Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:


Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:


[..]


This is not possible.

There is a very simple test that shows it is impossible. Take a piece
of paper, make two parallel cuts in it, leaving as little as you like
(or are able to) joining the cut pieces. Hold the extreme outside
pieces and pull apart - you WILL NOT get the centre piece to separate
from the two outside pieces. It will *always* remain attached to one
or the other outside pieces. This shows why it is quite impossible for
TWO sides to simultaneously become "dressed" in the manner you
describe.



Seppo.

Oddly enough, we are talking about stone, not paper; and real,
chaotic, contingent conditions, not on a kitchen table.



The principle is IDENTICAL to whatever material you elect to test it
on - it is impossible!

[..]

Seppo,

Apparently Michael Zalar has evidence that this is not
necessarily true for the material under consideration.

...and a modification to how it occurs. The statement of mine is true
irrespective of material.

Also, of course, you replied to my introduction, while snipping
my rationale.

When you shift goal posts to claim different and on that different
basis simultaneously claim I'm wrong with what I have said, it
deserves snipping, to retain the conditions I have stated.

Should you wish to disagree, and base it on the conditions being
different from those stated by me, THEN you say, "..but those are not
the conditions, they are xxxxx.... and therefor yyyyyyyy....". THAT is
the right way, not alter conditions and declare me wrong on the
altered basis!


I noted that there is no reason for only one
strike during the fall, or only one striking surface on the
stationary anvil stone.

You see YOU redefined the circumstances from those alluded to
originally - therefor you cannot claim I'm wrong, as YOU refer to
different conditions.

So even were Michael to be incorrect,
even by your thought-experiment it is possible, not impossible,
for a stone like the KRS blank to be made by natural processes.

Oh dear.... "even by your thought-experiment it is possible".... You
know, this is the second little experiment that is well known from
primary school times. The experiment I referred to, it is quite
impossible to separate the paper into tree pieces by one single
action. Quite impossible - equally as impossible as it is for the
water level in a glass of water to rise as an ice cube floating in the
glass of water melts! The other impossible argument you have
supported!

Perhaps you would do everyone the favor of not snipping text
that you don't like when it is germane to your reply. But I
won't hold my breath.

The relevant text was left behind, as always.

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:32:28 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:

Actually it is possible for a right angled section to cleave from the
main surface when the original surface is worked. After the
statements maide by Westin, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, a
local resident showed up with small stone, perhaps 1-2ft in length if
my memory serves. I am not sure if it was greywacke, but Ms Westin
provided a example of how the KRS woudl have been dressed by giving it
a couple of wacks at one end. The stone cleaved off cleanly and
completely along the side being worked. However, much to the surprise
of all, one of the sides of the stone cleaved off with the same
stroke, along the length of that side of the stone, leaving two
relatively flat sides.
I don't know how likely this is to occur in nature, buy I must
certainly think that it is possible.

Note: "a couple of wacks" is not ONE wack (a single fall, one
landing), as was suggested originally. The experiment I proposed works
to separate them into individual pieces with more than one attempt
too!

Only a collision between billiard balls results in one perfect impact.

...and many more items than that.

Collisions between most real-world objects result in multiple
collisions within the one event as their respective structures
crumble.

Yes, but for such an event the probability of it occurring is
minuscule to infinitesimal to get two sides dressed on a stone in that
manner. Other ways are far more likely - eg freezing with resultant
flaking.

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:31:12 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:



Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

[..]

This is not possible.

There is a very simple test that shows it is impossible. Take a piece
of paper, make two parallel cuts in it, leaving as little as you like
(or are able to) joining the cut pieces. Hold the extreme outside
pieces and pull apart - you WILL NOT get the centre piece to separate
from the two outside pieces. It will *always* remain attached to one
or the other outside pieces. This shows why it is quite impossible for
TWO sides to simultaneously become "dressed" in the manner you
describe.


Seppo.

Oddly enough, we are talking about stone, not paper; and real,
chaotic, contingent conditions, not on a kitchen table.


The principle is IDENTICAL to whatever material you elect to test it
on - it is impossible!

Seppo, you are wrong but,

I'm not wrong - when you shift the conditions from those defined by me
and argue something else, it CANNOT mean I'm wrong.

based on past experience, I'm not going to
waste time on trying to explain it to you beyond suggesting you look
at principal stresses and strains in
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/klmno/linton_ralph.html
and consider the possible effect of the dissipation of strain-energy
after an impact.

I think you goofed. That URL points to some bragging about wall paper,
university attendance and how many books have been written as well as
how a person died. It says nothing about what you suggest it does. In
any event it would not have dealt with what I dealt with, but
something else I had not addressed.

Apparently Michael Zalar has evidence that this is not
necessarily true for the material under consideration.

...and a modification to how it occurs. The statement of mine is true
irrespective of material.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:45:17 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:32:28 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
[..]
Note: "a couple of wacks" is not ONE wack (a single fall, one
landing), as was suggested originally. The experiment I proposed works
to separate them into individual pieces with more than one attempt
too!

Only a collision between billiard balls results in one perfect impact.

...and many more items than that.

First define a 'perfect impact' and second give me a real-world
example.

Collisions between most real-world objects result in multiple
collisions within the one event as their respective structures
crumble.

Yes, but for such an event the probability of it occurring is
minuscule to infinitesimal to get two sides dressed on a stone in that
manner. Other ways are far more likely - eg freezing with resultant
flaking.

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:18:15 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:



Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:31:12 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:



Tom McDonald wrote:

Seppo Renfors wrote:

[..]

This is not possible.

There is a very simple test that shows it is impossible. Take a piece
of paper, make two parallel cuts in it, leaving as little as you like
(or are able to) joining the cut pieces. Hold the extreme outside
pieces and pull apart - you WILL NOT get the centre piece to separate
from the two outside pieces. It will *always* remain attached to one
or the other outside pieces. This shows why it is quite impossible for
TWO sides to simultaneously become "dressed" in the manner you
describe.


Seppo.

Oddly enough, we are talking about stone, not paper; and real,
chaotic, contingent conditions, not on a kitchen table.


The principle is IDENTICAL to whatever material you elect to test it
on - it is impossible!

Seppo, you are wrong but,

I'm not wrong - when you shift the conditions from those defined by me
and argue something else, it CANNOT mean I'm wrong.

based on past experience, I'm not going to
waste time on trying to explain it to you beyond suggesting you look
at principal stresses and strains in
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/klmno/linton_ralph.html
and consider the possible effect of the dissipation of strain-energy
after an impact.

I think you goofed. That URL points to some bragging about wall paper,
university attendance and how many books have been written as well as
how a person died. It says nothing about what you suggest it does. In
any event it would not have dealt with what I dealt with, but
something else I had not addressed.

I knew it wouldn't be worth trying to explain ........

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:17:02 GMT, Seppo Renfors
Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:

Apparently Michael Zalar has evidence that this is not
necessarily true for the material under consideration.

...and a modification to how it occurs. The statement of mine is true
irrespective of material.

It might be true but its not relevant.