|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 29 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-28-06 | | MrMelad: <Catfriend: Next time you try to think logically, praise - Aristotle> I see. So he is god now.. The man is dead for 2000 years and you credit my logic to him?? I don't have a supreme logic but I do credit my logic to god. sorry. Also, because I don't agree with Aristotle on most issues (even logical and phylosophical) you can't really say my logic comes from him. Maybe yours, I donno. Look - I think Aristotle was really important to the proccess of human science and phylosophy. Maybe important as Newton and Einstein. But I can't really aknowledge the information he delivered, as it's been disproved again and again by many (much greater then me) people. You see, you are talking about influence when I am speaking about specifics. He never bothered to check his assumtions, how can I take his word for it? |
|
| Jun-28-06 | | ganstaman: <Catfriend: Oh, and <MrMelad>, since you're the one in love with Newton's gravity, I would expect you to know that in the atmosphere, if you don't neglect air-friction, heavy objects <do> fall faster than light ones, usually.> Isn't this almost (or completely) entirely due to the shape of the object? Drop a piece of paper flat, and then again crumpled up. The different speeds have nothing to do with weight since the paper weighs the same as itself. Similarly, shape some lead like an umbrella and it will fall slower than a penny, I believe (though I'm not positive at all). |
|
| Jun-28-06 | | MrMelad: <Catfriend: I would expect you to know that in the atmosphere, if you don't neglect air-friction, heavy objects <do> fall faster than light ones, usually.>
Come on man.. Of all of the "Aristotle is right" claims this is the weakest.. This is an airodynamic (and friction) consideration. Maybe you'd like to attribute the airoplane invention to Aristotle as well? He didn't even know what an atmosphere is! Why don't you argue that Helium goes up so Newton and Einstein was both wrong? Or that 50 Grams of stone would sink in water but a 1000 tons ship would float? Gimme a break.. :) |
|
| Jun-28-06 | | Everett: Umm, not including air resistance, everything does fall at the same rate. I think Galileo is (incorrectly?) given credit with this discovery. Bill Bryson writes at length about Newton's strange personality and remarkable theories in "A Short History of Nearly (Almost?) Everything." A good, if light, read. Aristotle's legacy is impressive, and as he is one of the three philosophers after which my favorite beer is named, I have no qualms with his ideas. |
|
| Jun-28-06 | | MrMelad: <Everett: Bill Bryson writes at length about Newton's strange personality > I think "strange" is not a powerful enough word... He (Newton) was egocentric, paranoidic, had a bad temperament and was hard to get along with.. He had almost no friends and as far as I know no humor.. But as you know, so is Fischer, so what are you gonna do? :) |
|
| Jun-28-06 | | Catfriend: <Gangstaman> Assume you have two objects, identical in their forms but with different weights. The air's resisting force will be roughly the same, as will be the gravity, of course. Now, the lighter body will be affected more (more upward-acceleration as a result of the air). Of course, shape has a huge role to play. <Everett> Galileo's credit is justified, AFAIK. However, I clearly stated that I don't ignore air resistance. <Mrmelad> He did check his assumptions, those he could. And according to his measures, heavy stuff did fall faster. Now, he couldn't explain it, with his knowledge, but calling him "not so smart" is simply ridiculous. You chose to mention it as one of his major mistakes - well, pity for you:) It isn't one of his greatest achievements, clearly, but to call it a serious mistake is simply absurd. Amazing - of all the criticism you could make, you decided to pick the weakest, one that actually isn't a criticism. When I say "logic", I mean the mathematical branch, and the principle of ordered thinking. Well, yes, if you use classic mechanics, you owe them to Newton. If you use simple geometry, you owe to it Thales, Pithagoras, Archimedes, Euclides. If you use logic, you owe it to Aristotle. As simple as that. You chose to speak about specifics - all the more, you must be precise. And this means not just throwing wrong statement in the air, using stray-men arguments like "So Aristotle is god now" - in general, being way more careful about one's words than you've been so far. In this particular historic discussion, it's hard to find a significant correct general statement by you. <as it's been disproved again and again by many (much greater then me> So is 99.99% of all useful knowledge. It didn't bother you in Newton's case, for some reason... Science, in it's nature, is flawed, and is constantly disproved. Heck, even math, much more strict about it's validity, may contain an inevitable contradiction. Thus, when evaluating a great person, you just can't tell "He was wrong, so he's not that smart..." - that would be wrong, and not that smart:) Let me finish with a quote from Cartesius (though <he was disproved time and again>): "When speaking of transcendental subjects, be transcendentally clear". |
|
| Jun-28-06 | | MrMelad: <Catfriend: Galileo's credit is justified, AFAIK. However, I clearly stated that I don't ignore air resistance.>
No one ignores it and I think Newton was also the first to recognize friction power and formelate it mathematicaly. Ofcourse when you get your physics from highschool you don't really expect them to include friction power on a free falling body, right? You know it's chaniging from one altitude to another. Just as you don't calculate the effect of Andromeda Galaxy on the earth orbit (or even Jupiter and please don't get me started on the 3 bodies problem). <He did check his assumptions, those he could.> So he just couldn't find men with teeth? Or maybe gravity didn't work 2000 years ago as it works today? Is it so hard to drop two stones from a hill! And just for you to know - when Copernicus calculated the earth orbit around the sun, he did it using greek's mathematics and no technology. <When I say "logic", I mean the mathematical branch> I'd rather use the logic of Russell, Godel and Frege.
(Group theory, axioms etc.)
< If you use logic, you owe it to Aristotle.>
As I was saying before, I know that he influenced logic but nonetheless I will never use his logic. <It didn't bother you in Newton's case, for some reason... > Thats because Newton's logic is almost impecable! You can argue that under the Lorentz transformation (Einstein assumptions) one can reformulate Newton's mechanics to special relativity (which by the way, So i've heard - was discovered by him and was abandoned because of what he called "the right for every man to think of time as he may" or something like that), or that the light is not just particales as he thought, but you will do that with the calculus you owe him and the method of analaysing mechanical systems, you owe him too. And still his physics is more usefull on a day to day basis then both Relativity and Quantum mechanics (which becomes Classical mechanics on the large scale). If I would like to know how far will a football reach if kicked at 100 Newton, I would use his equations and will not solve a Rimman tensor! <Heck, even math, much more strict about it's validity, may contain an inevitable contradiction> You owe it to Godel and Russell, you know. <you just can't tell "He was wrong, so he's not that smart..." - that would be wrong, and not that smart:) >
lol.. Ofcourse I can! It's my free speech right!
And a bit more seriously - a man that thinks that men has more teeth then women and doesn't bother to check it (but bother to write it and teach it) can't be that of a smart man :) |
|
Jun-28-06
 | | Sneaky: <He did check his assumptions, those he could. And according to his measures, heavy stuff did fall faster.> I disagree in general, although I don't know anything about his measurements of falling objects. In ancient Greek, the practice of testing a hypothesis by empirical observation was not yet in fashion. "Science" as we know it today was simply not invented yet!! Aristotle said many things which were absolutely brilliant, but incorrect. If I knew nothing of human anatomy I might be inclined to believe that men have more teeth, it sounds logical. One of my favorites is Aristotle's theory that if you go into a deep dark well in the middle of the day, you can look up and see the stars. A dullard would never come up with such an ingenious idea. You can't hold this against Aristotle. He didn't apply the commonly accepted scientific method because the scientific method simply didn't exist in his time. It might seem very obvious to us that we should come up with ideas then TEST THEM, but back then people simply didn't do that. They believed that you could solve the universe like a giant chess puzzle, and it wasn't necessary to move a single piece. |
|
| Jun-28-06 | | MrMelad: <ganstaman: Isn't this almost (or completely) entirely due to the shape of the object?>
You are correct in regards to all bodies that are heavier then the air (gas of mostly nitrogen and oxygen with some carbon). As for things that are lighter then air (Helium, Lithium, Beryllium and Boron) - they just float around or move up. |
|
| Jun-28-06 | | WillC21: Since in college I minored in physics and was interested in rocket design, I thought this might clear up misconceptions on falling objects: 1) IN A VACUUM(ie no air resistance): Any two objects, of similar or dissimilar size/shape, fall at exactly the same rate(acceleration). This is simply because one external force is exerted: the gravitational constant "g"(-9.8 m/s/s). Since air existence is a nonfactor here, all objects uniformly accelerate at "g". A penny and an airplane will fall at the same rate. 2) AIR RESISTANCE EXISTS: Here, two external forces are exerted on the falling object(s): the gravitational constant and, secondly, aerodynamic drag. This element of drag incorporates an air resistance spectra dependent upon a drag coefficient, air density, velocity, and a reference area. Drag obviously increases with the square of the speed. So as an object falls, the drag becomes equal to the weight of the object given enough time. When drag is equal to weight, there is no net external force on the object and the vertical acceleration goes to zero. With no acceleration, the object falls at a constant velocity as described by Newton's First Law of Motion. The constant vertical velocity is called the terminal velocity, and is theoretically the fastest velocity that can be reached for a given object. Therefore, an airplane and a penny will fall at different rates. |
|
| Jun-29-06 | | RookFile: But if you dropped Kasparov and Deep Blue out a window, Deep Blue would hit the ground first. Judging by the way Kasparov flapped his arms after this game, he might have flown, like a little birdy. |
|
Jun-29-06
 | | chancho: <Rookfile> LMAO. |
|
| Jun-29-06 | | MrMelad: <RookFile:> I think Deep Blue will hit the ground first becuase he will cheat his way to it. |
|
Jun-29-06
 | | offramp: Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess but it was no match for him at kick-boxing. |
|
| Jun-29-06 | | harcee sarmiento: computers... the bad side of them are.. DUMBNESS, CHEATERS and DISPOSABLE! anywy put all the top chess player around the world let see if IBM make a real deal of it! |
|
| Jun-30-06 | | Everett: <Catfriend>
<If you don't neglect air-friction, heavy objects <do> fall faster than light ones, usually.> There is no relation to weight and air-resistence, per se. The point of gravity is that it effects everything equally. A fist-sized ball of lead will fall faster than an ocean liner, any hormonally normal human past the age of 20, the space shuttle, etc. due to air resistence, all of the latter being much heavier than the lead. |
|
| Jul-01-06 | | Catfriend: It's way more complicated than that. There are several factors, such as average density, shape, surface area etc. A lead ball will fall faster than equally sized paper ball. A heavy paratrooper will fall faster than a thin one (and since they're jumping with a parachute, their own shape is practically neglectable). It's even more complicated than that, because the air-resistance force has also to do with the speed, so what we have here is a differential equation. I was trying to keep thing simple. The subject was brought up as a major "non-sense" Aristotle said, due to lack of experimenting, while in fact being a bit of a success, one that can be verified. So, although it can't be called an ingenious revelation (and of course, we can't expect Aristotle to understand the principles of gravity), it definitely doesn't qualify as a horrible blunder showing "Aristotle wasn't that smart". As for other points and arguments, I will reply soon. |
|
| Jul-01-06 | | Timothy Glenn Forney: Thats why an airplane lifts then falls when it's inside a thermal,and why it falls to earth when the engine dies. |
|
Jul-01-06
 | | keypusher: OK, but just so I understand this, in a vacuum the fat and skinny paratrooper, the lead ball and the paper ball, etc. will all fall at exactly the same rate? Is that correct? Also, isn't it true that gravity works both ways -- e.g. the earth "attracts" the paratrooper, but the paratrooper also "attracts" the earth? If you dropped (in a vacuum) an object of immense mass towards the earth, wouldn't it appear to fall faster than a light object, because the massive object would be "pulling" earth toward it? And wouldn't the massive object extinguish all life on earth when it hit, making these questions (at least from a parochial, homocentric perspective) rather pointless? |
|
| Jul-01-06 | | Catfriend: Let's take the general case - you have two objects, with masses m1 and m2. Each "feels" the force F1=G*m1*m2/r^2. The first object's acceleration is F1/m1, the second object's acceleration is F1/m2. So far, it's obvious. Now, let's multiply m1 by 10. F2, the new force, will be 10*F1. The first object's acceleration will be, therefore, 10*F1/10*m1 = F1/m1, it won't change. The second object will have it's acceleration increased by a factor of 10, of course. Their relative acceleration (and speed, as a result) will be increased. When we drop objects near Earth, we usually ignore this factor, as these differences are neglectable, comparing them to the planet's mass. So even in vacuum, heavy objects "fall" faster. In your scenario, of a huge mass appearing near Earth, we will indeed feel the difference. As for making it all rather pointless, if all humanity is wiped out - I will go to Hell, and even from there I'll keep arguing about physics! |
|
| Jul-01-06 | | lopezexchange: ``RookFile: Well, computers don't have to solve chess - they just need to be able to look 20 moves ahead, and then no human on the face of the earth can touch them.`` This is a very cogent argument. I think you mean 40 ply by that, right? If you only mean 20 ply, then some humans might still hang with the computers. Now, Deep Blue won fair and square in 1997 (9 years ago). Kasparov missed wins in games 4 and 5; Deep Blue missed a draw in game 1. Kasparov missed a draw in game 2, and in the same game Deep Blue missed easier ways to win. No computer is perfect; the event horizon effect is to blame. IBM lost interest in further matches, due to Kasparov`s disgusting and paranoic behaviour. He would have lost a rematch against Deep Blue so he found a way to convince IBM not to have anything to do with him. When MR. Hsiu, the maker of Deep Blue offered him a rematch, Kasparov refused. He feared losing again, even worse than last time. Kasparov asked for a rematch, under impossible conditions: the logs with the game evaluations were to be given to him before the rematch, the same demand he made during the match he lost. He was never going to get the rematch under those circumstances, which is exactly what Kasparov wanted. IBM did a service to chess by retiring Deep Blue, or else it would have taken over (the later improved versions for sure). Just look what Hydra is doing today. IBM could have made a much stronger computer than Hydra; much, much stronger. The 10 game match Kasparov asked for, 6 months from the match he lost, would have seen a Deep Blue twice as fast, seeing a few plies deeper, with an improved evaluation function and with improved understanding in playing in fortress type positions. (compare game 3 with game 2 in Adams vs. Hydra) Such an improved version of Deep Blue would have beaten Kasparov badly, around 6.5 to 3.5. Kasparov`s boast that he would play 1.e4 and the Sicilian against it would have made it even worse. Today, 9 years later, if IBM were still interested in playing Kasparov, their much improved Deep Blue would beat him by 10-0 or 9-1. Today, IBM could make a computer that would beat Hydra by a 4-1 margin, or worse. |
|
| Jul-01-06 | | MrMelad: <keypusher: the lead ball and the paper ball, etc. will all fall at exactly the same rate?> Actually, the rate of acceleration will difer by a very small margin due to the diffrence in mass, but this will be unnoticed in convetional terms. In the equation <Catfriend> described and I described earlier, the earth mass is so huge in comparesment to any object that was formed on earth from earth materials (if you think of it, every object on earth is part of the earth mass) that the diffrence is really unnoticed, so if you throw two objects, one 100 times heavier then the other, they will reach the ground at the same time (Except if one object is Kasparov and he is flapping his arms like a little bird <RookFile>.. lol). |
|
| Jul-01-06 | | alicefujimori: <lopezexchange><IBM lost interest in further matches, due to Kasparov`s disgusting and paranoic behaviour.>Crap. The Deep Blue team actually didn't mind a rematch. Rather, it was the management of IBM that refused Kasparov's demand of an immediate rematch. (Because their bloody share price was on the increase after winning the match. It's all about money.) <He would have lost a rematch against Deep Blue so he found a way to convince IBM not to have anything to do with him. When MR. Hsiu, the maker of Deep Blue offered him a rematch, Kasparov refused.>After the IBM management denied Kasparov a rematch, Kasparov publicly said afterwards that he is not going to play any match against a computer anymore because he felt cheated by IBM. That's why when the Deep Blue team finally got their management to agree to a rematch, Kasparov refused. Would you do business with people that you felt cheated on you again? <Kasparov asked for a rematch, under impossible conditions: the logs with the game evaluations were to be given to him before the rematch, the same demand he made during the match he lost.>First of all, that condition isn't immpossible to meet. Kramnik, before his match with Deep Fritz, was given the same version of the Deep Fritz program that will be used in their match to prepare against. So what's wrong with Kasparov wanting the logs if it was virtually impractical to get a cop of Deep Blue to prepare against? About your comment on Deep Blue stronger blah blah blah and Hydra blah blah blah and IBM can make a much stronger than Hydra blah blah blah...well...just keep dreaming. |
|
| Jul-01-06 | | lopezexchange: alicefujimori, you are too hostile and impolite for conversation. If you werent perhaps some meaningful exchange could occur. You are obviously a Kasparov fan that cant stand the fact he lost and look for excuses and use abusive language toward any who dont worship Kasparov. Deep Blue beat Kasparov fair and square.
I came here to discuss chess, not to get into mud throwing contests with you or anybody else. In your first reply to me you managed to throw a lot of mud: ``crap; blah, blah, blah; keep dreaming`` etc. I am sorry that you are this way. :-((( |
|
| Jul-01-06 | | MrMelad: <lopezexchange: Today, IBM could make a computer that would beat Hydra by a 4-1 margin, or worse> Where did you get it from? Chess power in computers is not due to brute force, but good algorithms! How can you know for sure that IBM programmers are better then Junior and Hydra? Do you have inside information (please tell!)? :) Read the discussion above about Moore's law please, if you want to see my opinion. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 29 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
