Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #580486 > unrolled thread

Interesting problem

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Interesting problem "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-26 07:05 +1000
    Re: Interesting problem Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 23:17 +0200
      Re: Interesting problem "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-27 03:57 +1000
      Re: Interesting problem David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2016-05-30 03:12 -0400
        Re: Interesting problem ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-31 20:05 -0500
          Re: Interesting problem David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2016-06-02 22:25 -0400
            Re: Interesting problem ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-02 23:52 -0500
            Re: Interesting problem Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-06-03 09:52 +0000
              Re: Interesting problem noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:56 -0700
    Re: Interesting problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:20 -0500
      Re: Interesting problem Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-25 18:31 -0500
      Re: Interesting problem "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-27 03:25 +1000
        Re: Interesting problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 13:32 -0500
          Re: Interesting problem HGW <hw@...> - 2016-05-27 12:15 +1000
            Re: Interesting problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 04:26 -0500
              Re: Interesting problem "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-27 19:52 +1000
                Re: Interesting problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 05:46 -0500
                  Re: Interesting problem "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-27 21:55 +1000
                    Re: Interesting problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 07:23 -0500
                      Re: Interesting problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 07:26 -0500
                      Re: Interesting problem ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-27 09:38 -0500
                        Re: Interesting problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:47 -0500
                          Re: Interesting problem "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-27 08:00 -0700
                          Re: Interesting problem ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-27 10:22 -0500
                            Re: Interesting problem "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-27 09:02 -0700
                            Re: Interesting problem ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-27 18:43 -0500
                              Re: Interesting problem ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-27 20:16 -0500
                        Re: Interesting problem "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-27 08:14 -0700
                      Re: Interesting problem "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-28 19:47 +1000
                        Re: Interesting problem Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 13:52 -0500
                          Re: Interesting problem "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-30 07:09 +1000
                            Re: Interesting problem Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 16:26 -0500
                              Re: Interesting problem Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-05-30 04:25 +0000
                              Re: Interesting problem "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-31 21:00 +1000
                                Re: Interesting problem Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-05-31 22:46 +0000
                                  Re: Interesting problem HGW <hw@...> - 2016-06-02 09:32 +1000
                                  Re: Interesting problem noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 18:34 -0700
                    Re: Interesting problem Mikkel Haaheim <mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 08:08 -0700
      Re: Interesting problem Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-05-27 22:03 +0000
        Re: Interesting problem "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-05-28 20:10 +1000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#580947

On Fri, 27 May 2016 07:23:41 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 5/27/2016 6:55 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> On 27/05/16 20:46, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2016 4:52 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>>> On 27/05/16 19:26, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know the relationship between the number of solar days and the
>>>>> number of sidereal days in a year?
>>>>
>>>> Of course. Why don't you tell Poutnik.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why don't YOU tell Poutnik? Be sure to use the relationship between
>>> solar and sidereal days in your argument with him about it.
>>
>> Poutnik's answer was 99. Is he right?
> 
> I see you're having trouble making the connection.
> I'll give you another example that will help you visualize what's going on.
> Let's say you have a gear that has 100 shallow teeth on its 
> circumference. There is a red line painted along a radius of the gear. 
> Now you're going to put that inside a circular ring with just a slightly 
> larger inner diameter, and which has 101 shallow teeth on its inner 
> perimeter.
> Now I'm going to use my finger to run that gear around inside the ring, 
> once around the inner perimeter of the ring. When I do that, how many 
> revolutions will that red line on the gear have made? And if I ran the 
> gear clockwise around the inner perimeter of the ring, in which 
> direction will the red line rotate?
> 

That's an easier explanation? It's amusing that some
people are not made to express themselves, some are. 

-- 
    "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And 
     have a good laugh when it seeps down on 
     your face."
                            - Bert

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580949

On 5/27/2016 9:38 AM, ClutterFreak wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2016 07:23:41 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 5/27/2016 6:55 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>> On 27/05/16 20:46, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/2016 4:52 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>>>> On 27/05/16 19:26, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know the relationship between the number of solar days and the
>>>>>> number of sidereal days in a year?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course. Why don't you tell Poutnik.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why don't YOU tell Poutnik? Be sure to use the relationship between
>>>> solar and sidereal days in your argument with him about it.
>>>
>>> Poutnik's answer was 99. Is he right?
>>
>> I see you're having trouble making the connection.
>> I'll give you another example that will help you visualize what's going on.
>> Let's say you have a gear that has 100 shallow teeth on its
>> circumference. There is a red line painted along a radius of the gear.
>> Now you're going to put that inside a circular ring with just a slightly
>> larger inner diameter, and which has 101 shallow teeth on its inner
>> perimeter.
>> Now I'm going to use my finger to run that gear around inside the ring,
>> once around the inner perimeter of the ring. When I do that, how many
>> revolutions will that red line on the gear have made? And if I ran the
>> gear clockwise around the inner perimeter of the ring, in which
>> direction will the red line rotate?
>>
>
> That's an easier explanation? It's amusing that some
> people are not made to express themselves, some are.
>

LOL. To be fair, I'm not really trying to explain this easily to "Henry" 
because Henry is being lazy. What I'm trying to give him is two 
different related problems that he can figure out quickly, which will 
give him the answer to his original question.

Or he can buy a Spirograph for $15 and get that answer and more.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580956

"Odd Bodkin" <bodkinodd@gmail.com> "the maker of 
fine toys, tools, tables" who posts all day long, and hence 
doesn't sell any of'em, is too stupid to see that...  
>
"<clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> "ClutterFreak",
aka Mehram Maleki the Iranian USA hater, wrote loud 
& clear, on 19-May-2016, in "Re: Thou shalt not covet", 
>
that ____ "Maleki is talking bullshit"________, which he
compulsively does, Ad Infinitum, in Maleki's quest to get
more of <http://tinyurl.com/Glaziers-turd-eating-Slaves>
like Odd Bodkin, the Boinker....
>
>
>
>

ahahahahahaha... ahahahahanson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580969

On Fri, 27 May 2016 09:47:28 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 5/27/2016 9:38 AM, ClutterFreak wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 May 2016 07:23:41 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/27/2016 6:55 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>>> On 27/05/16 20:46, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> On 5/27/2016 4:52 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/05/16 19:26, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you know the relationship between the number of solar days and the
>>>>>>> number of sidereal days in a year?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course. Why don't you tell Poutnik.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't YOU tell Poutnik? Be sure to use the relationship between
>>>>> solar and sidereal days in your argument with him about it.
>>>>
>>>> Poutnik's answer was 99. Is he right?
>>>
>>> I see you're having trouble making the connection.
>>> I'll give you another example that will help you visualize what's going on.
>>> Let's say you have a gear that has 100 shallow teeth on its
>>> circumference. There is a red line painted along a radius of the gear.
>>> Now you're going to put that inside a circular ring with just a slightly
>>> larger inner diameter, and which has 101 shallow teeth on its inner
>>> perimeter.
>>> Now I'm going to use my finger to run that gear around inside the ring,
>>> once around the inner perimeter of the ring. When I do that, how many
>>> revolutions will that red line on the gear have made? And if I ran the
>>> gear clockwise around the inner perimeter of the ring, in which
>>> direction will the red line rotate?
>>>
>>
>> That's an easier explanation? It's amusing that some
>> people are not made to express themselves, some are.
>>
> 
> LOL. To be fair, I'm not really trying to explain this easily to "Henry" 
> because Henry is being lazy. What I'm trying to give him is two 
> different related problems that he can figure out quickly, which will 
> give him the answer to his original question.
> 
> Or he can buy a Spirograph for $15 and get that answer and more.
> 

A more complicated form of same problem was devised by
Tusi to get much better accuracy at predicting motions
of some of the planets. Look up "Tusi Couple". His
idea was stolen, wholesale, by Copernicus with nothing
added or removed from it as part of his famous
publication, pretending it had come from himself. He
did that with other scientists as well, like Ebne
Shater. 

His heliocentric idea was not his. In Iranian schools
of those days (300 years before Copernicus) it was
always being proposed and discussed. Tehran University
library has their manuscripts. This was on scientists
minds for decades in those years. The reason they did
not make a targeted publication of the issue was that
they were primarily after accurate predictions. See
they didn't have an issue with "Church" like Europeans
had. Islam never said you'll die if you insist Earth
is not at the center of all this. So those scientists
were beyond the point that Copernicus was. They wanted
accuracy, a theory that would give them the best
accuracy, and achieved it by modifying Ptolemy's
models. But the reality of it, they also discussed
fully between themselves and Sun-centric models were
always in the topics they discussed. 

-- 
    "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And 
     have a good laugh when it seeps down on 
     your face."
                            - Bert

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580984

"<clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> "ClutterFreak",
aka Mehram Maleki the Iranian USA hater, who is 
one of <http://tinyurl.com/Glaziers-turd-eating-Slaves>, 
wrote that "some people, like Maleki, are not made to 
express themselves" without the help of the dying &
deranged 88 year old Jew <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
who said: 
> -- 
>    "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And 
>     have a good laugh when it seeps down on 
>     your face."
>       - Maleki, who is UNDER Bert Glazier's Sphincter for getting
>       <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
> 
... all of which is not surprising considering that 
 Mehram Maleki wrote loud  & clear, on 19-May-2016, 
in "Re: Thou shalt not covet", that 
.           ____ "Maleki is talking bullshit"________, 
which he compulsively does, Ad Infinitum.
>
;
ahahahahahaha... ahahahahanson
, 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581114

On Fri, 27 May 2016 10:22:44 -0500, ClutterFreak
wrote:

> On Fri, 27 May 2016 09:47:28 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
>> On 5/27/2016 9:38 AM, ClutterFreak wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 May 2016 07:23:41 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/27/2016 6:55 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>>>> On 27/05/16 20:46, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/2016 4:52 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/05/16 19:26, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you know the relationship between the number of solar days and the
>>>>>>>> number of sidereal days in a year?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course. Why don't you tell Poutnik.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't YOU tell Poutnik? Be sure to use the relationship between
>>>>>> solar and sidereal days in your argument with him about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Poutnik's answer was 99. Is he right?
>>>>
>>>> I see you're having trouble making the connection.
>>>> I'll give you another example that will help you visualize what's going on.
>>>> Let's say you have a gear that has 100 shallow teeth on its
>>>> circumference. There is a red line painted along a radius of the gear.
>>>> Now you're going to put that inside a circular ring with just a slightly
>>>> larger inner diameter, and which has 101 shallow teeth on its inner
>>>> perimeter.
>>>> Now I'm going to use my finger to run that gear around inside the ring,
>>>> once around the inner perimeter of the ring. When I do that, how many
>>>> revolutions will that red line on the gear have made? And if I ran the
>>>> gear clockwise around the inner perimeter of the ring, in which
>>>> direction will the red line rotate?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's an easier explanation? It's amusing that some
>>> people are not made to express themselves, some are.
>>>
>> 
>> LOL. To be fair, I'm not really trying to explain this easily to "Henry" 
>> because Henry is being lazy. What I'm trying to give him is two 
>> different related problems that he can figure out quickly, which will 
>> give him the answer to his original question.
>> 
>> Or he can buy a Spirograph for $15 and get that answer and more.
>> 
> 
> A more complicated form of same problem was devised by
> Tusi to get much better accuracy at predicting motions
> of some of the planets. Look up "Tusi Couple". His
> idea was stolen, wholesale, by Copernicus with nothing
> added or removed from it as part of his famous
> publication, pretending it had come from himself. He
> did that with other scientists as well, like Ebne
> Shater. 
> 
> His heliocentric idea was not his. In Iranian schools
> of those days (300 years before Copernicus) it was
> always being proposed and discussed. Tehran University
> library has their manuscripts. This was on scientists
> minds for decades in those years. The reason they did
> not make a targeted publication of the issue was that
> they were primarily after accurate predictions. See
> they didn't have an issue with "Church" like Europeans
> had. Islam never said you'll die if you insist Earth
> is not at the center of all this. So those scientists
> were beyond the point that Copernicus was. They wanted
> accuracy, a theory that would give them the best
> accuracy, and achieved it by modifying Ptolemy's
> models. But the reality of it, they also discussed
> fully between themselves and Sun-centric models were
> always in the topics they discussed. 
>

I just read more about this matter. Very interesting.
Copernicus may have not been the culprit after all.
Those church people around him were. I just found out
that even the lettering between the images of Tusi and
those of Copernicus were the same! When Tusi used
"aleph" "ا" Copernicus used "A" and where Tusi used
"ba" "ب" Copernicus used "B" and so forth! The
lettering of the geometrical images are the same! If
Copernicus wanted to hide the sources of his
information he wouldn't have copied the diagrams of
Tusi's (and those of Ebne Shater, Kashani, ..) to that
extent. I have a feeling that out of respect for Tusi
et al he had even used the exact same lettering for
their images. Essentially quoting their works
verbatim. If this is the case, then he must've
definitely given all due credits for everything he
brought into his book. 

And history has it that they only published his book
on the day he died. Did those Church people wait till
he was bed-ridden to change his manuscript and drop
such references? Were they the ones insisting that as
long as such references are in the book they won't
publish it? 

Again history has it that Copernicus, right before
dying, took a look at his published book they had left
by him, then died right after. Did the shock of such
corruption of his work kill him. Did he, perhaps,
mortally got sick by their poison to begin with? 

Also note that the Church people were dumb enough not
to know how to change the lettering on drawings as
well! They didn't notice it! Removing that evidence
would require them to be too knowledgeable in the
field.

Now I have reasonable doubt... . This may mean I may
give him a visit when I happen to pass through Europe.
He may have been a decent man after all. 
--
	"My country is the country in which I can 
	 work for Iran."
                          - Ehsan Yarshater


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581129

On Fri, 27 May 2016 18:43:19 -0500, ClutterFreak
wrote:

> On Fri, 27 May 2016 10:22:44 -0500, ClutterFreak
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> A more complicated form of same problem was devised by
>> Tusi to get much better accuracy at predicting motions
>> of some of the planets. Look up "Tusi Couple". His
>> idea was stolen, wholesale, by Copernicus with nothing
>> added or removed from it as part of his famous
>> publication, pretending it had come from himself. He
>> did that with other scientists as well, like Ebne
>> Shater. 
>> 
>> His heliocentric idea was not his. In Iranian schools
>> of those days (300 years before Copernicus) it was
>> always being proposed and discussed. Tehran University
>> library has their manuscripts. This was on scientists
>> minds for decades in those years. The reason they did
>> not make a targeted publication of the issue was that
>> they were primarily after accurate predictions. See
>> they didn't have an issue with "Church" like Europeans
>> had. Islam never said you'll die if you insist Earth
>> is not at the center of all this. So those scientists
>> were beyond the point that Copernicus was. They wanted
>> accuracy, a theory that would give them the best
>> accuracy, and achieved it by modifying Ptolemy's
>> models. But the reality of it, they also discussed
>> fully between themselves and Sun-centric models were
>> always in the topics they discussed. 
>>
> 
> I just read more about this matter. Very interesting.
> Copernicus may have not been the culprit after all.
> Those church people around him were. I just found out
> that even the lettering between the images of Tusi and
> those of Copernicus were the same! When Tusi used
> "aleph" "ا" Copernicus used "A" and where Tusi used
> "ba" "ب" Copernicus used "B" and so forth! The
> lettering of the geometrical images are the same! If
> Copernicus wanted to hide the sources of his
> information he wouldn't have copied the diagrams of
> Tusi's (and those of Ebne Shater, Kashani, ..) to that
> extent. I have a feeling that out of respect for Tusi
> et al he had even used the exact same lettering for
> their images. Essentially quoting their works
> verbatim. If this is the case, then he must've
> definitely given all due credits for everything he
> brought into his book. 
> 
> And history has it that they only published his book
> on the day he died. Did those Church people wait till
> he was bed-ridden to change his manuscript and drop
> such references? Were they the ones insisting that as
> long as such references are in the book they won't
> publish it? 
> 
> Again history has it that Copernicus, right before
> dying, took a look at his published book they had left
> by him, then died right after. Did the shock of such
> corruption of his work kill him. Did he, perhaps,
> mortally got sick by their poison to begin with? 
> 
> Also note that the Church people were dumb enough not
> to know how to change the lettering on drawings as
> well! They didn't notice it! Removing that evidence
> would require them to be too knowledgeable in the
> field.
> 
> Now I have reasonable doubt... . This may mean I may
> give him a visit when I happen to pass through Europe.
> He may have been a decent man after all. 


This is the source by the way:

"In a seminal article, written in the early seventies,
the late German historian of science Willy Hartner
pushed the discussion yet another step further. He
drew attention to the fact that even the geometric
points employed in the diagram (slides 6&7) preserved
in the Copernican works were phonetically identical to
the same geometric points used in the diagram employed
by Tusi three centuries earlier. In effect, he noticed
that where the Arabic diagram has a geometric point
designated with the alphabetic letter "Alef" the
Copernican diagram would have the corresponding point
marked with the phonetically equivalent letter "A",
where the Arabic has "Ba’" the Copernican diagram
would have "B", and so on. That much about the Tusi
Couple has been already known since the early
seventies."

http://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/amit/books/img/saliba_al-tusi-notation-matches-copernicus.jpg

--
	"My country is the country in which I can 
	 work for Iran."
                     - Ehsan Yarshater

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580965

"<clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> "ClutterFreak",
aka Mehram Maleki the Iranian USA hater, who is 
one of <http://tinyurl.com/Glaziers-turd-eating-Slaves>, 
wrote that "some people, like Maleki, are not made to 
express themselves" without the help of the dying &
deranged 88 year old Jew <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
who said: 
> -- 
>    "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And 
>     have a good laugh when it seeps down on 
>     your face."
>       - Maleki, who is UNDER Bert Glazier's Sphincter for getting
>       <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
> 
... all of which is not surprising considering that 
 Mehram Maleki wrote loud  & clear, on 19-May-2016, 
in "Re: Thou shalt not covet", that 
.           ____ "Maleki is talking bullshit"________, 
which he compulsively does, Ad Infinitum.
>
;
ahahahahahaha... ahahahahanson
, 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581151

On 27/05/16 22:23, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/27/2016 6:55 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> On 27/05/16 20:46, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2016 4:52 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>>> On 27/05/16 19:26, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you know the relationship between the number of solar days and the
>>>>> number of sidereal days in a year?
>>>>
>>>> Of course. Why don't you tell Poutnik.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why don't YOU tell Poutnik? Be sure to use the relationship between
>>> solar and sidereal days in your argument with him about it.
>>
>> Poutnik's answer was 99. Is he right?
>
> I see you're having trouble making the connection.
> I'll give you another example that will help you visualize what's going on.
> Let's say you have a gear that has 100 shallow teeth on its
> circumference. There is a red line painted along a radius of the gear.
> Now you're going to put that inside a circular ring with just a slightly
> larger inner diameter, and which has 101 shallow teeth on its inner
> perimeter.

Bodkin, I have asked the question. you are obviously having trouble 
understanding it. Let's say there are 1000 teeth on the rack and 10 on 
the pinion.

> Now I'm going to use my finger to run that gear around inside the ring,
> once around the inner perimeter of the ring. When I do that, how many
> revolutions will that red line on the gear have made? And if I ran the
> gear clockwise around the inner perimeter of the ring, in which
> direction will the red line rotate?

Bodkin, repeating my question is not answering it. I know the 
answer..you obviously  do not. You probably agree with Poutnik.
>

>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581532

On 5/28/2016 4:47 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 27/05/16 22:23, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 5/27/2016 6:55 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>> On 27/05/16 20:46, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/2016 4:52 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>>>> On 27/05/16 19:26, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you know the relationship between the number of solar days and the
>>>>>> number of sidereal days in a year?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course. Why don't you tell Poutnik.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why don't YOU tell Poutnik? Be sure to use the relationship between
>>>> solar and sidereal days in your argument with him about it.
>>>
>>> Poutnik's answer was 99. Is he right?
>>
>> I see you're having trouble making the connection.
>> I'll give you another example that will help you visualize what's
>> going on.
>> Let's say you have a gear that has 100 shallow teeth on its
>> circumference. There is a red line painted along a radius of the gear.
>> Now you're going to put that inside a circular ring with just a slightly
>> larger inner diameter, and which has 101 shallow teeth on its inner
>> perimeter.
>
> Bodkin, I have asked the question. you are obviously having trouble
> understanding it. Let's say there are 1000 teeth on the rack and 10 on
> the pinion.

And so you're having problems getting my related problem, which is even 
EASIER to see the answer to? And from this you can't see the answer to 
your problem?

>
>> Now I'm going to use my finger to run that gear around inside the ring,
>> once around the inner perimeter of the ring. When I do that, how many
>> revolutions will that red line on the gear have made? And if I ran the
>> gear clockwise around the inner perimeter of the ring, in which
>> direction will the red line rotate?
>
> Bodkin, repeating my question is not answering it. I know the
> answer..you obviously  do not. You probably agree with Poutnik.
>>
>
>>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581573

On 30/05/16 04:52, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/28/2016 4:47 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>>>>> Why don't YOU tell Poutnik? Be sure to use the relationship between
>>>>> solar and sidereal days in your argument with him about it.
>>>>
>>>> Poutnik's answer was 99. Is he right?
>>>
>>> I see you're having trouble making the connection.
>>> I'll give you another example that will help you visualize what's
>>> going on.
>>> Let's say you have a gear that has 100 shallow teeth on its
>>> circumference. There is a red line painted along a radius of the gear.
>>> Now you're going to put that inside a circular ring with just a slightly
>>> larger inner diameter, and which has 101 shallow teeth on its inner
>>> perimeter.
>>
>> Bodkin, I have asked the question. you are obviously having trouble
>> understanding it. Let's say there are 1000 teeth on the rack and 10 on
>> the pinion.
>
> And so you're having problems getting my related problem, which is even
> EASIER to see the answer to? And from this you can't see the answer to
> your problem?

Read Fabian Russell's post.....it's good.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581578

On 5/29/16 4:09 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> Read Fabian Russell's post.....it's good.

   What point was made in said post that you liked?


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581640

On Sun, 29 May 2016 16:26:40 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> 
>    What point was made in said post that you liked?
>

Sammy thinks he's a button on Facebook or other populistic
junk site.

But we have a question for Sammy.

If we consider ANY closed curve in the plane with the same
length as our straight line segment, how does the circle behave
as it rolls along this curve, either on the inside or outside?

Note that the shape of curve can be of any complexity.  If the
rolling circle does not "fit" in some places, we can allow the
circle to "pass through" the curve so that its radius chord is
always normal to the curve as is rolls.

What says Sammy>

Sammy: He was named after the prophet, so why doesn't he act
like one?

LOL!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581812

On 30/05/16 07:26, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/29/16 4:09 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> Read Fabian Russell's post.....it's good.
>
> What point was made in said post that you liked?

It actually understood my question and discussed the science
sensibly...which is more than you have been able to do in many years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581990

On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:00:04 +1000, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> 
> which is more than you have been able to do in many years.
>

The problem actually falls under the lame category of
"trick question," or deceptive "word problem."  It is
of great interest only to charlatans and quacks.

The "naive" answer remains absolutely correct.  That is,
there is no change in the mapping of the circumference
of the rolling circle to the original line segment.

The apparent "paradox" occurs only because there are
TWO kinds of unrelated motion involved and that motion
mixture is concealed by the wording.

I do not like "trick questions" and those who bother
to introduce them. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582218

On 01/06/16 08:46, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:00:04 +1000, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
>>
>> which is more than you have been able to do in many years.
>>
>
> The problem actually falls under the lame category of
> "trick question," or deceptive "word problem."  It is
> of great interest only to charlatans and quacks.

gawd! another 'know-all' idiot....we have enough here already thank you.

> The "naive" answer remains absolutely correct.  That is,
> there is no change in the mapping of the circumference
> of the rolling circle to the original line segment.
>
> The apparent "paradox" occurs only because there are
> TWO kinds of unrelated motion involved and that motion
> mixture is concealed by the wording.

Whatever it is that you are trying to say is certainly concealed by your 
inadequate wording.

> I do not like "trick questions" and those who bother
> to introduce them.

It is not a trick question. Try proving how and why the wheel makes an 
extra rotation as it rolls around the outside of a circular rack....or 
how it rotates when taken around any circular path. It is not obvious.
The wheel can follow the same path without rotating at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582238

quite, so.  it is just the wonderful difference
between integrating or indexing from 1 to n, or
from zero to n-1

> The "naive" answer remains absolutely correct.  That is,
> there is no change in the mapping of the circumference
> of the rolling circle to the original line segment.
> 
> The apparent "paradox" occurs only because there are
> TWO kinds of unrelated motion involved and that motion
> mixture is concealed by the wording.
> 
> I do not like "trick questions" and those who bother
> to introduce them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580958

Le vendredi 27 mai 2016 13:55:03 UTC+2, HGWilson, DSc. a écrit :
> On 27/05/16 20:46, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 5/27/2016 4:52 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> >> On 27/05/16 19:26, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> >>>
> >>> Do you know the relationship between the number of solar days and the
> >>> number of sidereal days in a year?
> >>
> >> Of course. Why don't you tell Poutnik.
> >>
> >
> > Why don't YOU tell Poutnik? Be sure to use the relationship between
> > solar and sidereal days in your argument with him about it.
> 
> Poutnik's answer was 99. Is he right?
> 
> >

I don't believe so, but only because I believe he was misreading the question. His answer would be correct if the small wheel were traversing the interior of the large, but there is a minor (but important) significance to the wording "around" (the large circle) that suggests that the motion of the small wheel is on the exterior of the large. This would be reinforced with the limited options for answers.
If the small wheel is traversing the exterior, then the total number of complete revolutions (the gear returning to its original orientation, NOT relative to the center of the large wheel) would be 101.
His response to the second part was correct (the wording here was also less ambiguous). Likewise, if the overall length of the track were the same, alternating between inside and outside, any even division into smaller circles (successive figure-8s) will yield a total of 100 revolutions. Any odd division into smaller circles will yield a result of either 99 or 101, depending if the end circles were both interior or both exterior (respectively).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581091

On Wed, 25 May 2016 16:20:03 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> 
> Nice to see old 5th-grade problems are still interesting to you.
> 

Odd Ball gives one explanation, but can he attain a full generalization?

In the first place, gears are unnecessary.  We can consider rolling circles
as being the limit of infinite "teeth."

We can also transform a straight "line" into a circle by constructing
polygonal, or n-gon, intermediates.  In other words, from our straight
line we construct a 2-gon*, triangle(3-gon), a square(4-gon), a pentagon, etc.
until we finally arrive at our circle, which is an "infinity-gon."

We roll our circle along each of these n-gons.  How does the motion
of the circle behave in each case?

* Yes, Odd Ball, a 2-gon does exist.  It is a degenerate polygon
with 2 sides and 2 vertices.  We can easily make one from our original
straight line.

Even more illustrative is to consider what happens when a circle is
rolled around a 1-gon, which has 1 side and 1 vertex.  Maybe Odd Ball
will enlighten us.

C'mon, Odd Ball.  Let's see you fully generalize this 5th-grade problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581154

On 28/05/16 08:03, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2016 16:20:03 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>
> Odd Ball gives one explanation, but can he attain a full generalization?
>
> In the first place, gears are unnecessary.  We can consider rolling circles
> as being the limit of infinite "teeth."
>
> We can also transform a straight "line" into a circle by constructing
> polygonal, or n-gon, intermediates.  In other words, from our straight
> line we construct a 2-gon*, triangle(3-gon), a square(4-gon), a pentagon, etc.
> until we finally arrive at our circle, which is an "infinity-gon."
>
> We roll our circle along each of these n-gons.  How does the motion
> of the circle behave in each case?
>
> * Yes, Odd Ball, a 2-gon does exist.  It is a degenerate polygon
> with 2 sides and 2 vertices.  We can easily make one from our original
> straight line.
>
> Even more illustrative is to consider what happens when a circle is
> rolled around a 1-gon, which has 1 side and 1 vertex.  Maybe Odd Ball
> will enlighten us.
>
> C'mon, Odd Ball.  Let's see you fully generalize this 5th-grade problem.

...too hard for Bodkin...
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web