Roll on the 20th June

[MrKai]

Which last part? The forum is equipped with a quote function you use above, but not here.

Why?

Sigh. It will become clear, later, that i was citing your thinking, not a specific example...hence the second half of the 900 previous times thingee....

DING! that's why we debate and make physical examples of our concepts.


<see above about experiment verification methods>

Half right. we debate what is KNOWN...you dispell what is KNOWN but not "compatible" with your thinking by disregarding debate entirely and insisting that a negative is proven.

This is where the disingenuous part comes in...

Getting a little more flavored by the principle in the debate, aren't we?
You're starting to (in tone) sound like Archer.

Ah good..then you DO understand why hyperbole and bombast are squarely in the court of the one making the claims to prove.

Here..let's end this circular crap once and for all:

I, Mr. Kai, state before this forum that I WILL LIVE FOREVER. I plan to do JUST THAT.

So far, as of RIGHT NOW, it is working. Everything I've done towards this end supports my claim that I will live forever.

Exx: do you agree or disagree with the above, that I will live forever, and that, so far, i am right?

We can deal with the rest of this once we get your answer to THAT question squared away. Mr. Kai Plans to live forever, and so far, is correct in his assertion that he will.

Do you agree, or not?

-K

How much historical evidence of flight was there BEFORE the Wright Bros.?
Supposedly, Icarus and Daedalus did it WAY before them.
Seems that until the Wright Bros. every attempt at flight had failed, but it didn't stop them.


No, I want to exemplify science most cherished tenant. If you say it will OR it won't, PROVE IT!
Gonna bitchslap science now?


And your's seems to disregard one of the basic rules of science you use as validation.
These are not hard things to do. You don't need a particle accelerator or anything.

Now, it's true my video is using magnets and ferromagnetic material to prove a point, but they were the materials at hand.

Pick on me by all means, I can live with it.
Get out from behind the keyboard and show something and then I'll grant you bitch slap potential.

[exxcomm0n]

Look, it's a beautiful day (here, you notice that I don't assume it is where you are?).
The pool is up to temp and I'm going to enjoy that so you may have to wait a while before my reply to your next posting.

Sigh. It will become clear, later, that i was citing your thinking, not a specific example...hence the second half of the 900 previous times thingee....

I my bizzarro world, I see both sides as equally culpable until I can see it in action.
I do not try to disprove aircraft flight because I see it, I've used it, I've controlled it.

I'm just doing the same with a lever here and proving that an extension of the lever, and NOT ADJUSTING THE WEIGHT OF THE SHORT END has a different effect.

The lever/fulcrum is a great thing to debate as it's so simple to do a physical proof with it.

Say...........did you have something to point out about the video response?
EDIT: Oh, you're breaking it up in tiny bite sized pieces for me, how sweet. I await the next installment.

Why don't you discount that rather, than my manner of relation?

Half right. we debate what is KNOWN...you dispell what is KNOWN but not "compatible" with your thinking by disregarding debate entirely and insisting that a negative is proven.

This is where the disingenuous part comes in...

We're debating WHAT IS "KNOWN" NOW.

Let's take medical science as an example:

Over the last 30 years fat in a diet has been said to be good/bad so many times for so many different reasons that I CAN NO LONGER ACCEPT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF THOSE REPORTING THE TEST.

One of the latest "proofs" of this concepts says it depends on whether it's HDL or LDL fat.

Why didn't they say that before?

Because it WAS NOT KNOWN OR INVESTIGATED until this time.

But, but, but they said it was BAD before. It was written in books and stuff!

Is my trust, or lack thereof, of science now understood?

I prefer real world examples for the reason mentioned above

Ah good..then you DO understand why hyperbole and bombast are squarely in the court of the one making the claims to prove.

Here..let's end this circular crap once and for all:

I, Mr. Kai, state before this forum that I WILL LIVE FOREVER. I plan to do JUST THAT.

So far, as of RIGHT NOW, it is working. Everything I've done towards this end supports my claim that I will live forever.

Exx: do you agree or disagree with the above, that I will live forever, and that, so far, i am right?

As of my understanding of corporal life AT THIS TIME, I'd say that you knew something, or had altered your chemistry in some way to make that possible.

You see, I answered your question correctly (as you see it) and truthfully while still admitting that everything is not known, and even "absolutes" aren't really that absolute.

But open heart surgery was seen as an impossibility until someone did it, too.

If you have done something that will allow you to live forever, You mind sharing?
I might even pony up a few bucks for it.

We can deal with the rest of this once we get your answer to THAT question squared away. Mr. Kai Plans to live forever, and so far, is correct in his assertion that he will.

Do you agree, or not?

-K

No, I do not agree with absolute statements furnished by someone I don't know.

You may live forever, but you or I won't know until the experiment of YOUR life has extended past what is seen as the norm for "a ripe old age"

We have written historical claims as to people living hundreds of years of age in biblical times.
Isn't that the same as historical proofs of science?
For now I think we have to as modern historical reporting methods weren't even thought of then.

Use this page as an example:

http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterFive/MosesGenealogyCancerToAries.htm

I'd say modern age span is about 120 years tops, and that is a VERY small segment of society, but I don't know and I can't blame anyone that is living forever for not coming forward since he would run into  hate, misunderstanding, and envy.

Humans don't like that which they see as "unnatural" very much and don't tolerate it.

Isn't our present debate an excellent example of that?

[spinner]

---
How much historical evidence of flight was there BEFORE the Wright Bros.?
Supposedly, Icarus and Daedalus did it WAY before them.
Seems that until the Wright Bros. every attempt at flight had failed, but it didn't stop them.

Yes, it seems like this is what you think... FYI, there were many attempts at flight before the Wrights...
Check out, for instance, Otto Lilienthal....

Wright bros were the first to make a controllable motorized flight. First men to glide in a 'plane' were at the time when Wrights were still the kids...

[MrKai]

This answer pretty much seals it for me.

You are a disingenuous liar, and you use "weasel words" to a degree that is just over the top.

Based on all of your previous arguments, YOU MUST ACCEPT THAT I WILL LIVE FOREVER because YOOOOOOOUUUU (not me, the claimant) can't prove otherwise. This is the "gaunlet" you keep throwing down...but yet...hrm.

Based on all of your previous arguments, YOU MUST ACCEPT THAT I WILL LIVE FOREVER because YOOOOOOOUU can't prove otherwise.

Period.

This is, of course, patently stupid based on the claim...but SOMEHOW you can't just admit that it is patently stupid because of some nebulous "possibility"...but mostly because it renders your position as untenable.

This tells me that at minimum, you have a malformed ego, and at the other end, utterly ignorant (but pretending not to be by redefining ignorance...more disingenuous acts), a liar...or possibly both.

As such, we are in fact done. A dreamer is one thing, but an ignorant liar is something else entirely and does not merit my time. As we now have reasonable evidence to support at least 2 of the 3 claims made above, I think we are done.

Enjoy your cheese.

Look, it's a beautiful day (here, you notice that I don't assume it is where you are?).
The pool is up to temp and I'm going to enjoy that so you may have to wait a while before my reply to your next posting.

I my bizzarro world, I see both sides as equally culpable until I can see it in action.
I do not try to disprove aircraft flight because I see it, I've used it, I've controlled it.

I'm just doing the same with a lever here and trying to prove that an extension of the lever, and NOT ADJUSTING THE WEIGHT OF THE SHORT END has a different effect.

The lever/fulcrum is a great thing to debate as it's so simple to do a physical proof with it.
Say...........did you have something to point out about the video response?
Why don't you discount that rather, than my manner of relation?

We're debating WHAT IS "KNOWN" NOW.

Let's take medical science as an example:

Over the last 30 years fat in a diet has been said to be good/bad so many times for so many different reasons that I CAN NO LONGER ACCEPT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF THOSE REPORTING THE TEST.

One of the latest "proofs" of this concepts says it depends on whether it's HDL or LDL fat.

Why didn't they say that before?

Because it WAS NOT KNOWN OR INVESTIGATED until this time.

But, but, but they said it was BAD before. It was written in books and stuff!

Is my trust, or lack thereof, of science now understood?

I prefer real world examples for the reason mentioned above

As of my understanding of corporal life AT THIS TIME, I'd say that you knew something, or had altered your chemistry in some way to make that possible.

You see, I answered your question correctly (as you see it) and truthfully while still admitting that everything is not known, and even "absolutes" aren't really that absolute.

But open heart surgery was seen as an impossibility until someone did it, too.

If you have done something that will allow you to live forever, You mind sharing?
I might even pony up a few bucks for it.

No, I do not agree with absolute statements furnished by someone I don't know.

You may live forever, but you or I won't know until the experiment of YOUR life has extended past what is seen as the norm for "a ripe old age"

We have written historical claims as to people living hundreds of years of age in biblical times.

Use this page as an example:

http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterFive/MosesGenealogyCancerToAries.htm

I'd say modern age span is about 120 years tops, and that is a VERY small segment of society.

[purepower]

PURE POWER I dont think I explained myself to you   yes   I know about cranes [A lot] and I have NEVER PUT ANT EXTRA WEIGHT ON A LIFTING JIB for what purpose ? so I can lift less? If ARCHER has added weights to the lifting jib [so it lifts less] then he is an idiot and dont tell me I have it backwards that he is really only trying to lift 1 unit   with 20 units  THERE ARE NO REMAINING CONTROL RODS HE USED THEM FOR TUNING THE RIG   YOUR PRESENTATION IS NOT ACCURATE TAKE OFF YOUR CONTOL RODS  Chet  WHO HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ADD WEIGHT TO THE WORK/ LIFT END OF A CRANE ??

Okay ramset, before I make another video without the counter-weight, I want you to do something for me. Clear you mind of everything I and Archer have said since day one. Only think of observations you have seen in your life. Okay, now I bring your attention back to my video. If I take of my counter-weight, I would get drastically more lift. In fact, playing with the lever now, I am able to lift all the weights with no "load" on the extended end. Is this defying gravity and physical law? No. The "load" is weight of the extended end of the lever. This is my point all along. He has never gotten "20:1" lift, he has gotten"20:1+lever end weight" lift.

And I think you were missing the point of my "crane" example. I wasnt suggesting putting it on the extended end, just the opposite end. Think of an umbalanced lever working in the other direction for just a second (the short end lifting the extended end). This is exactly what we have with a crane, my unbalanced lever, and Archer's unbalanced lever. By use of the counter-weight, we see the true 5:1 lift of a 5:1 lever by eliminating the influence of the lever itself.

I think you understand lever dynamics well, but there seems to be some shroud over your eyes preventing you from seeing the truth. There is hope for you yet, and if a video is required, let me know. (PS. A google image search for crane counter weight will show what I am talking about)

@mscoffman

Similar to Archer, your wording was fanciful enough that some people might believe you, but you speak in half-truths (in more simple terms, you are wrong). I will refute you with, well, yourself.

"In reality, each atom in the weight attracts each atom in the earth. What happens as the weight sits higher above the horizon these vectors are clustered together closer to the vertical down making the upper weight slightly heavier while the lower weight has a more spread out vector cluster making it slightly lighter."

Then you say...

"...gravity is an r^2 force varying with distance. Meaning that the weight further away from the CG (earth) is the lighter."

So which is it? Is the "weight that sits higher... further away from the CG" of earth heavier or lighter? You say it is heavier in the first statement but lighter in the second. The truth is that that the further two bodies are from each other, the gravitational attraction decreases and the body becomes "lighter."

Since you feel engineers "over simplify" things, I will spare no detail. You are correct, every atom in a body pulls on every atom in another body. And you are correct again, the further two bodies move away from each other, the force degreases by a factor of r^2. You are correct again, the further two bodies are from each other, the more "clustered" the vector fields become. Where you are incorrect is you attempt to bring it all together.

As you can imagine any particle directly in line with the two bodies' centers of mass would have a full contribution of their gravitational attraction down that line. However, as you start to analyze the contributions of the particles further and further from that line, they contribute a force component parallel to that line and a force component perpendicular to that line. The perpendicular components are all canceled out by a particle 180 degrees on the other side of that line, and the parallel component (the one we really care about) decreases by a factor of cos(angle). As the particle or body move further away, the angle decreases and cos(angle) factor increases, which is why you think the overall force is larger. However, as they move further, the total force decreases by r^2, which will always have a much, much greater impact.

In short, as you move two bodies further away, the angle decreases and the parallel contribution increases, but the total force decreases at a much faster rate, resulting in a total decrease of gravitational force. Analysis below, please see attached picture.

Force=(G*m1*m2)/(r^2)
Force(parallel)=[(G*m1*m2)/(r^2)]*cos(angle)

Assume: G, m1, m2 remain constant, (G*m1*m2)=Q
Influencing factors: (r^2), cos(angle)

Position 1, r=y; Position 2, r=y+x; R=radius to particle of interest

Force1(parallel)=[Q/(r^2)]*cos(angle) =[Q/(y^2)]*{[y/(L1)] = [Q/(y^2)]*{y/[sqrt(y^2+R^2)]}

Force1(parallel) = Q/[y*sqrt(y^2+R^2)]

Force2(parallel)=[Q/(r^2)]*cos(angle) = {Q/[(y+x)^2]}*{(y+x)/[L2]}= {Q/[(y+x)^2]}*{(y+x)/[sqrt((y+x)^2+R^2)]}

Force2(parallel) = Q/{(y+x)*sqrt[(y+x)^2+R^2)]

For any positive values x, y and R, you will always find Force1 to be greater than Force2.


If you place a two weights on a wheel and it rotates at all, then it is not balanced. This could be for a number of reasons: a) the weights aren't equal; b) they are at a different distance from the center; c) the weights arent directly across (180 degrees) from each other. In regards to that last one, if the two masses are not directly across from each other, this would move the center of mass of the system away from the axis of rotation. This would cause the wheel to rotate so the center of mass is at the lowest possible point, below the axis of rotation. Please see picture2 for an example.

Now, because of the difference in height there would be a slight difference between the gravitational forces on the masses. However, this difference is miniscule and only measurable at changes in altitude of a few kilometers. For this demonstration, it can (should) be neglected. When the radius of the earth is 6378 kilometers, and were changing the height by maybe a meter, the difference in the "1/(r^2)" term is  .000078! This would only be apparent if the wheel had no friction and were inside a vacuum.

-PurePower