The Singularity has Arrived but it’s not what everyone thought..

Wouldn't the angle have something to do with it as well?

I would imagine a dismembered, calcified penis would roll faster down an angle of 45 degreees than one of five degrees.

Isn't friction a factor too?

You said you'd stop mocking the afflicted.

There's no point talking to Jasper, he's totally mental.

So says the gaslighter….You haven’t the mental capacity for it Izzy.I eat your sort for breakfast…..lol

Among the guessers here in the forum, Jasper...YOU are one of the most frequent guessers. Your guesses are particularly "blind guesses"...and you are the most insistent blind guessers that your guesses are not guesses.

Wake up. You are not the genius, innovator, or thinker you suppose yourself to be.

No the angle of inclination changes nothing in the formula. Acell is constant all the same, even in free fall. Obviously with an higher angle you will get to top speed faster in a shorter length but the acell progression grows in the same proportion to length be it in a small hill or in free fall. The thing is considering a precarious equilibrium is the starting point you have less potential energy in a small hill rather then falling free for instance.
...on the other hand if you rather consider just a greater inclination on a hill you have less length but same acell and there are also consequences for friction, heat acquisition and dissipation by induction and other parameters I cannot bother to think about right now.

Go on then, eat me for breakfast.

Say something that isn't totally stupid, I dare you.

Why do you push him seriously? Why don't you just leat him express his fantasies? He has needs like you and me...

I couldn't let something that ridiculous slide.

I was intrigued to see how he'd go about eating me for breakfast.

I've been ignoring him, as has Frank, although he's decided to resume communication.

I'm not at all surprised to find out Brandon spent his working life locked away with punchcards and the like.

His communication suggests limited human interaction, he sets rules all the time and keeps declaring himself a winner.

It's like talking to an adolescent.

Fair enough...

Frank,my guesses are not blind guesses because I apply my science and philosophy practically,something you obviously know nothing at all about because you are kept in the dark.

I know my science; philosophy and psychology are sound.

I don’t need your or anyones else’s approval my friend.

I’m not on this forum for that.

You are incapable of demonstrating any knowledge or understanding of anything.

It's safe to assume you're similarly inclined when it comes to science, humanities, any discipline actually.

Now you can go back to talking nonsense to yourself, or Feank, if he's feeling bored.

Keep assuming Izzy.That’s what you are good at.

Right, so you don't know the answer. Here it is:

I'll do it by energy, because it's faster and I don't need a diagram.

mgh = (1/2)mv^2 + (1/2)Iw^2

where m = mass, g = acceleration due to gravity, h = height of the cylinder at the start, v = velocity of the center of mass, I = moment of inertia, and w = angular speed of rotation.

mgh = (1/2)mv^2 + (1/2)[(1/2) m r^2](v/r)^2

since the moment of inertia of a cylinder is (1/2)mr^2.

mgh = (1/2)mv^2 + (1/4)mv^2 = (3/4) mv^2
gh = (3/4) v^2
v = SQRT[(4/3) gh]

And that was a very simple problem that any high school physics student in America with decent grades could have solved. I couldn't have given you anything much simpler. Newtonian mechanics not your best area? You specify an area of physics that a high school student might be familiar with and I'll give you an elementary physics problem in that area. Thermodynamics, electrodynamics, gravity, acoustics, fluid mechanics? You pick your best subject and I'll write a basic problem. I know so little about science and am so "dumb," it should be a breeze for you.

Unlike you, I put in the years of study to be awarded college degrees in the subject.

See what I mean by setting his own rules and declaring himself the winner.

Albuquerque is correct on this, Izzy. Jason has his needs...just as we all do. He, unfortunately, needs to think he is further evolved than the rest of us...that he recognizes some great truth that the finest minds who have ever lived have missed.

Frankly, he never seems to offer any insights worth consideration, so I am going to put him on IGNORE immediately. I think it would be better if he just talks to himself.

You are no doubt a technocrat dumb **** who has no vague idea what the frack you talk about on any meaningful subject.

Laying down the exact solution to the so called problem could have been copy pasted from the web by me, which I don't do, it proves nothing on your understanding of Physics on a deep level. Quite the opposite it shows your complex.

In fact I have posed you a far more intriguing and interesting question and as expected you stayed moot which was the best thing you could ever do...Because people like you, are like little bee workers, you decorate a formula, you apply it and you think you understand and grasp concepts. Guess what most of you with a few exceptions don't. You have a poor control of linguistics, you have a poorer grasp on concepts and all you can do is apply a methodology witch was memorised and used countless times in your menial little job...it all a far cry of really understanding what is going on.

That is you, but deep down you already know this...probably a clever boss someone in a position of power has reminded you countless times just how dumb you are. You have nothing of substance to talk about, nothing of use to say, and yes you will be replaced by a smart calculator pretty soon.

Lets jump to Philosophy of Maths shall we, and see how you fare?

What do numbers count, themselves or things?

Is infinity just a boundary or is it Real?

What is the distinction between a quantitative infinity and a qualitative infinity?

What is zero, a number or a frame of reference?

Is the empty set a proper set if yes please justify!

Are there self referring sets of all sets?
e.g. is a triangle made of smaller triangles a member of itself if there was nothing else? Justify!

You see the outer boundaries of a triangle set of triangles or any other set for that matter only exist if they belong to a bigger set to be classified within...


...yes you are dumb, like really really dumb, but as all dumb people you are clueless of just how dumb you are!

It's the smugness thst grates, particularly when there's nothing go be smug about, just a giant fart cloud.

Translation: you verifiably cannot solve high school level physics problems, and that was an easy one. Even when I offer to let you choose the area of physics the problem will come from, you can't do it. You tell people with real college degrees and work experience that they know nothing about subjects in which you are completely ignorant. Yet you roam the board declaring yourself to be an authority. Go tell doctors that they don't understand surgery.