The Metaphysical Consciousness

[doronshadmi]

The fact that laws exist may not have to be proved,

I am not talking only about the unchanged aspect of reality.

The axiom that does not need any proof is the changed AND the unchanged as general principle of reality.

Now you can take this axiom and use it as common principle for of The Law Of Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem, where in both cases the changed variables are complements of a given (unchanged) constant.

 

[doronshadmi]

The observation that several laws obey a common principle is just that, an observation.

And observation is the result of the linkage among the observed, the observer and the tool of observation, where this linkage is the axiomatic general principle of the unchanged AND the changed as essential properties of the same reality.

The third highlight is because the constant involved is the ratio. All the terms in either the Pythagorean formula or the law of levers are variables.

All the terms are not less than the constant (the unchanged) AND the variables (the changed) as a general principle of reality.

You are still missing http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10166253&postcount=463.

While I'm at it, I'll nitpick and point out that you can't have a dichotomy of three elements.

Please explain this part more clearly.

 

[Pixel42]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dichotomy

1. division into two parts, kinds, etc.; subdivision into halves or pairs.

2. division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups:
"a dichotomy between thought and action."

 

[doronshadmi]

C² is not a constant

Yes, it is, as clearly demonstrated in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqRf0LTOD3o.

c² (represented by the yellow square) remains unchanged (constant) during a² variable (represented by the orange square) and b² (represented by the purple square) variable complement changes.

 

[Donn]

Yes, it is, as clearly demonstrated in

No. Neither clear, nor demonstrated to be.

c² = a² + b² : change a or b and change c. No constant.
a² = b² - c² : change b or c and change a. No constant.
b² = c² - a² : change c or a and change b. No constant.

 

[Donn]

Well quite; and whichever side you fix, the other two sides will vary accordingly. The hypotenuse isn't special in that respect.

^ This.

As usual, when the more specific vacuous nonsense is exposed, the field of view is widened and the focus blurred until its a mess of vacuous Eastern-flavoured statements about the universe.

Wonderfully put!

 

[doronshadmi]

No. Neither clear, nor demonstrated to be.

c² = a² + b² : change a or b and change c. No constant.
a² = b² - c² : change b or c and change a. No constant.
b² = c² - a² : change c or a and change b. No constant.

You are missing the fact that since c² is the area on the hypotenuse of a right triangle, it remains unchanged w.r.t the complement changes of a² area (on side a of a right triangle) and b² area (on side b of a right triangle).

This fact holds no matter where you write c² in the equation.

Furthermore, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10167849&postcount=485 you reply to a clearly unfinished post, which demonstrates that you actually talking without listening.

So, this time please look carefully in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10167841&postcount=484 before you reply.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well quite; and whichever side you fix, the other two sides will vary accordingly. The hypotenuse isn't special in that respect.

Instead to think about smaller or bigger right-angle triangles, please think about the fact that the area on c hypotenuse remains unchanged during the changes of the complements areas on a and b sides.

As usual, when the more specific vacuous nonsense is exposed, the field of view is widened and the focus blurred until its a mess of vacuous Eastern-flavoured statements about the universe.

As usual, you shoot before you understand.

Please this time try to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10167874&postcount=487 before you reply.

 

[Donn]

You are missing the fact that since c² is the area on the hypotenuse of a right triangle, it remains unchanged w.r.t the complement changes of a² area (on side a of a right triangle) and b² area (on side b of a right triangle).

This fact holds no matter where you write c² in the equation.

I don't know if the word "complement" means something in maths, but if the opposite two sides change length, then so does the hypotenuse and its square.

Are you saying that the square on the hypotenuse is always the sum of the other two squares - and this relationship is what you call "constant"?

i.e. the basic formula is constant in that it expresses a fixed relationship — signified by the equal sign?

 

[doronshadmi]

I don't know if the word "complement" means something in maths,

It means (in the case of The Pythagorean Theorem or The Law Of Lever) that two given values are changed w.r.t each other by inverse proportionality and they are also the sum of a third value, no matter what positive finite scale value > 0 is used.

Are you saying that the square on the hypotenuse is always the sum of the other two squares - and this relationship is what you call "constant"?

The sum is what I call constant.

i.e. the basic formula is constant in that it expresses a fixed relationship — signified by the equal sign?

No. The formula is not less than constant AND variables, no matter what positive finite scale value > 0 is used on a given right triangle (in the case of The Pythagorean Theorem).

 

[Donn]

It means (in the case of The Pythagorean Theorem or The Law Of Lever) that two given values are changed w.r.t each other by inverse proportionality and they are also the sum of a third value, no matter what positive finite scale value > 0 is used.

Well, this may be, but I don't see where inverses happen in the basic c² = a² + b² formula.

An inverse is 1 over something, right?

The sum is what I call constant.

In other words (the highlighted):
c² = a² + b²?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I am not talking only about the unchanged aspect of reality.

The axiom that does not need any proof is the changed AND the unchanged as general principle of reality.

"Proof" is not really the issue. To be an "axiom", the woo! you postulate would have to be so self-evident that it could be "accepted as true without controversy". Given that your "axiom" is not only muddled; and strung together from several mis-fit bits; and does not, in fact, correctly reflect either the Pythagorean Theorem or the way that levers work; it is not, in fact, "self-evident". Given that several posters who actually understand the physics involved have, in fact, pointed out that your "axiom" is incorrect (over and against your unsupported reiterations and rerepetitions), it cannot even be said to be "without controversy".

As I have been saying all along, you need to provide support for your claim in sources other than your claim. Re-posting (or re-linking) the post where you made your unsupported assertion is not, in fact, "support".

Who else makes the same claim you are asserting?

Now you can take this axiom and use it as common principle for of The Law Of Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem, where in both cases the changed variables are complements of a given (unchanged) constant.

Your unsupported assertion is true in neither case. What support do you offer to explicate your "axiom", other than yet another link to your own words?

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip>
You are still missing http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10166253&postcount=463.

You are still pretending to support your unsupported assertion by repeating your unsupported assertion.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yes, it is, as clearly demonstrated in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqRf0LTOD3o.

c² (represented by the yellow square) remains unchanged (constant) during a² variable (represented by the orange square) and b² (represented by the purple square) variable complement changes.

You are misusing the terms, "clearly', and "demonstrated", and "constant".

You are also continuing to link to a yoob toob video. Have you a link to a transcript?

Are you claiming that the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle has only one value?

 

[Slowvehicle]

It means (in the case of The Pythagorean Theorem or The Law Of Lever) that two given values are changed w.r.t each other by inverse proportionality and they are also the sum of a third value, no matter what positive finite scale value > 0 is used.

The sides of a right triangle are not "inversely proportional" to each other.

A right triangle may be constructed of sides of any length; whatever the length of the two sides, the length of the hypotenuse may be represented as the square root of the sum of the squares of the two sides (which is what the Pythagorean theorem states). None of which has anyting to do with Archimedes' Principle.

The sum is what I call constant.

Which is not, in fact, what "constant" means. Sticking it in your hat, and calling it "macaroni", does not make it correct.

No. The formula is not less than constant AND variables, no matter what positive finite scale value > 0 is used on a given right triangle (in the case of The Pythagorean Theorem).

 

[doronshadmi]

c² = a² + ² formula.

What you wrote is not wff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-formed_formula).

An inverse is 1 over something, right?

I used the term inverse-proportionality such that if a² is increased (up to c²) then b² is decreased into 0, or vice versa.

 

[doronshadmi]

Are you claiming that the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle has only one value?

Not at all. Whet I claim is that by not being restricted to any particular scale level (as can be seen, for example, among fractals that have self-similarity over different scales) the following holds, whether we are talking about the entire universe or some part of it:

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 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.

 

[Donn]

What you wrote is not wff

It's not beyond your powers to see it's the same formula we've been talking about all along.

I used the term inverse-proportionality such that if a² is increased (up to c²) then b² is decreased into 0, or vice versa.

c² = a² + b²You can't increase a² up to c²because that's no longer a triangle but a line. (Nearest I can tell)

Also, that does not help your odd "constant" argument.

Also, please answer my last post about the + because it's not making sense yet.

 

[doronshadmi]

c² = a² + b²You can't increase a² up to c²because that's no longer a triangle but a line.

If you think in terms of Geometry, then constant c² is an area and a² or b² are changed by inverse proportionality w.r.t each other from 0 up to c².

Also, please answer my last post about the + because it's not making sense yet.

Sorry, but I don't understand why + does not make sense, because without it a² and b² that are changed by inverse proportionality w.r.t each other, can't also complement each other into constant c².

 

[bruto]

Yes, it is, as clearly demonstrated in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqRf0LTOD3o.

c² (represented by the yellow square) remains unchanged (constant) during a² variable (represented by the orange square) and b² (represented by the purple square) variable complement changes.

If you think that is what is being demonstrated, you are just plain wrong. C is unchanged in the demonstration, because it is chosen to be. C is chosen arbitrarily, with arbitrary dimension and arbitrary unit of measurement, and as long as it remains the same size, the other two sides remain proportional. It would be just as easy to make a demonstration of the Pythagorean theorem with any one of the other sides unchanged, and the ratio maintained by changing the other two. It is simply easier and more intuitive to maintain the equation as C^2 = A^2 + B^2 than to demonstrate the exactly equivalent equation of A^2= C^2 - B^2.

I know Slowvehicle has already addressed this, but I will address it again. Your terminology is idiosyncratic, to say the least, and your insistence that C, or C^2, is a constant is an egregious indication of a fundamental misunderstanding of what is what.