy theorists.

The discussion is about conspiracy theories, in this case the theory that the photo that we've been discussing was faked, to bring that old woman in it, who is supposed to be dead. The funny thing is that I hadn't realized that you had put those circles on the picture, to alert us on a supposedly missing shadow, as evidence of tampering. My impression was that you'd copied that photo with circles and all from some conspiracy site. Apart from my reaction, Mark and Anthony also dismissed that "shadow" argument.

You then brought up new arguments:

1. The walking people seemed to be "out of focus", in contrast to the standing and sitting people. I pointed out (and Anthony also implied) that that fuzziness was nothing but the motion blur of moving people. 

2. Then your next argument for tampering was that the fuzziness should only be on the backside of the walking person, and not on the front. I showed you why this notion is incorrect.

3. Your next argument was about the statue, the "white holes" between statue and shadow. I pointed out that this is a common effect of (often automatic) sharpening of the image. Further you asked where the mouth was. I replied that it was covered by a beard.

4. Then you tried to ridicule the picture of the statue, that it didn't have a real beard. I replied that I didn't see anything wrong in that part of the photo, other than that the statue was overexposed and therefore details were washed out. Anyway, I found a different photo of that scene, this time with considerably better resolution. The statue is obviously the same as on the other photo, only  with more detail. You can discern mouth, ear, beard and hair, and these correspond clearly with what the fuzzier image shows. Due to overexposure it is still washed out, but I think nobody will think this has (also?) been tampered with. 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I just give words to the subtext that becomes evident through constant repetition. 

That subtext keeps you from seeing obvious things right in front of your eyes that have nothing to do with the conspiracy theory story running underneath in your head.

Michael

If I'm prejudiced, then my prejudice is rationality, common sense and respect for reality (omg, now I sound like a real Objectivist). You never disputed any of my refutations of your evidence of tampering, but only came up with again another argument. What is your subtext, or don't you have one? Is the idea that these images are perhaps not tampered with really anathema? Because you once were sure that it had been tampered with?

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Max,

"Likely" is an interesting word the way you say it. It sounds like, "the only, you dumbass."

It sounds like a barking dogma.

I just wrote that my interpretation seemed to me to be more likely than the tampering explanation. I think that is a quite reasonable statement, not a "barking dogma". Neither did I use terms like "you dumbass" or anyting similar. You're reading things in my words that aren't there. In German there is an apt word for that: "hineininterpretieren". 

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The picture is right in front of your eyes with the area highlighted, yet you claim you do not see it, and you do it with sarcasm.

I see it very well. That you see it differently I can't help, I just try to explain what I see. Sarcasm? No more than your: "That's a beard? A UFO alien beard maybe?" I answer in kind. Or is it Quod licet Iovi...?

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I find this kind of mind an interesting case study. This is the way prejudice works. Prejudiced people see a story in their heads before they see reality (literally, in that order), and if there is a difference, they will not only insist the story is the only reality, they will get quite condescending, then insulting, to those who see the reality of their senses first and say what they see.

Ah, are we going to psychologize? On the basis of perceived insults? When other people see something differently, that must be due to their prejudice?

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Anyway, I knew something like this would be your reaction, so I addressed the post to the reader. I bet most of them see with their own eyes, not yours or mine.

Like I said, fortunately, you don't control that. And neither to I. They do. So, at this point, I don't imagine them being too interested in what you and I say so long as it is merely repeating that the other is wrong.

I'm not interested in controlling anyone. I just tell it when I see a flawed argument.

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As I said, erasing "fine" with a "but" is an indication of lack of further value.

Is that a dogma? In this case it just meant "that may all be true, but it is beside the point". In my opinion that can be a valid argument. Or am I now barking again?

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is for the reader.

That's a beard?

A UFO alien beard maybe?

But what do I know?

Michael

Curious, I just see a beard, an ear and hair on top. No, it's not very clear, but that is due to the fact that the image of the white statue is rather bleached out by overexposure, and it isn't very sharp anyway. That seems to me to be a more likely explanation of what you see, than the notion that some evil conspirator has painted an extra beard on the statue or has removed some embarrassing details of the statue.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Max,

A beard that runs past the side of his eyes, up the side of his head, on up to the top and top-front of his head?

That part on the top of his head we usually call "hair". I don't see anything unusual in that statue. Google statue + beard to see many other examples, often with even much more beard and/or hair.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

Here's what I see. You don't think like someone who has messed with this stuff. 

Oh, but I've unmasked photo forgeries in the past, and some of them were very cleverly done, so I'm not entirely green in that respect. Further I have some experience with steganography, a bit different kind of tampering, but very instructive.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'll try to explain it, but you seem to be predisposed to belief, not speculation and thinking outside the box. So this may be wasted effort. (By "belief in your case, I especially mean belief in science and logic models you're focused on even where they are not relevant, like when dissecting a persuasion example using the wrong criteria. An example is the predetermined outcome filter I mention later in this post.)

The only reason I'm even discussing this is because I no longer inhabit the dark side, but this stuff is also good for readers to learn about when talking about ideas.

So here goes. I'm not going to go in detail, but here is the general outline.

1. People who falsify things are, more often than not, in a BIG HURRY. A falsified document or image is of little use once the opportunity to be gained from its use (whatever it is) has passed.

2. This means, when the clock is ticking,  falsifiers use as many shortcuts as they can get away with. Especially if they have to falsify many documents or images for a specific opportunity. That leads to terrible mistakes at times. Believe it or not, most falsified things with gross mistakes pass for real anyway with no problem. (On a non-dark-side level, think about the constant continuity mistakes in famous movies that most people never detect unless pointed out. There are entire sites and books devoted to this.)

3. The overall emotional and perceptual impression of the target user for a falsifier is much more important than details. The purpose of a falsification is hardly ever precision of details (except in high-visibility cases like art forgeries or where there is constant checking like with counterfeit money). Instead, it is to trick someone into believing something. Once the belief is implanted, the falsified thing is generally tossed aside and the job is done.

You see, the way belief works, even if a falsification is later discovered by a target, a properly implanted belief based on the falsification does not die in the target's mind. In the case under discussion (RBG), you are tying everything to a verbal argument and a desire to expose a conspiracy theory as false. This is way too narrow. This is starting with the outcome in mind before even looking.

That RBG argument or conspiracy theory (either side) may not be the intended effect at all of the falsifier. It may be something as simple as enhancing the people distribution balance of the shot for better impact to accompany an article (because, maybe, the photographer did not take other shots), or something more complicated like someone in the picture needing to prove to his wife or husband that he or she was at the funeral and not fooling around with a lover.  Or it may have something to do with RBG. Or not. (And, remember, I am not stating as fact that the image was messed with--only that it looks to me like it was far more than not.)

From that perspective (including the squeeze from an opportunity deadline), without filtering through a predetermined outcome, imagine who would look at the picture as a falsifier's target and try to see it how they would see it. Not how you see it. Then try Occum's Razor again and see what you come up with. 

(Actually, I don't think it will be much because you don't think that way. But who knows? It's a big world out there and I, certainly, don't know everything...)

 

Michael

That's all fine, but the point is, that the arguments that I've heard that this photo would be a fake are not valid. Those perceived anomalies can be adequately explained by standard photographic effects. So far I haven't seen any compelling evidence for tampering. I get the impression that some people for some reason desperately want this photo to be a fake, and you see there an example of confirmation bias: every aspect of the photo that they can't explain immediately is grabbed as evidence for tampering with the photo, instead of checking if perhaps another explanation might be sufficient.

It reminds me of those UFO-people, who, when they see something in the sky that they can't identify, immediately jump to the conclusion that it must be space ship from Sirius, or perhaps from somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy, instead of accepting that it might have a more mundane explanation, like birds, aircraft, strange clouds, mirages, balloons, Venus, etc. Such a normal explanation is probably too dull for them. Aliens are much more exciting! 

8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As long as I am going on about this, let's amplify the statue.

The clarity of the double shadows from lights coming from different angles suggests closer overhead lighting, so I won't bitch about that, but what are those white holes in between the statue and shadow on the right (neck and base)? And what the hell happened to its mouth? What the hell is covering it? If that doesn't look like the effect of grafting on parts of an image and smoothing with a smudge tool (or whatever you call it in Photoshop), I don't know what is. 

That thing almost looks like a cut from the overcoat. 

I used to fart around doing this stuff in my bad days. 

Do you have a "good argument" against tampering that explains that thing?

 

Michael

Sure. That is the typical effect of sharpening of the image. That can be done automatically in the camera, or afterwards with the computer. You see that effect also around the dark hair and the dark suits against a light background. I can no longer upload any images, otherwise I could show you some other examples.

And what is covering his mouth? A beard, I think. It's unclear how much of the mouth would be really visible in that statue, but the fact that it has a beard, is all white and not very sharp in the picture is a simple explanation that you can't see the mouth. Further: what would be the sense of tampering with that statue? I suppose it's there for everyone to see, and it's not very useful for hiding something. Cui bono?

2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Max,

OK. I'll play.

Here's a very simple process. Take the picture as is, increase the size, then take a screenshot of part of it. All low res, obviously.

And you are telling me that the difference in clarity between the guy in front and the guy in back is due to "motion unsharpness."

Really?

Yes, really!

2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

How come the the body contour fuzziness is the same on the guy in back in both directions? "Motion unsharpness" would make the contour of the front of the duded clearer than the back.

Why would that be? The fuzziness is caused by the fact that during the exposure, on the photo the part in front of the man is partly the light background (first part of the exposure) and partly the dark suit of the man (latter part of the exposure), so you get a grey gradient there. In the back part you get the same, only is here the first part dark and the latter part light (background). So both sides are fuzzy.  

2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I strongly suspect the two dudes came from two different pictures. I don't find the idea preposterous at all.

Only if you have independent evidence for that supposition. If not, use Occam's razor: motion blur is a simple and effective explanation, no conspiracy or complex tampering needed. Why put those walking people in the picture anyway? Doesn't make sense to me!

2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As you say, your mileage varies.

For the record, I have no idea who all these people are, and I don't care either. But I can recognize a bad argument...

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Mark

I don't know the point and I don't know about Ginsburg.

I do know this photo was likely Photoshopped and the person who did it was sloppy. The missing shadow is a big tell.

I don't agree. As far as I can judge there is no "missing shadow". There is just not enough information in the picture to predict where exactly shadows should be seen. As Mark said, a shadow can sometimes be hidden by a torso.

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's another. The people walking in the background are out of focus and kind of weirdly pixelated or something. The people in front of them and the backs of the heads in the foreground are in focus. You know what else is in focus? The statue head in the background. The flags in the background. The plants in the background. Etc.

That the people walking in the background are somewhat fuzzy, can easily be explained by motion unsharpness. You need a fairly short shutter time (or a flash) to "freeze" people walking sideways. This is in fact something you'd expect. I see no difference in pixelation in foreground or background. What you see is the motion blur of the walking people.

I can't  prove that this photo has not been altered, but neither do I see that it has been altered (apart from normal adaptation of brightness, contrast, sharpness etc.).

5 minutes ago, Peter said:

An old question of mine, and others, is why haven't we detected evidence of life on the posited, tens of billions of humanly occupiable planets in the universe? My own theory on that is that we need to think of another way to communicate across vast distances. And when we finally figure it out . . .  Hello. Is anybody really out there?Peter

You may think what you want, but there is no way to communicate with a speed faster than the speed of light. And as our own galaxy is already larger than 100000 light years...

I see, quod licet Iovi non licet bovi.

Just a few comments about Newberry’s article – a complete analysis would be far too long.

Quote

 

a. What are people doing? Are they bent and awkward or upright and elegant?

 

The objectivist ideal is of course that they should be bent backwards, like these:

http://cordair.com/artists/jensen/works/ascending/index.html

http://romanticrealism.com/dellorco/images/imagination_th.jpg

http://romanticrealism.com/denys/images/icarus.jpg

Compare with the ugly bent forwards man in Vermeer’s painting:

https://tinyurl.com/yd8q8ksq

He also has a dangerous weapon in his hand, not a pretty picture!
 

Quote

 

I have included two landscapes to show how we can detect value-judgments even in paintings without people.

In Rina’s painting, we have a view of a dirt road receding in perspective to a pinkish gray sky on the horizon. On the left there is a chain link fence which encloses some dark trees. On the right there are empty lots. Behind there are some telegraph and electricity poles. Notice the blurring of the images, we don’t have here the crystal-like clarity of either Vermeer or Kandinsky. Notice the colors, mostly variations on gray-browns that convey a luke-warm atmosphere. Even though it appears to be winter, the trees on the right don’t have leaves.

 

I thought it wasn't unusual that in winter trees don’t have leaves.

Quote

 

Are they dead? Note that the fence blocks us off from the relatively vital looking trees on the left. This is symbolic: the beauty of nature is off limits.

 

Perhaps they’re just conifers, that remain green in winter? I can’t judge from this very tiny image. Anyway, this symbolism is just your interpretation, it doesn’t have any general validity.

Quote

Imagine that you are really in this place. Do you think that this road leads to happiness on earth? I think not. Everything in this painting leads to a murky despair.

When I see a road, I don’t think it must lead either to happiness on earth or to a murky despair. Sometimes a road is just a road.

Quote

"Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil?”

 

False dichotomy, just as meaningless as the benevolent vs. malevolent universe. One could say that some men are to be valued as good and some men are to be despised as evil (and many are something in between), but “man” as such isn’t anymore good or evil than “nature”, or “the universe”, that would be a primitive religious viewpoint.
 

Quote

Because of the complexity of and controversy over metaphysical value-judgments in painting, I have used the most obvious examples I could find that would illustrate clearly how Rand’s statements  relate to paintings. This example of Rousseau’s landscape, though, is not obvious. The most prominent feature here is the road, it is placed front and center and it leads into a picturesque old-world village, which is a cluster of very neat cottages with thatched roofs that extend across the width of the canvas. Notice the elaborate detail that is showered on the vegetation and the trees and how light plays upon them. The blue sky is aglow. In the center of the road is a curious figure, very small, which I think is a young girl. Notice that she appears to be waiting and she is in the shadow of the tree.

The symbolism here is very interesting. Humanity is significant in the sense that it is in the center of the universe, but humanity is very small. And that small humanity is not bathed in light but finds itself passively standing in the shadow while nature and community are bathed in light. This painting does not convey that man is to be valued as good or bad but merely small and unenlightened.

 

Ah, those evil landscape painters. Often they don’t paint any humans in their landscapes, and when they put them in the picture, they’re almost always quite small. Time for a metaphysical judgment! Even worse are still life painters, they never paint humans, unless it’s a skull that is quite dead. What does that say about their psychoepistomology?!

Frank Rearden? Family of Hank?

14 hours ago, Mark said:

Max,

On your Windows 10 Pro machine, what exactly happens when you double-click the exe file?  It just doesn’t do anything, OK, but what exactly do you see?  Pretend I’m from Mars.

I saw just for a second or so the Windows hourglass, and then everything was the same as before, filename etc. No message or other symbols appeared. But since today it suddenly works! As far as I know, I didn't change anything since the last time it wouldn't work, so it's a great mystery. The only thing I can think of is that one of those attempts to remedy the problem I mentioned in my previous post, did in fact have the desired effect, but only after restarting the computer, although there was no message to that effect. But I'm glad that I now can explore the program on my big screen. It looks great!

As I already wrote, the program runs fine on my laptop (Windows 10 home). I copied that file to my PC (Windows 10 Pro), but there it just doesn't do anything, not even saying "Unknown Publisher". I tried changing protection settings, run as Administrator, compatibility mode, all to no avail.

18 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Maybe elastic bands or a ribbon or some sort. Lamp cord.

I've no such things that could be used, but Amazon is your friend: I ordered a set of laces, flat and 160 cm long and a set of 10 cm styropor balls. 

I copied the file from my laptop to my PC, but there it still doesn't do anything...

20 minutes ago, Mark said:

Just what did you experience?  It has run perfectly under Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 (32 bit), and Windows 10 (64 bit). I haven't had a chance to try it on a Windows 8 computer.

Nothing happened, at least I didn't see anything happen,  I downloaded it again, but with the samer result. This was on my PC with Windows 10 pro. I just tried it on my laptop with Windows home, and now it worked! Strange. I'll try it later again on the other computer and compare the files.

This is a fascinating subject, quite counterintuitive. I downloaded the program, but that doesn't do anything on my computer (at least I hope it doesn't do some hidden damage...). I'd like to play with such a system, but I don't have flat shoelaces or something similar that can be used to observe the twists clearly. Parhaps I should order aome of them on Amazon... I'd like some hands on experience.

11 hours ago, Mark said:

Then the ball starts turning around on its vertical axis.  The rope-ends attached to the ball’s surface go around with it while the rope-ends attached to the room remain stationary.  The ropes become tangled and twisted.

The ball turns around exactly once and pauses.  During this pause you can try to untangle the ropes but you won’t succeed.  

Then the ball continues turning around, in the same direction, and stops after a second turn.  Surprise, now you can untangle the ropes so they are all straight and untwisted, as they were at the beginning.

Rotating twice to get the original configuration back, that seems to be tied(!) to the SU(2) group and its difference from the SO(3) group. I should lookup those things again...

7 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Now three laces. It still works. The laces have to sequence their trips about the south pole in the correct order, taking their turn. To my surprise there are three sequences that work, instead of just one. There are three laces so there are six possible sequences of turn—taking: 1,2,3  1,3,2  2,1,3  2,3,1  3,1,2   3,2,1. Three of these six sequences successfully untangle the laces. (All of them successfully untwist the individual laces.)

Let me guess: if 1,2,3 works, so do 2,3,1 and 3,1,2, or just the other three?

1 hour ago, Darrell Hougen said:

Now, assume that the interval, [0, 2] contains N points.

That is of course the fallacy. The interval [0,2] contains infinitely many points, and infinity is not a natural number, therefore the notion of density doesn't work, as the density is also infinite, and 2 * ∞ =  ∞. Cantor, cardinality, continuum and all that. It isn't surprising that people like Aristotle and Galileo didn't understand such things well. Therefore those helpless attempts to consider circles "jumping" or "waiting" to make up for differences in traveled distance in Aristotle's paradox.

26 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

I understand. I just wanted to point out a very relevant issue about perspective. It's more complex than people tend to think. And it's MUCH more complex than Mernlin thinks.

I know, this was in fact just a first attempt, with the idea that I later could improve on it, I had also doubts about some of my assumptions, but as the result was fairly close to what one might expect (perhaps I was lucky?) and enough to falsify Merlin's argument, I decided to write it up. I used the frame that you posted earlier. 

21 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

So, as your stardard of measure, what you call a "shrink factor," you used a measurement from one axis and applied to another?

In other words, you took the HEIGHT of the left post, compared it to that of the right post, and the applied the same "shrink factor" to the WIDTH of the wheel?

In perspective, height and width (and depth as well) do not stay proportionate to one another's "shrink factor."

As I wrote, it was an approximation, not an exact calculation. I neglected the vertical shrink factor, as the relevant vertical distance differences are much smaller than the horizontal differences. I used the width of the wheel, because the height could not accurately be measured, When I try to make an estimate for the height, I get 489, i.e. 1% less than the widthI measured. I could of course make more estimates by drawing lines with various angles through the center of the wheel, but as this "rough calculation" as I called it gave already a result that is quite close to the value expected when the wheel rolls without slipping, this was for me enough to falsify Mernlin's claim that the video didn't show a non-slipping wheel. But of course you may improve the results by using more exact calculations.

I’ve tried to use a simple approximation for testing the video picture. First I tried to measure distances on the screen, but then I realized it would be easier and more accurate to copy the image to a graphics program and use the pixel coordinates in that program.

First I calculated a “shrink factor” f by measuring the height of the wooden blocks: 123 left, 94 right (pixel coordinates in my copy of the image): f = 94/123 = 0.764

The white dots at the left give the start position and the corresponding dots at the right the end position. To measure the distance the wheel travels, I drew “vertical” lines through the dots at the left and at the right, and a line through the center of the wheel “parallel” to the lines of the system (that is, using the same shrink factor for perspective). Then I measured the distance between the intersections of this line with those “vertical” lines = 1819 – 470 = 1349. This is the “shortened” distance, D_S.

Next I measured the diameter of the wheel, right – left = 969 – 475 = 494. Calculating the “real” distance of the wheel, rolling without slipping during one revolution: π * D_R = 1552. (D_R – D_S) / D_S = 0.15. That is where Merlin’s “20%” comes from. He probably measured the distance at the bottom, which is extra shortened by the “up-down” perspective, increasing the deviation further.

To calculate the “shortened” distance from the “real” distance we should integrate the variable shrink factor over the line from start to finish. But in the linear approximation this boils down to the average value (1 + f) / 2 = 0.882. Then we get 0.882 * 1552 = 1369. Compare with the direct measurement 1349 gives a difference of 20, a deviation of 1.4%. Not bad for such a rough calculation, I’d say.

36 minutes ago, Darrell Hougen said:

Hi Max,

Perhaps I can choose files, but when I've tried that in the past, I've had difficulties. That's why I started copying and pasting. Looks like I'll have to start dragging and dropping.

Strange, "choose files" works fine for me (apart from upload limits...), I just put the cursor on the desired file, hit <enter> and the picture is uploaded (apart from...)

36 minutes ago, Darrell Hougen said:

I don't know what Total Commander is, but that wasn't really the point. I just mentioned using Windows Explorer in order to make things concrete --- I'm dragging and dropping from a file system viewer rather than from an image viewer.

Total Commander is one of those Norton Commander type file manipulation programs for Windows, I use it because I then can avoid that horrible dragging...

36 minutes ago, Darrell Hougen said:

I'm not sure if this upload limitation is a new thing or what. I'm guessing that I wouldn't be able to upload the picture of the three bottles any longer. You seemed to indicate that you thought the limit was cumulative, but I'm not sure at this point.

In general such a limit is the amount of data you can upload in a certain period (1 day, 1 week, etc.), at the end of that period the limit is reset. At the moment my limit is only 0.02 MB. You can find it at the bottom of your edit window, under "choose files": "total size 0.02 MB" in my case.

1 hour ago, Darrell Hougen said:

 

BTW, I'm having the same problem as Max. I seem to be severely limited in the amount of imagery I can upload. I did notice that it makes a difference whether I copy and paste from Irfanview or just drag and drop from Windows Explorer. Irfanview seems to expand the image to the equivalent of a bmp for display purposes even if the file is stored on disk as a gif. Therefore, dragging and dropping from Windows Explorer produces a smaller upload if the file is stored on disk as a gif.

I don't know Irfanview, but although such programs can read and write GIF files, the image in the working memory is expanded to enable viewing and editing it, so I can imagine that a simple copy/paste generates uncompressed files. BTW, personally I don't like dragging and dropping, I prefer the "choose files" option, just as I always use the Total Commander instead of the Explorer, but of course your mileage may vary.