The Metaphysical Consciousness

[Slowvehicle]

Stability and instability are the essence of concept of a lever, and without it one can't demonstrate how, for example, speed and force are complements of each other.

You apparently missed this:

<snip>
Doronshadmi, I will add in editing two other things.

The first is, can you find ANY reference other than what you yourself have written that uses the terms "stability" and "instability" to explain the principle of the lever? I cannot, and I have looked. Levers are pretty well understood, and somehow or other, those terms do not enter into most people's understanding of them.

Second, I will repeat for a third time: what part of a cantilever bridge is unstable?

They're both good questions.

I might add, What do you think the poorly-constructed analogy you are misusing demosntrates about the "higher consciousness"?

Stability and instability are the essence of concept of a lever, and without it one can't demonstrate how, for example, speed and force are complements of each other.

Moreover, stability (Nature's constants) and instability (Nature's variables) are essential for Science.

"Stability" and "instability" may be necessary for you to explain the ripazootic nature of the frakkapatachakra (which needs to be balanced with sea salt--its the picattachackra that is balanced with garlic salt), but you are not using them the way people who understand the terms are using them.

"Stability" and "instability" do, in fact, have specific meanings, but you have not used them.

What about the kangaree? Mythical marsupial terpischore will tree your consciousness, if you will but dance with the monkeys...

 

[doronshadmi]

"Stability" and "instability" do, in fact, have specific meanings, but you have not used them.

You are wrong.

Stability (noun): The quality, state, or degree of being stable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stability).

Stable (adjective): b : not changing or fluctuating (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stable).

 

[bruto]

You are wrong.

Stability (noun): The quality, state, or degree of being stable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stability).

Stable (adjective): b : not changing or fluctuating (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stable).

So what part of a cantilever bridge is unstable?

 

[Donn]

i is stable. cant and lever are not.

 

[doronshadmi]

So what part of a cantilever bridge is unstable?

A cantilever bridge takes advantage of the stiffness of a beam’s material and the ability to balance a beam on one support, so no instability is involved here as long as no Nature's catastrophe happens, or wrong design, or some war etc.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You are wrong.

Stability (noun): The quality, state, or degree of being stable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stability).

Stable (adjective): b : not changing or fluctuating (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stable).

Yes. That is what "stable" means.

However, neither "stable", nor "unstable" is used to describe, or explain the workings of, any kind of lever. Please feel free to provide a counterexample.

In the meantime, why do you continue to ignore the known fact that it is the imbalance of the boomchackralakka that puts the ૐ in "ૐ on the range?"

 

[Slowvehicle]

A cantilever bridge takes advantage of the stiffness of a beam’s material and the ability to balance a beam on one support, so no instability is involved here as long as no Nature's catastrophe happens, or wrong design, or some war etc.

As with any other kind of lever,"stability" and "instability" are not involved, nor need be invoked.

 

[asydhouse]

He's trying to use the word "stable" in place of the word "still".

The fulcrum stays still, while the lever moves.

The rest of this metaphorical car crash of semi-baked similes is for the birds. (I can't be arsed to try to work out what he's on about, in other words.)

 

[Slowvehicle]

He's trying to use the word "stable" in place of the word "still".

The fulcrum stays still, while the lever moves.

The rest of this metaphorical car crash of semi-baked similes is for the birds. (I can't be arsed to try to work out what he's on about, in other words.)

Even that is not true in every case. For instance, the axle of a wheel is NOT "still"...

 

[asydhouse]

Even that is not true in every case. For instance, the axle of a wheel is NOT "still"...

Hence my "semi-baked similes" metaphor

If he were to speak simply and directly, he'd do a lot better than torturing metaphorical likenesses which display glaring incongruence to their ostensible subjects.

If the technique were so wonderful and effective, he should be able to simply describe without metaphors what he wants to express.

In fact, on two counts: if it were what he claims, he would have results which could be plainly described and demonstrated; if it were as effective as he claims, he would be able to express himself clearly, he would be articulate and insightful at the art of communicating.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hence my "semi-baked similes" metaphor

If he were to speak simply and directly, he'd do a lot better than torturing metaphorical likenesses which display glaring incongruence to their ostensible subjects.

If the technique were so wonderful and effective, he should be able to simply describe without metaphors what he wants to express.

In fact, on two counts: if it were what he claims, he would have results which could be plainly described and demonstrated; if it were as effective as he claims, he would be able to express himself clearly, he would be articulate and insightful at the art of communicating.

 

[Donn]

<bows>

 

[bruto]

He's trying to use the word "stable" in place of the word "still".

The fulcrum stays still, while the lever moves.

The rest of this metaphorical car crash of semi-baked similes is for the birds. (I can't be arsed to try to work out what he's on about, in other words.)

Indeed, I sort of figure what he means, even though he's utterly wrong and misusing terms. The movement of a lever is relative, and as such, of course, it's a short cut to understanding to stipulate that one element stays motionless while the others move. But it's only a short cut so that one need not consider relative movement as such, and as soon as real world levers and gears are considered, the shortcoming of the short cut becomes an obstacle.

A cantilever bridge does not, if luck prevails, move at all. It exerts leverage, and it is a lever, but it is entirely static. All its elements are stable at once, unless it is falling down.

The equalizer on an automobile's handbrake is also a lever, in which all elements move: the forward cable pulls a fulcrum which, in turn, pulls the two rear cables, allowing for slack in adjustment. This is as pure a lever as any, but when it is exerting its leverage, all of its parts are in motion at once. If one part is stable, the brakes are out of adjustment or the mechanism is broken.

The pedal crank of a bicycle is a class 2 lever, its fulcrum the bottom bracket, its point of effort the pedal, and its load the chain. Does the fulcrum stand still? Sure, the pedal rotates about the bottom bracket, but you'd better hope that it's moving.

In a real world of relative movement, stability and instability are misleading terms. There is a reason why it appears that no analysis of leverage and its laws is based on stability and instability except for that of Doronshadmi. The laws of leverage apply to relative movement within the machine itself, and not to movement of the machine relative to anything else. You can pull the cork from a bottle of wine while riding a bucking bronco.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Indeed, I sort of figure what he means, even though he's utterly wrong and misusing terms. The movement of a lever is relative, and as such, of course, it's a short cut to understanding to stipulate that one element stays motionless while the others move. But it's only a short cut so that one need not consider relative movement as such, and as soon as real world levers and gears are considered, the shortcoming of the short cut becomes an obstacle.

A cantilever bridge does not, if luck prevails, move at all. It exerts leverage, and it is a lever, but it is entirely static. All its elements are stable at once, unless it is falling down.

The equalizer on an automobile's handbrake is also a lever, in which all elements move: the forward cable pulls a fulcrum which, in turn, pulls the two rear cables, allowing for slack in adjustment. This is as pure a lever as any, but when it is exerting its leverage, all of its parts are in motion at once. If one part is stable, the brakes are out of adjustment or the mechanism is broken.

The pedal crank of a bicycle is a class 2 lever, its fulcrum the bottom bracket, its point of effort the pedal, and its load the chain. Does the fulcrum stand still? Sure, the pedal rotates about the bottom bracket, but you'd better hope that it's moving.

In a real world of relative movement, stability and instability are misleading terms. There is a reason why it appears that no analysis of leverage and its laws is based on stability and instability except for that of Doronshadmi. The laws of leverage apply to relative movement within the machine itself, and not to movement of the machine relative to anything else. You can pull the cork from a bottle of wine while riding a bucking bronco.

...That's no way to treat a good Cab Sav...

 

[bruto]

...That's no way to treat a good Cab Sav...

I apologize for straying briefly out of the sippy cup world into the land of screw caps.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I apologize for straying briefly out of the sippy cup world into the land of screw caps.

I forgot to whom I was speaking, sorry.

One can't "bruise" Thunderbird, or MadDog20/20.

 

[doronshadmi]

In a real world of relative movement, stability and instability are misleading terms.

You are wrong.

Some concrete examples:

Nature's constants are its stable aspect, where Nature's variables are its unstable aspect. Without both of them as the properties of the same Nature, no Science is developed.

The complement relation among force and speed in a given lever, can't be demonstrated without Nature's constants AND variables.

The laws of leverage apply to relative movement within the machine itself, and not to movement of the machine relative to anything else.

There is no such thing like "anything else". Stability and instability are the essence within the machine itself. The misleading notion is your "else" dichotomous view about stability and instability.

Again, it is the same Nature of constants AND variables , there is no "anything else", as you wrongly put it again and again.

The laws of leverage apply to relative movement within the machine itself

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.

In other words, symmetry (Nature's constants) and asymmetry (Nature's variables) are properties of the same Nature (please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem).

 

[Donn]

Non sequitur.

 

[doronshadmi]

Non sequitur.

"Noether's (first) theorem states that any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem)

"action of a physical system" is its unstable (changing) property.

"conservation law" of a physical system is its stable (non-changing) property.

According to Noether's (first) theorem there is at least one-to-one correspondence between the stable and unstable properties of a given physical system.

Do you mean that since you hadn't believed it with your own mind, you would never have seen it?

You may claim that, for example, "dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem), yet dissipative systems are a spectrum between stability (non-changing) and instability (changing).

 

[bruto]

You are wrong.

Some concrete examples:

Nature's constants are its stable aspect, where Nature's variables are its unstable aspect. Without both of them as the properties of the same Nature, no Science is developed.

The complement relation among force and speed in a given lever, can't be demonstrated without Nature's constants AND variables.


There is no such thing like "anything else". Stability and instability are the essence within the machine itself. The misleading notion is your "else" dichotomous view about stability and instability.

Again, it is the same Nature of constants AND variables , there is no "anything else", as you wrongly put it again and again.


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.

In other words, symmetry (Nature's constants) and asymmetry (Nature's variables) are properties of the same Nature (please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem).

Well, I will confess that the finer points of Noether's theorem are beyond me, but since the whole point of a lever is the conservation of energy within its own operation, I must say I do not see why the traditional conception of the laws of leverage would come into conflict with it. What little I do know of Noether's theorem suggests that if a machine operates the same in all spaces, it is presumed to conserve energy locally, and to make no particular difference to the total energy conservation of the universe.

A lever is a simple machine, and its behavior can be calculated rather simply. The same lever behaves the same whether or not it is moving through the universe. How the various elements of the lever relate to the rest of the universe is irrelevant to the local operation of the lever. The relative stability of the universe or the location of the equator do not determine how big a rock my backhoe can pick up, and you can play the saxophone on top of a mountain or in a moving train, and the leverage on the keys remains the same.

To presume, as you seem to, that nothing can be considered locally and apart from the entire universe is, in essence, to declare that nothing can be known or done.