The Metaphysical Consciousness

Last edited by a moderator:
Slowvehicle said:
What gearing down does is trade less force per stroke for more strokes.
Click to expand...
Indeed less force is needed in order to move a larger weight along a shorter road.

I measure the efficiency by the improvement to move larger weight by less needed force per stroke, which is the result of smaller gear at the pedals and larger gear at the back wheels.

Long space or time are not involved here, on the contrary, I am talking about the improved ability to move a given standing heavy thing from its current position by one pedal's stroke.

It is clear that the improved ability is in direct proportionality with the different sizes between the smaller gear at the pedals w.r.t the larger gear at the back wheels, where the improved ability to move a given standing heavy thing from its current position by one pedal's stroke, is derived from being closer to the pivot (the stable point) at the pedals' side and being further from the pivot (the stable point) at the back wheels' side.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Ok, let's do it this way.

Above the ground there is a balanced pole on a given fulcrum, such that at its left edge there is 300 kg and at its right edge there is 1 kg.

A 12 kg girl is seated on the pole's right edge and enables to lift (move up) 300 kg.

Now try to do that without the combination of stability at the fulcrum and the instability at pole's edges.
Click to expand...

"edge"?
 
Slowvehicle said:
You continue to misuse "stablility" and "instability".
Click to expand...
You continue to ignore that the center of the pivot is the stable aspect and the other parts are the unstable aspect of the given instrument: (http://www.linearconcepts.com/photos/2007-Israel/DSC04460_olivepress.jpg)

http://www.linearconcepts.com/photos/2007-Israel/DSC04460_olivepress.jpg
Breach of rule 5 removed. Do not hotlink images from other sites without permission.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
Last edited by a moderator:
doronshadmi said:
Indeed less force is needed in order to move a larger weight along a shorter road.
Click to expand...

Wait. Gearing changes the length of the road, in "higher consciousness?

Not just woo!, it's woo!-perstition!

doronshadmi said:
I measure the efficiency by the improvement to move larger weight by less needed force per stroke, which is the result of smaller gear at the pedals and larger gear at the back wheels.
Click to expand...

...which is not what "efficiency" means (no one who know what it means "measures" it that way). You keep running into the same two problems trying to make it sound "science-y". First, you are talking about something that is not demonstrated to exist; and, second, you do not know what the words you are misusing means.

By all means, keep on having fun.


doronshadmi said:
Long space or time are not involved here, on the contrary, I am talking about the improved ability to move a given standing heavy thing from its current position by one pedal's stroke.

It is clear that the improved ability is in direct proportionality with the different sizes between the smaller gear at the pedals w.r.t the larger gear at the back wheels, where the improved ability to move a given standing heavy thing from its current position by one pedal's stroke, is derived from being closer to the pivot (the stable point) at the pedals' side and being further from the pivot (the stable point) at the back wheels' side.
Click to expand...

It is clear that you are talking through your higher hat. Here in the "lower" consciousness" (real world), the phrase " improved ability to move a given standing heavy thing from its current position by one pedal's stroke" does not describe any physics concept. Work is, in fact, a function of time and distance. You continue to misuse terms.

Praps if you deepfully meditationalized the fluctuant interfacings...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You continue to ignore that the center of the pivot is the stable aspect and the other parts are the unstable aspect of the given instrument: (http://www.linearconcepts.com/photos/2007-Israel/DSC04460_olivepress.jpg)

[qimg]http://www.linearconcepts.com/photos/2007-Israel/DSC04460_olivepress.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

For sufficiently woo! pretend-meanings of stable, maybe. Words mean things. Communicating with words requires understanding what the words mean. Using a word to mean what is does not is not deepful; is not meaningized, is not trancenconsciously metasignificant, but careless.

Unless you are telling me that a "stable" "higher consciousness" goes round and round; like the ur-wheels on the omni(mind)bus...

But seriously, thanks.

It's been fun.

RLY
 
Slowvehicle said:
Here in the "lower" consciousness" (real world), the phrase " improved ability to move a given standing heavy thing from its current position by one pedal's stroke" does not describe any physics concept.
Click to expand...
Once again.

Above the ground there is a balanced pole on a given fulcrum, such that at its left endpoint there is 300 kg and at its right endpoint there is 1 kg.

A 12 kg girl is seated on the pole's right endpoint and enables to lift (move up) 300 kg.

Now try to do that without the combination of stability at the fulcrum and the instability at the pole's endpoints.

The same principle holds for the bicycle, the bolt cutter, the olives' press, and also for one's awareness.
 
doronshadmi said:
Once again.

Above the ground there is a balanced pole on a given fulcrum, such that at its left endpoint there is 300 kg and at its right endpoint there is 1 kg.

A 12 kg girl is seated on the pole's right endpoint and enables to lift (move up) 300 kg.

Now try to do that without the combination of stability at the fulcrum and the instability at the pole's endpoints.

The same principle holds for the bicycle, the bolt cutter, the olives' press, and also for one's awareness.
Click to expand...

No.

You try to draw your supposed parallel between your "woo!-er consciousness" and reality, without misusing such terms as "stability", "instability", "efficiency" et al., and without completely misstating the concept of mechanical advantage.

(BTW: your answer has nothing to do with explaining what you think the phrase " improved ability to move a given standing heavy thing from its current position by one pedal's stroke" means.)
 
Slowvehicle is better at this than I am, and more patient too, I think. It must be his experience with schoolchildren, where one does occasionally get an utter dud.

However, I will re-ask my question, just for grins: What part of a cantilever bridge is unstable?

I guess if I gear my bicycle correctly, I will be able to climb up steep mountains without any exertion at all. It will take a long time, but what a godsend to have done so without any work at all. I could catch up on my reading while I climb.
 
It's quite simple bruto. Small cog on the pedals, chain around the mountain, easy strokes. This pulls the mountain towards you like a chattering monkey taking Zopivane.
 
Slowvehicle said:
No.

You try to draw your supposed parallel between your "woo!-er consciousness" and reality, without misusing such terms as "stability", "instability", "efficiency" et al., and without completely misstating the concept of mechanical advantage.
Click to expand...
You try to ignore the fact that the principle of lever is not less than the stable state of the fulcrum AND the moving (unstable) endpoints of the pole, and how by using both aspects in a balanced pole with different weights, one enables to lift (move up) a weight that is larger than his own weight, by simply seating on the endpoint of the longer side of the pole (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10149306&postcount=292).

Slowvehicle said:
(BTW: your answer has nothing to do with explaining what you think the phrase " improved ability to move a given standing heavy thing from its current position by one pedal's stroke" means.)
Click to expand...
Yes it does. The act of one pedal's stroke is equivalent to the act of seating on the endpoint of the longer side of the pole and lifting (moving up) a weight that is larger than the weight of the one that is seating on the endpoint of the longer side of the pole.


Donn said:
I guess if I gear my bicycle correctly, I will be able to climb up steep mountains without any exertion at all. It will take a long time, but what a godsend to have done so without any work at all. I could catch up on my reading while I climb.
Click to expand...

One pedal's stroke or seating once, and it is done. I am not talking about repeating again and again on what's already achieved.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You try to ignore the fact that the principle of lever is not less than the stable state of the fulcrum AND the moving (unstable) endpoints of the pole, and how by using both aspects in a balanced pole with different weights, one enables to lift (move up) a weight that is larger than his own weight, by simply seating on the endpoint of the longer side of the pole (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10149306&postcount=292).

Yes it does. The act of one pedal's stroke is equivalent to the act of seating on the endpoint of the longer side of the pole and lifting (moving up) a weight that is larger than the weight of the one that is seating on the endpoint of the longer side of the pole.

One pedal's stroke or seating once, and it is done. I am not talking about repeating again and again on what's already achieved.
Click to expand...

It really does not matter how often you repeat your misuse of words that do not mean what you think you are talking about; "stability" and "instability" are not part of the concept of a lever.

It is as if I were to assert to you that the mythical marsupialoid model of the fractal nature of the arboreal primate "higher consciousness" were terpischoreal; that's right:

"No frakkapatachack, no kangaree, no dancing monkeys in the heavy hanging trees".

Everbody talkin' 'bout science a'n't goin' there...
 
doronshadmi said:
One pedal's stroke or seating once, and it is done. I am not talking about repeating again and again on what's already achieved.
Click to expand...
I

Misquoted, that's to me not Donn. What you say makes no sense.

What does one pedal's stroke have to do with, or mean?

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?
 
Last edited:
Slowvehicle said:
"stability" and "instability" are not part of the concept of a lever.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom