The Metaphysical Consciousness

[Slowvehicle]

Given any lever's class, constant c² represents the fulcrum and the complement changing a² and b² represent force and distance.

Not even wrong.

Particularly as you are unable to support it with material other than your own reassertions.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

Feel free to support this...odd...approach. Your claim; your onus.

(And, of course, quoting and re-quoting yourself is not "support". That's {one of} the difference{s} between physics and theology.)

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

Thank you for throwing yourself on that pedagogical hand grenade, for the team...

 

[bruto]

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.

Exponents are always and of necessity the subject where the pythagorean theorem is concerned, because that is what the pythagorean theorem is about. It's about the relationship between the sides of a right triangle, and the discovery that the relationship is between the squares of the lengths.

Despite your arrogance on this subject, the problem is not a lack of ability to think, act or see abstractly on my part. You make a useless generalization, it seems, noticing that ratios are involved in one thing and in another thing, and thinking that you've discovered Spain.

You continue to assert your nonsense, but it continues to be nonsense. An unwillingness to embrace error and vagueness is not a handicap on my part no matter how sanctimoniously you prattle about principles.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

For one who excludes stability as an essential property of the entire universe, this is indeed useless generalization.

Someone: The entire universe has an essential property of stability.
Someone else: Yes.
Yet someone else: No.

Now without explain away that no as irrelevant for how the universe works, explain how the no is possible and works.

 

[doronshadmi]

Someone: The entire universe has an essential property of stability.
Someone else: Yes.
Yet someone else: No.

Now without explain away that no as irrelevant for how the universe works, explain how the no is possible and works.

The The entire universe has an essential property of stability in addition to an essential property of instability.

In other words, stability AND instability are essential properties of the same system, called universe.

So, Yes xor No , is an incorrect view of the discussed subject.

 

[doronshadmi]

Now, let's examine D1*W1 = D2*W2.

The result of D1*W1 or D1*W1 is unchanged even if D1,W1,D2,W2 are changeable, which is equivalent to the unchanged c² area w.r.t a² and b² areas that are properly changeable in opposite trends w.r.t the to the unchanged c² area.

For purpose I have used The Pythagorean Theorem in order to demonstrate the generalization of the changed AND the unchanged as essential properties of the same system, whether it is expressed by The Law Of Lever or by The Pythagorean Theorem.

 

[bruto]

For one who excludes stability as an essential property of the entire universe, this is indeed useless generalization.

EDIT:

Here are some examples of your view of it:

Moreover, the entire universe does not exclude the bar, or in other words, stability is included as one of its essential properties.

Furthermore, since you exclude the unchanged as an essential property of the entire universe, you simply unable to use The Pythagorean Theorem in order to demonstrate how a given pole saves its balance on a given fulcrum, as described in details in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10162444&postcount=428 and also supported visually by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqRf0LTOD3o.

Here are concrete examples of your changing-only view of the universe, which defiantly exclude its unchanged aspect:




http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10162024&postcount=416 also demonstrates how you are missing The Pythagorean Theorem because of your changing-only view of the universe.

Generally, your changing-only view of the universe is clearly false, because the universe is at least constants AND variables, and without these essential properties, no Science, of any kind, can be done.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content.

We seem to be going backwards (no surprise I suppose) and repeating repeats. I do not know why you insist that I am making any assertion about the universe itself, denying or insisting on any quality of the universe. I am not arguing about the universe. It is one of the big mistakes of many, I think, to be unable to think about one thing at a time and to address one idea at a time.

The law of levers and the Pythagorean theorem may well share great and mystical and inspiring properties, and may well serve together to show how harmonious the universe is. But the Pythagorean theorem does not tell us anything about how a lever works, and provides no practical guide to calculating how a proposed lever will work. No matter how many times you refer to your own posts, and no matter how many times you repeat assertions, and no matter how many times you insist on idiosyncratic meanings for common terms, vague is vague, wrong is wrong.

 

[doronshadmi]

We seem to be going backwards.

You are right about that. You and your friends that get everything only in terms of relative motions w.r.t each other, indeed running backwards in circles w.r.t each other like any typical postmodernist mambo jambo cult.

From this regressive point of view, you have no chance to comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10164268&postcount=460.

The law of levers and the Pythagorean theorem may well share great and mystical and inspiring properties, and may well serve together to show how harmonious the universe is.

No mysticism of any kind is involved here, only the simple fact that the unchanged AND the changed are included in the same system.

I am not arguing about the universe.

Yes you are arguing about the universe:

e.t.a. How would leverage differ if the entire universe, fulcrum and all, pivoted, and the only thing standing still were the bar?

The entire universe does not exclude the bar, or in other words, stability is included as one of its essential properties.

 

[bruto]

You are right about that. You and your friends that get everything only in terms of relative movements w.r.t each other, indeed running backwards in circles w.r.t each other like any typical postmodernist mambo jambo cult.

From this regressive point of view, you have no chance to comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10164268&postcount=460.


No mysticism of any kind is involved here, only the simple fact that the unchanged AND the changed are included in the same system.


Yes you are arguing about the universe:

The entire universe does not exclude the bar, or in other words, stability is included as one of its essential properties.

You keep coming back to that old post, in which I did, admittedly, err in not saying the entire REST of the universe. Clearly, when anything moves, a lever being one example, it moves relative to something else, and for the sake of convenience, we can designate that something else as standing still.

What I meant, and what I still mean, is that although we conventionally think of the lever in terms of its fulcrum standing still and its beam moving, the law of leverage would be entirely the same if the beam were the only thing absolutely standing still, and the entire REST of the universe rotating beneath it. You would never know the difference, and in fact the difference, being un-quantifiable, can be suggested to lack ontological reality at all. Even in cases where there is no ontological problem in determining what is moving and what is not, the law of a lever operates the same even if the entire universe is in motion, the Milky Way in motion relative to it, the Solar system in motion relative to the Milky Way, the Earth in motion relative to the solar system, and if the lever is inside a watch on the swinging wrist of the driver of a moving vehicle. Stability, if the word is even considered to have any applicability at all, is relative. Movement is relative.

 

[doronshadmi]

Stability, if the word is even considered to have any applicability at all, is relative. Movement is relative.

It does not change the fact that the changed AND the unchanged are essential properties that are included in the same system, called universe.

Once again, without both constants (the non-changed) AND variables (the changed) no real science is possible.

 

[doronshadmi]

the law of a lever operates the same even if the entire universe is in motion

Again, you are missing the fact that by talking about the entire universe, stability AND instability are included as its essential properties, and this fact holds also about The Law Of a Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem (as explicitly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10164268&postcount=460).

, the Milky Way in motion relative to it, the Solar system in motion relative to the Milky Way, the Earth in motion relative to the solar system, and if the lever is inside a watch on the swinging wrist of the driver of a moving vehicle.

Since you have used once again the entire universe, I'll follow the same line:

The best way to understand it is to look at the whole universe as the machine itself.

From this mechanical comprehensive point of view, the fulcrum of a given lever that is located along the Equator of planet Earth, is more stable than the endpoints of a given pole along it, but it is less stable than the fulcrum at the center of the Earth.

The fulcrum at the center of the Earth is more stable than the fulcrum of that given lever, but it is less stable than the fulcrum at the center of the Sun.

the fulcrum at the center of the Sun is more stable than the fulcrum at the center of the Earth, but it is less stable than the fulcrum at the center of the Milky-way galaxy.

The symmetry at the basis of our universe is more stable than any asymmetric phenomena like the acceleration of galaxies and clusters of galaxies all over the observed universe.

So within our universe, there are different scale levels, where within the border of each scale level there is both stability AND instability, or in other word this pair exists independently of any given scale.

You would never know the difference, and in fact the difference, being un-quantifiable, can be suggested to lack ontological reality at all.

So, by your ontological reality can we claim, for example, that the Sun moves around the Earth, or maybe the Milky Way also moves around the Earth? (who knows ).

 

[doronshadmi]

You keep coming back to that old post, in which I did, admittedly, err in not saying the entire REST of the universe.

The error is your attempt to exclude something (and in this case, Stability) as a property of the universe. So, let me tell you some news, also your "entire REST of the universe" Linguistic maneuver can't exclude Stability as an essential property of the universe, in addition to its Instability.

 

[bruto]

Again, you are missing the fact that by talking about the entire universe, stability AND instability are included as its essential properties, and this fact holds also about The Law Of a Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem (as explicitly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10164268&postcount=460).


Since you have used once again the entire universe, I'll follow the same line:

The best way to understand it is to look at the whole universe as the machine itself.

From this mechanical comprehensive point of view, the fulcrum of a given lever that is located along the Equator of planet Earth, is more stable than the endpoints of a given pole along it, but it is less stable than the fulcrum at the center of the Earth.

The fulcrum at the center of the Earth is more stable than the fulcrum of that given lever, but it is less stable than the fulcrum at the center of the Sun.

the fulcrum at the center of the Sun is more stable than the fulcrum at the center of the Earth, but it is less stable than the fulcrum at the center of the Milky-way galaxy.

The symmetry at the basis of our universe is more stable than any asymmetric phenomena like the acceleration of galaxies and clusters of galaxies all over the observed universe.

So within our universe, there are different scale levels, where within the border of each scale level there is both stability AND instability, or in other word this pair exists independently of any given scale.


So, by your ontological reality can we claim, for example, that the Sun moves around the Earth, or maybe the Milky Way also moves around the Earth? (who knows ).

In that last point, you miss entirely my own point, not surprisingly. If the entire universe is in motion, or if everything we can perceive in the universe is in absolute motion, we cannot even observe it, much less quantify it. Simple, fundamental, old hat pragmatic maxim here.

Of course we can, with common sense, say that the earth moves around the sun, if for no other reason than common sense and parsimony.

Whether or not stability and instability are fundamental principles of the universe, scalable, inherent in various ideas, or whatnot, does not make the Pythagorean theorem applicable to the law of levers. The two things may partake of the same lofty principles - the universe is full of ratios - but the relationship the Pythagorean theorem deals with is not the relationship the law of levers deals with.

Of course I think I'm being pretty kind here, as you have not actually made a convincing case for what stability and instability mean in relation to anything at all. I see the words, I know the general sense of their meaning, but there is little to show for it except, it seems, a habit of glossing over glaring errors as if they were never made. After all, this whole avenue of discussion began with the assertion that one end of a lever is stable while the other is not.

 

[bruto]

Thank you for throwing yourself on that pedagogical hand grenade, for the team...

Just in case you're wondering, the youtube video is simply an animation of the Pythagorean theorem, in which a hypoteneuse of arbitrary size has a right triangle erected on top of it, We see the vertex of the right angle go through all its possible positions, and at one point turn the squares into parallelograms. It may illustrate Euclid's proof, but it does not explain it and it moves very fast. I do not think a person seeing the video alone would be able to say what Euclid's proof involved.

e.t.a. The video referred to is actually a quickie demonstration of an interactive program you can download from Wolfram.com, if you also download the appropriate player software, which I have not done. In the video, various sliders are shown moving, which in the program one can do at will.

The pertinent page at Wolfram has this to say:

The top two sliders choose lengths of the legs of the right triangle.
The third slider converts the squares on the legs of the right triangle into parallelograms with equal area and vertical sides. The top of each square slides along a line parallel to the leg of the triangle that forms its base until the adjacent sides are vertical.
The fourth slider slides the parallelograms down so that they become rectangles occupying the square on the hypotenuse. The parallelograms, in addition to being equal in area to the squares on the legs, have areas equal to these two rectangles that together can form the square on the hypotenuse.

As a final aside, Wolfram.com is a rather interesting site, with a sub-site called Wolfram.alpha, to which you can address various queries, and get some very quick factual information. It's a pretty deep site with a lot of reference usefulness.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The error is your attempt to exclude something (and in this case, Stability) as a property of the universe. So, let me tell you some news, also your "entire REST of the universe" Linguistic maneuver can't exclude Stability as an essential property of the universe, in addition to its Instability.

...and you'll be providing a source for this (remember a source other than your own unsupported words) any post now, no?

Probably no.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Just in case you're wondering, the youtube video is simply an animation of the Pythagorean theorem, in which a hypoteneuse of arbitrary size has a right triangle erected on top of it, We see the vertex of the right angle go through all its possible positions, and at one point turn the squares into parallelograms. It may illustrate Euclid's proof, but it does not explain it and it moves very fast. I do not think a person seeing the video alone would be able to say what Euclid's proof involved.

e.t.a. The video referred to is actually a quickie demonstration of an interactive program you can download from Wolfram.com, if you also download the appropriate player software, which I have not done. In the video, various sliders are shown moving, which in the program one can do at will.

The pertinent page at Wolfram has this to say:

As a final aside, Wolfram.com is a rather interesting site, with a sub-site called Wolfram.alpha, to which you can address various queries, and get some very quick factual information. It's a pretty deep site with a lot of reference usefulness.

I am relieved you were not discorporated by the danger of your selfless act.

No revelations about levers, or revelevers about 'lations? Ah, well.

Ta ever so, yet again.

 

[bruto]

I am relieved you were not discorporated by the danger of your selfless act.

No revelations about levers, or revelevers about 'lations? Ah, well.

Ta ever so, yet again.

Wolfram is the publisher of Mathematica and other stuff related to the actual practice of things like mathematics and geometry, and I'm sorry (well, not really very sorry) to report that their discussion of the Pythagorean theorem is utterly devoid of reference to levers, and not too surprisingly, the discussion of levers also, like that of Archimedes, that dreary and unimaginative soul, and others who follow, is devoid of reference to the Pythagorean theorem, relying instead on the drably quotidian calculation of reciprocal proportions without the elegance of exponents.

Ah me o my, the majesty of creation must, I fear, rely on reality.

 

[doronshadmi]

In that last point, you miss entirely my own point, not surprisingly. If the entire universe is in motion, or if everything we can perceive in the universe is in absolute motion, we cannot even observe it, much less quantify it. Simple, fundamental, old hat pragmatic maxim here.

You are using the term absolute motion about the entire universe, which means that in such universe any arbitrary location moves in the same speed w.r.t to any other arbitrary location.

Then you say:

Of course we can, with common sense, say that the earth moves around the sun, if for no other reason than common sense and parsimony.

bruto, if a given universe is in absolute motion and you are included in such universe, you simply can't use any kind of common sense in that universe in order to to say that anything moves around anything else according to Kepler's laws of planetary motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion) simply because in a universe with absolute motion no acceleration or deceleration are possible, in the first place.

Ah me o my, the majesty of creation must, I fear, rely on reality.

According to the best known scientific results, the universe which we are included in it, is definitely not in absolute motion.

Because of your absolute motion model, you totally have missed once again the fact about constants (the unchanged) AND variables (the changed) as essential proprieties of the universe which we are included in it.

This fact is demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10164268&postcount=447, and I hope that this time you will reply in details to its content.

 

[doronshadmi]

After all, this whole avenue of discussion began with the assertion that one end of a lever is stable while the other is not.

No. As about you, it previously began with your ridiculous claim in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10145271&postcount=225:

My avatar does indeed include levers (kindly and memorably animated by Paul Hoff). The machine shown actually exists. It digs real holes in the real earth.

Then it continues in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10147640&postcount=252

I did read what you wrote. You wrote "...the principle of the lever, WHERE ONE SIDE IS STABLE AND THE OTHER SIDE IS NOT.

, where you have failed to understand the keyword principle, as explained to you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10147375&postcount=248.

Now you are based on the assertion of absolute movement of the entire universe, which is not supported by the best known scientific knowledge, where some examples of it are given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10165975&postcount=459.

In this case your weak sense of reality is exposed, which probably blocks your abilities to comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10164268&postcount=447 content.