She does good on this one. I figured this "problem Archimedes?" dilemma out using AutoCAD to maintain that after 50 or so iterations, the shape still appeared to be a circle (it does).

>> ^Kraz:

Lol. I paused it on the ingredients list.


STAFF OF ANUBIS
PHILOSOPHER STONE
RUBBER HAMMER
RUBBER NAILS
MOON ROCK SALT
ARCHIMEDES SCREW
HARPSICHORD
PARACHUTE
BLANK
BAG OF HOLDING
CLOUD MIST
ELVEN JOY
LUCKY PENNY
LOVE SONG
ERLENMEYER FLASK
MARCOSCOPE
SENSE OF WONDER
BLANKETY BLANKS
TEMPORAL GLITCH
HAIKU
NODS
SWEEPS
BEEPS
DEEPS
SNEEPS
REEPS
WINKS
MEMORIES
FIREBALLS
CONGRATULATIONS
LAUGHTER
LIGHTENING
STAR DUST
RINGS OF A TREE
MOTHER'S APPROVAL
MOUNTAIN AIR
CHEESINESS
INSPIRING FOOTAGE
SMILES
SECRET INGREDIENT
SMELL OF MORNING
LOVE

SALT

Yeah great!! then archimedes spends the next 60 years making glass pipes!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'd like to travel back in time and give this contraption to Archimedes and say - "see what you can make with this, catch you in a couple thousand years".

Didn't Archimedes say something like, "Give me a lever long enough and I'll crush your house."

It's like an Archimedes screw right? Except the screw surface is previous layers of itself stick to the bit..

A fair statement, and I understand and tend to agree with where you're coming from.. I chose to challenge you only because I am familiar with the work that IONS (the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which Mitchell founded based, partly, on this original seminal experience), and the research they do on the paraliminal levels of consciousness and the expanded ranges of human potential. I'm quite familiar with the scientific rigor with which they approach such research and the basis upon which they rely on multiple ways of "knowing," that does not simply base all knowledge on logic and reason, but also on phenomenal experience, qualitative understanding, and intuitive inquiry. There are multiple approaches to epistemology that include and extend beyond mere logic and reason -- and the scientific wisdom it yields just as valid, reliable, and valuable to attained human knowledge.

Personally, I understand Mitchell's quote as a form of "received" wisdom, not unlike Rene Descarte's vision of the "Angel of Truth" which ultimately gave rise to the cogito ergo sum, Archimedes' moment of Eureka which served as the basis fo displacement as a measurement of density, or Sir Isaac Newton's revelation of mathematics as encapsulating the laws of universal physics.


>> ^WKB:

>> ^Trancecoach:
And on which form of epistemology do you base that statement?
>> ^WKB:
>> ^Trancecoach:
I think Mitchell's use of the term, "divinity" refers to the force or power inherent in humanity's reason and capacities to acquire knowledge, rather than in the "magic" of one's faith in a deity.
>> ^WKB:
>> ^Trancecoach:
My sense is that a lot of our international issues can be resolved after a critical mass of people make it out of Earth's gravity and are able to look down on its fragile state from above...
Astronaut, Edgar Mitchell said about the experience of spaceflight, "The presence of divinity became almost palpable, and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident based on random processes ... The knowledge came to me directly."

The first half of your statement I agree with in absolute completeness. Understanding our vulnerable situation is indeed reason to work together to ensure the survival of us all.
While I am no astronaut, I could not disagree more with the second half. I think that contemplating the fragile nature of life on this planet and the amazing accomplishments our species has accumulated is a reason to celebrate our knowledge, not our faith. Reason, evidence, and knowledge is what has allowed us to even contemplate this issue. Faith has done nothing to solve the problems of leaving the atmosphere, surviving the vacuum, achieving a stable orbit, or reentering the world safely. To suddenly take the amazement of life as we now understand it, thanks to science, and chalk it all up to some divine magic seems insulting to the knowledge, reason, and human intellect that has gotten us here.


I really doubt that based on the context of the statement. "Life wasn't an accident based on random processes," "the knowledge came to me directly,"... sounds like magic talk to me.


I had to look that word up to make sure I knew what the heck it means. I'm not sure where the nature of knowledge comes into it. I am simply pointing out that it seems to me that the ideas Mitchell brings up in the very sentence in which he uses the word divinity are evidence to support the idea that he is talking about a divine creator. (Which is what I meant by, 'magic,' no offense intended.) I see no evidence that he is using the word divinity to celebrate humanity's reason and capacity to acquire knowledge based on the provided quote. I have great admiration for Edgar Mitchel, and anyone who risks their life to help expand human understanding of the universe as he did, but that particular quote of his seemed to me to ring hollow.

Archimedes of Syracuse was a Greek mathematician, physicist, engineer, inventor, and astronomer. The solar powered heat ray he is credited with inventing is thought by some to be a myth - but it may well have functioned based on the results of several experiments over the years.

Archimedes' heat ray was supposedly used in the Siege of Syracuse to focus sunlight onto approaching Roman ships, causing them to catch fire. Some have theorised that highly polished shields may have been used to focus the sunlight, much in the same way modern solar thermal farms use parabolic collectors.

Parabolic mirrors were described and studied by one of Archimedes' contemporaries, mathematician Diocles in his work "On Burning Mirrors", so their existence and possible application was known in the same time period as the Siege of Syracuse.

Over the ensuing centuries, various parties have attempted to prove or disprove the existence of Archimedes' heat ray using materials Archimedes would have had available to him at the time - and also with more modern materials.

A test in the 1970's by Greek scientist Ioannis Sakkas using 70 mirrors measuring 1.5 metres by 1 metre set fire to a mock wooden ship at a distance of around 50 metres. In 2005, an experiment by students at Massachusetts Institute of Technology using 127 small mirror tiles at a distance of 30 metres from a wooden target resulted in a fire after 10 minutes of perfect conditions. A repeat of this experiment for the Myth Busters television series found Archimedes' solar powered "death ray" was unlikely to have performed as reported and that other weaponry available at the time with the ability to set fire to ships, such as catapults, would have been far more effective and likely used.

More recently, the authors of Green Power Science have demonstrated the solar powered death ray was indeed possible. Using just 27 ordinary flat mirrors of various sizes, they were also able to set fire to a model wooden ship. Under ideal conditions, the mast of the model caught fire in under a minute. They believe Archimedes could have had access to many parabolic mirrors made of highly polished metal that would have provided a more focused reflection than flat glass mirrors; and also the necessary manpower for a substantial manual "solar tracking" system to keep sunlight focused on the ships for long enough to set them ablaze.

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=1006

There must be a less destructive way to test for silver. How about weighing it, then submerging it in water, then calculating the density? Like Archimedes did more than 2000 years ago.

Archimedes Heat Ray?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Watchmen, movie, owl, ship, cool, construction, nite owl' to 'Watchmen, movie, owl, ship, cool, construction, nite owl, archimedes' - edited by xxovercastxx

Taken from Conservapedia's evolution page:

"The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution."

What are they trying to say? How is this even relevant? Why is the fact that historical figures before Darwin's time didn't propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version relevant at all? Isn't that why we hold Darwin up as the father of the theory in the first place? Because he made the proposing first?

Could the following paragraph be included in the automobile section?:

"The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin did not invent automobiles. Even after the invention of the automobile most leading scientists did not drive or use automobiles."

The whole paragraph doesn't bring any information to the table but it does subtly suggest that the Theory of Evolution is academically controversial. Wait, isn't that bias?

So is Conservapedia against bias as a principle or do they just not like being disagreed with?

Meh.

Archimedes was one heck of a genius. Even by today's standards he surely holds his own. What a find though.. an actual mechanical device (possibly) constructed by Archimedes himself.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
..it might be a bit of a cliffhanger.
SPOILER ALERT
The butler did it.


Haven't you read Agatha Christie? It was the narrator!

I'm sorry, but this was already posted