The Metaphysical Consciousness

doronshadmi,
If you change either of the sides, the hypotenuse also changes. In what way is this a demonstration of constancy?

Please draw a diagram to show what you mean because, obviously, none of us understand your words.
 
doronshadmi said:
Constant and variables are involved, such that constant c2 represents the fulcrum and the complement changing a2 and b2 represent force and distance.

So, whether you like it or not, force is involved.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in your own, unique, idiosyncratic, metaphysical metaphorics.

Here in the real world, nor so much.

The fulcrum is a point.

The Pythagorean Theorem is a special case of the laws of cosines.

Force is not involved in calculating the lengths of the sides of a right triangle.

Do you have any sources for this silliness, other than yourself? (I keep asking...)
 
doronshadmi said:
Right triangles easily describe the law of lever, such that constant c2 represents the fulcrum and the complement changing a2 and b2 represent force and distance.

Since you have abstraction difficulties to get it, I suggest you to put the constant c2 area (represents the fulcrum) on a flat ground, and rotate above it the right triangles with their complement changing a2 and b2 areas (represent force and distance).
Click to expand...

The fulcrum is a point, not a number.

None of this supports, or even relates to, your idiosyncratic stability/motion/instability/stasis "meta"-physic; nor does any of it explain your "higher consciousness" woo! (except to imply by demonstration that real-world physical details are incomprehensible to the "higher consciousness").
 
Slowvehicle said:
The fulcrum is a point, not a number.

None of this supports, or even relates to, your idiosyncratic stability/motion/instability/stasis "meta"-physic; nor does any of it explain your "higher consciousness" woo! (except to imply by demonstration that real-world physical details are incomprehensible to the "higher consciousness").
Click to expand...

One would think he'd use this higher consciousness to explain things more clearly and concisely. It seems rather the opposite, so one might ask what good it's doing.
 
Resume said:
One would think he'd use this higher consciousness to explain things more clearly and concisely. It seems rather the opposite, so one might ask what good it's doing.
Click to expand...
Higher consciousness is exactly the result of the linkage between the constant (the stable or unchanged) AND the variable (the unstable or changed).

The Law Of Lever, represented by The Pythagorean Theorem, very simply and clearly demonstrates it in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10162044&postcount=419.

In other words, Higher consciousness it not achieved unless calmness (the unchanged) AND activity (the changed) are involved in one's mind.

The difficulties are in the minds of those who get everything only in terms of the changed, for example:
bruto said:
By your definition, if, as many believe, everything in the universe is in motion, then there could be no stability of any kind anywhere.
Click to expand...
bruto said:
The universe does not care what moves relative to what.
Click to expand...
There is no wonder that bruto's view simply can't comprehend, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10154922&postcount=334.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Once again you are missing it, c is the hypotenuse of the right triangle so area c2 remains unchanged during the changes of a2 and b2 complement areas.

By using the Pythagorean Theorem the constant area of c2 represents the fulcrum and the complement changing a2 and b2 areas represent force and distance.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but that's just crazy. The Pythagorean theorem is a formula for determining the three sides of a right triangle. It can be used to calculate whether a triangle is right, or to calculate a missing leg of the triangle. It depends entirely on the three elements being commensurable.

The fulcrum of a lever is not a length. It is not, technically, even a specific thing. It is only a location. No quality of that location except for its location has any bearing on the proportional qualities of the lever. If you can find some way to use the Pythagorean theorem as a formula for actually determining the input and output values of a lever, then come up with it. It is not what is used by most. If there is some mystical dimension of leverage that requires the use of squares and square roots, please come up with it. It is not seen by others.

What you seem to be saying is that any ratio can stand for any other ratio. It's true, of course, that the Pythagorean theorem is a statement about ratios. It is also true that the relation between the input and output torques of a lever is one of ratios. Beyond that, though, the relationship disappears.
 
bruto said:
If you can find some way to use the Pythagorean theorem as a formula for actually determining the input and output values of a lever, then come up with it.
Click to expand...
bruto, no mambo jambo mystical dimension of any kind is involve here, but simply the ratio between the unchanged (represented by c2) and the changed complement a2 and b2 areas , that all.

By using this ratio one easily demonstrates the complement changeable relations between force and distance, as found the The Law Of Lever.

It becomes crazy only is one omits the unchanged aspect of The Law Of Lever.

EDIT:

bruto said:
The fulcrum of a lever is not a length. It is not, technically, even a specific thing. It is only a location. No quality of that location except for its location has any bearing on the proportional qualities of the lever.
Click to expand...
As long as you are not using your abstraction abilities, you can't comprehend anything beyond some physical location.

By using your abstraction abilities, you have no problem the use The Pythagorean Theorem in order to demonstrate, for example, how a given pole is balanced on a given fulcrum.

It goes like this:

Since you have abstraction difficulties to get it, I suggest you to put the constant c2 area (represents the fulcrum) on a flat ground, and rotate above it the right triangles with their complement changing a2 and b2 areas (represent distance and force).

Now, let's say that a2 area represents distance and b2 area represents force, where a2 is on the upper left side of the rotating right triangle, and b2 is on the upper right side of the rotating right triangle.

If you rotate a right triangle from left to right, you get more distance with less force, but this is only the half picture of a balanced pole.

In order to save the balance, you simultaneously rotate a right triangle from right to left, such that you get less distance with more force.

If the rotations are done properly w.r.t to each other, you get a balanced pole, but you can't achieve this balance unless both the unchanged c2 area (represents the fulcrum) and the rotating a2 and b2 areas (represent distance and force) are included.
 
Last edited:
Doronshadmi,
You keep ignoring me. Why? Can you not draw a simple diagram that properly explains your notions about a triangle having an unchanging hypotenuse when the other two sides change?

If you do not even try, then I'll take it as an admission of defeat.
 
doronshadmi said:
bruto, no mambo jambo mystical dimension of any kind is involve here, but simply the ratio between the unchanged (represented by c2) and the changed complement a2 and b2 areas , that all.

By using this ratio one easily demonstrates the complement changeable relations between force and distance, as found the The Law Of Lever.

It becomes crazy only is one omits the unchanged aspect of The Law Of Lever.

EDIT:


As long as you are not using your abstraction abilities, you can't comprehend anything beyond some physical location.

By using your abstraction abilities, you have no problem the use The Pythagorean Theorem in order to demonstrate, for example, how a given pole is balanced on a given fulcrum.

It goes like this:

Since you have abstraction difficulties to get it, I suggest you to put the constant c2 area (represents the fulcrum) on a flat ground, and rotate above it the right triangles with their complement changing a2 and b2 areas (represent distance and force).

Now, let's say that a2 area represents distance and b2 area represents force, where a2 is on the upper left side of the rotating right triangle, and b2 is on the upper right side of the rotating right triangle.

If you rotate a right triangle from left to right, you get more distance with less force, but this is only the half picture of a balanced pole.

In order to save the balance, you simultaneously rotate a right triangle from right to left, such that you get less distance with more force.

If the rotations are done properly w.r.t to each other, you get a balanced pole, but you can't achieve this balance unless both the unchanged c2 area (represents the fulcrum) and the rotating a2 and b2 areas (represent distance and force) are included.
Click to expand...

What a load of excessively complicated baloney. Maybe you should draw a picture. I have no idea what planes the various elements are on relative to each other, nor any idea what areas have to do with the lengths of lines or the locations of a point. I don't think this is a failure of the ability to think abstractly. It is a failure on your part either to make sense or to communicate whatever sense you perceive.

Yes, work is distance times force. The relationship between the lengths of each side of a lever yields the change in force, given the rigid geometry of the lever, which requires that both sides traverse the same angular change in the same time. The law of leverage is simple. It requires the presumption of relative movement, which is conveniently expressed in the form of the fulcrum being non-moving, but the movement remains resolutely relative.

You do not need squares, square roots, right angles, or the pythagorean theorem to predict the behavior of a lever.

You have yet to demonstrate in any comprehensible way how one might use the pythagorean theorem to predict the behavior of a lever.
 
bruto said:
What a load of excessively complicated baloney. Maybe you should draw a picture.
Click to expand...
As I'v said bruto, probably abstraction problems of verbal symbolic expressions.

Once again you are missing the fact about stability (the unchanged) AND instability (the changed) as essential properties of The Law Of Lever.

Maybe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqRf0LTOD3o can help, just use it simultaneously in both directions in order to save the pole's balance on the fulcrum.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that is a very nice little Youtube video, and indeed, it graphically demonstrates Euclid's proof of the Pythagorean theorem, which is a statement about the relationships between the THREE SIDES OF A RIGHT TRIANGLE. The movement of a lever does not form right triangles, and the law of levers is a simple mutliplicative equation, D1W1=D2W2. No exponents are required.
 
bruto said:
No exponents are required.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. They are not the considered subject here.

The considered subject here is the unchanged AND the changed as essential properties of the same system.

Ok bruto, probably your abstraction problems are both verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial, since you can't establish the connection between http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10162444&postcount=428 AND https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqRf0LTOD3o in terms of the unchanged AND the changed.

The unchanged AND the changed as essential properties of the same system, is probably beyond your scope (as clearly demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10154922&postcount=334, especially in its last part).

I wish you the best.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Wrong, it is about the areas on the sides of a right triangle, such that the area on c side is constant w.r.t the complement variable areas on a and b sides.
Click to expand...

It would be difficult to be more wrong, in as few words, about a simple theorem of geometry.

The Theorem is no more (and no less) than a special instantiation of the laws of cosines.

Instead of merely echoing your own assertion as if it were true, suppose you provide a link to someone other than yourself claiming that the P.T. is "about" force and distance, or that the fulcrum is a "constant"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom