Ken Collins wrote in message ...
>>Alan M Dunsmuir wrote in message ...
>>In article <eo#xIfE4#GA.52 at cpmsnbbsa05>, Ken Collins
>><KPaulC at email.msn.com> writes
>>>>> On the bottom of the bob?
>>>>That really is amusing. When you hadn't had a chance to look it up in a
>>standard reference, or to carry out the experiment for yourself, and you
>>only had your famous wtb2t to fall back on, that - so you assured
>>everybody who would listen, over a period of several weeks - told you in
>>unmistakable terms that the extra mass would mean it was more difficult
>>to push the pendulum along, which meant that the pendulum would slow
>>down, whether the new weight was above the c of g of the bob, or below
>>Yeah, and i stand on what i said... but what i said was looking a bit
>into the problem than folks appreciated at the time.
>>as i said in an earlier reply in this thread, the 'system' is the 'clock' +
>the rest of the Universe.
>>if the "clock's" bob is more 'massive', then more 'force' is required to
>impart motion through a given distance to the bob'.
>>work = fd.
>>energy = the ability to do work.
>>more work = more energy sent to disorder, in rigorous accord with wdb2t.
>>so, the 'system' runs down sooner than it, otherwise, whould have.
to get a feel for this, imagine a Kid, of 7 or 8 years, who spends a lot of
'time' exploring, and playing in the woods. Of course the Kid finds stuff,
and carries it either to his Family's home, or to some 'redoubt'-place he's
established in the woods.
some of the things the Kid finds 'weigh' more than other things.
some things, like interesting rocks, or the remnants of small, but broken,
mechanisms... old 'clocks' and 'spring'-driven toys, and stuff like that, he
can just stick in his pockets, to be 'inventoried' later.
other things are more-'heavy', and, as he carries them here or there, the
Kid becomes aware that his arms are getting 'tired', and weakening'... he
has to stop and rest, a bit, before continuing on his way.
other things can be very 'heavy'... more-'massive' than the Kid, in fact...
like a huge collection of 'Stuff' stowed in a man-sized duffle, and other
such containers, that, while looking under every rock in the woods, the Kid
stumbles upon, in a well-hidden underground bunker (the Kid's just 7 or 8,
so it's 'finders, keepers, losers, weepers"... after all, it's the Kid's
Woods)... and the Kid 'has to' make multiple trips, lugging the stuff along
with both hands, and with it scraping against his legs as he homeward goes,
leaning backward at a precarious angle all the way.
of course, the Kid notes his 'tiring' more-quickly, and his having to 'rest'
when the Kid thinks about all of this the next day, encouraged to do so by
the scrapes on his legs, and the aching in his body, the Kid realizes that,
if something's heavier than something else, it's more work to carry the
first thing than it is to carry the second thing... that he gets tired-re,
quicker, and that he has to rest more often... that carrying the first thing
expends more 'energy', is obvious to the Kid, too, because after carrying
the 'heavy' thing home, he scorfs-down his supper as if he hadn't eaten for
...and the Kid recalls how the 'heavy' thing was always hanging down at the
lowest-possible height, with his arms like ropes attached to it, and going
almost as much where it went than where the Kid willed it to go.
if you care to know, Alan, it was in this way that i came to understand that
adding or removing pennies to Big Ben's pendulum bob results in the bob's
slowing-down, more, or less, rapidly, all other things remaining 'constant'.
...of course, Big Ben's mechanism must be so powerful that the quickening,
or slowing, of rundown (the increasing, or decreasing, of energy
'consumption' [there's no such thing as 'time' within physical reality...
doesn't matter what Big Ben, or any other 'clock' says]), due to the adding,
or removing, pennies, is fairly masked... but it's in-there... just as it
was in the Kid's body.
>you know, Alan, what you do is Cheap. it's =easy= to jump on something new
>and just-becoming... before it's translated into new nomenclature that will
>communicate its new essence.
i Confess... it =is= so.
>but, in the end, that which is purchased Cheap shows itself for what it is.
i Confess... it is True.
>>You accused me of lying then
>>the discussion is archived, but i'm not going go back to look it up.
>>my recollection was that you jumped-me, then, as you've attempted to
>>my recollection is that you just didn't care about comprehending anything i
>was saying... all you did was trash just about everything i posted.
>>but i don't recall accusing you of lying, although, as i noted in a prior
>post in this thread, i did recognize then, as i do now, that you had, and
>have, little regard for Truth.
>>i stand on that assessment.
...but, wonder if i should add your name to the list of those who aided the
understanding's coming-forward... and i'm wondering if your name should be
in the 'deliberately-aided' column.
>>I told you that the clock pendulum in 'Big Ben' was regulated by penny
>>coins being placed either at the top of, or at the bottom of, its
>>weight, depending on whether the clock was running fast or slow.
>>yes, and then i looked up, those years ago, and saw that the thing that
[with respect to the pendulum's 'period']
>is the length of the pendulum, and it was a small step to translate
>change in center of mass to pendulum length...
>>...and, when i did, i saw that i'd been stuck in a 'tweener... i was
>on the larger set of things that are the focus of Tapered Harmony... the
>system with respect to which there exist no 'sub-systems'.
>>i started developing what became Tapered Harmony when i was 11. did it just
>for the 'fun' of doing it. i never talked about it with anyone, so there
>just wasn't any need for 'words'... which, when my work in Neuroscience was
>attacked [...], i just started scrambling to do quick translations out
>of the non-verbal, internal reifications of the understanding.
>>a few folks, back then (Jon, Emory, Peter, [Gary, Tom, Alan?] and some
others >whose Names exist
>too-deeply within me, just now, to recall, deserve acknowledgement), did
>see, at least a bit, of what i was, then, endeavoring to communicate. i
>remain Grateful to these Folks, whose actions, whether or not intended,
>things endurable for me.
>>>>>>>>now, what about the FLT Proof?
>>>>You never had any FLT proof, Ken.
>>i could write a little program that'd construc[t] and send msgs consisting
>"ho-ho", ad infinitum, but i'll just write:
>>ho-ho ^ (ho-ho)
>>and tell you that there was never a more-rigorous equation written.
[i've discussed everything necessary for the comprehension of the rigor of
this equation, in online 'places', over the course of the last decade.]
>>>>>Arm waving doesn't count as mathematical proof.
>>B. S. doesn't count as valid criticism.
[i Confess... it =might= count as 'encouragement'... "hard-'love'... at
least, it's most-often gone that way... and since it has, it's for me to be
Thankful for my Blessings, no matter the 'intent' inherent in their
>>>>>What your proof said was:
>>>>"I realised as I was taking a shower this morning that if x^n + y^n =
>>z^n is true for some x, y and z, and n = 2, then it can't possibly also
>>be true for any n > 2, since the left hand side will always be a little
>>less than, or a little more than, the right hand side. QED"
>>nope... as i told you then, i tell you now. what the Proof says is, [...]
> "A Square is a Square".
>>>>>I just hope I never have to rely on any computer software which you have
>>had a hand in writing.
>>ho-ho ^ (ho-ho)...
>>...it's a Certainty that you, and everyone else, already is.
as Lincoln said, "Nothing touches the tired spot".
K. P. Collins