Talk:1866: Russell's Teapot - Revision history

Nitpicking: Yeah, I'm way late to this party

2022-12-29T14:50:03Z

Yeah, I'm way late to this party

CsBlastoise: Checked the page history and, sure enough, the point of my previous comment is invalid.

2017-12-04T18:56:13Z

Checked the page history and, sure enough, the point of my previous comment is invalid.

CsBlastoise: Getting rid of the excess em dash in my signature; I had forgotten that I had set my signature to automatically include an em dash.

2017-12-04T18:33:06Z

Getting rid of the excess em dash in my signature; I had forgotten that I had set my signature to automatically include an em dash.

CsBlastoise: Added comment that might need revisiting depending on the history of the article.

2017-12-04T18:30:49Z

Added comment that might need revisiting depending on the history of the article.

172.68.226.16: 418

2017-08-07T18:43:10Z

418

Dgbrt at 18:55, 3 August 2017

2017-08-03T18:55:52Z

162.158.154.91: thoughts on strict definition of russell's idea versus orbital dynamics and the IAU

2017-08-02T23:39:54Z

thoughts on strict definition of russell's idea versus orbital dynamics and the IAU

Dgbrt: New content to the bottom.

2017-08-01T18:08:10Z

New content to the bottom.

NiceGuy1 at 05:05, 1 August 2017

2017-08-01T05:05:29Z

198.41.242.47 at 08:29, 28 July 2017

2017-07-28T08:29:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:50, 29 December 2022
Line 56:		Line 56:

	How come that noone mentioned 418? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.226.16\|172.68.226.16]] 18:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)		How come that noone mentioned 418? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.226.16\|172.68.226.16]] 18:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	Cheating solution to the barber paradox: due to a medical condition, the barber does not grow hair on any part of his body.
		+
		+	Solution to the NASA paradox: launch on a non-NASA vehicle, say SpaceX or Blue Origin. If you interpret that as NASA forbidding anyone to launch on a vehicle that don't launch themselves, have ESA launch it. If that isn't enough, have Virgin Orbital launch it from their system, which is "launched" on a jet aircraft and then uses rockets to complete orbital insertion. [[User:Nitpicking\|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking\|talk]]) 14:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:56, 4 December 2017
Line 12:		Line 12:

	:::Why are we even bringing up the argument of female barbers when the description of the paradox, at least as phrased within this article, specifically states that the barber is a man? —[[User:CsBlastoise\|CsBlastoise]] ([[User talk:CsBlastoise\|talk]]) 18:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)		:::Why are we even bringing up the argument of female barbers when the description of the paradox, at least as phrased within this article, specifically states that the barber is a man? —[[User:CsBlastoise\|CsBlastoise]] ([[User talk:CsBlastoise\|talk]]) 18:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	::::Never mind, I just checked the page history, and it appears there was no description of the barber paradox in this article at the time the majority of the preceding comments were written. —[[User:CsBlastoise\|CsBlastoise]] ([[User talk:CsBlastoise\|talk]]) 18:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

	:You wouldn't even need a cannon/catapult. If you put the satellite on a small rocket, and put that on a much larger rocket, you can have the big one launch itself, the smaller one, and the satellite. The regulation only says the satellite must be in a non-self-launching launch vehicle. It doesn't say it can't also be in a self-launching launch vehicle. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.113\|108.162.246.113]] 20:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)		:You wouldn't even need a cannon/catapult. If you put the satellite on a small rocket, and put that on a much larger rocket, you can have the big one launch itself, the smaller one, and the satellite. The regulation only says the satellite must be in a non-self-launching launch vehicle. It doesn't say it can't also be in a self-launching launch vehicle. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.113\|108.162.246.113]] 20:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ::::For much of Bertrand Russell's life, they didn't. http://mentalfloss.com/article/22511/when-did-women-start-shaving-their-pits [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.4|108.162.241.4]] 09:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
-:::Why are we even bringing up the argument of female barbers when the description of the paradox, at least as phrased within this article, specifically states that the barber is a man?  ——[[User:CsBlastoise|CsBlastoise]] ([[User talk:CsBlastoise|talk]]) 18:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
+:::Why are we even bringing up the argument of female barbers when the description of the paradox, at least as phrased within this article, specifically states that the barber is a man?  —[[User:CsBlastoise|CsBlastoise]] ([[User talk:CsBlastoise|talk]]) 18:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 :You wouldn't even need a cannon/catapult.  If you put the satellite on a small rocket, and put that on a much larger rocket, you can have the big one launch itself, the smaller one, and the satellite.  The regulation only says the satellite must be in a non-self-launching launch vehicle.  It doesn't say it can't *also* be in a self-launching launch vehicle.  -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.113|108.162.246.113]] 20:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 :::Only if you assume that females who are barbers don't shave their legs, armpits, or their various lady parts. This only further confuses the paradox. {{unsigned|Mjm87}}
 ::::For much of Bertrand Russell's life, they didn't. http://mentalfloss.com/article/22511/when-did-women-start-shaving-their-pits [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.4|108.162.241.4]] 09:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 :You wouldn't even need a cannon/catapult.  If you put the satellite on a small rocket, and put that on a much larger rocket, you can have the big one launch itself, the smaller one, and the satellite.  The regulation only says the satellite must be in a non-self-launching launch vehicle.  It doesn't say it can't *also* be in a self-launching launch vehicle.  -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.113|108.162.246.113]] 20:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:43, 7 August 2017
Line 50:		Line 50:
	Amusingly Russell's original words, atleast as far as I've seen them quoted, literally described the teapot as being a planet. They stated something like "what if I said that orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars was a small planet the shape and size of a teapot...". The "thought experiment" dies a pretty quick death when you consider the current IAU definition of a planet, that it must be large enough to pull itself into a sphere from self-gravity(no marks for the teapot) and it needs to be gravitatonally dominant in it's orbital regions (no chance for something so low in mass), although that latter point tends to provoke the Pluto debate. Either way , by the strict definition, there isn't a teapot shaped "planet".Also if you don't call the teapot a planet, but do stick to Russell's words about an elliptical orbit you can probably calculate that something so small waving about between the orbits of Earth and Mars will end up being ejected due to a gravitational tug or resonance somewhere, probably from Jupiter (given Jupiter's mass it perturbs just about anything even when things are inside the orbit of Mars), once again profound philosophy gets an unfortunate surprise from orbital dynamics.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.91\|162.158.154.91]] 23:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)		Amusingly Russell's original words, atleast as far as I've seen them quoted, literally described the teapot as being a planet. They stated something like "what if I said that orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars was a small planet the shape and size of a teapot...". The "thought experiment" dies a pretty quick death when you consider the current IAU definition of a planet, that it must be large enough to pull itself into a sphere from self-gravity(no marks for the teapot) and it needs to be gravitatonally dominant in it's orbital regions (no chance for something so low in mass), although that latter point tends to provoke the Pluto debate. Either way , by the strict definition, there isn't a teapot shaped "planet".Also if you don't call the teapot a planet, but do stick to Russell's words about an elliptical orbit you can probably calculate that something so small waving about between the orbits of Earth and Mars will end up being ejected due to a gravitational tug or resonance somewhere, probably from Jupiter (given Jupiter's mass it perturbs just about anything even when things are inside the orbit of Mars), once again profound philosophy gets an unfortunate surprise from orbital dynamics.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.91\|162.158.154.91]] 23:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
	:Nope. Russell said: "...a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars." He didn't say the teapot is a planet. And in 1952 the {{w\|IAU definition of planet\|IAU definition from 2006}} didn't exist and Pluto was still a planet. --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 18:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)		:Nope. Russell said: "...a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars." He didn't say the teapot is a planet. And in 1952 the {{w\|IAU definition of planet\|IAU definition from 2006}} didn't exist and Pluto was still a planet. --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 18:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	How come that noone mentioned 418? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.226.16\|172.68.226.16]] 18:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, 3 August 2017
Line 49:		Line 49:

	Amusingly Russell's original words, atleast as far as I've seen them quoted, literally described the teapot as being a planet. They stated something like "what if I said that orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars was a small planet the shape and size of a teapot...". The "thought experiment" dies a pretty quick death when you consider the current IAU definition of a planet, that it must be large enough to pull itself into a sphere from self-gravity(no marks for the teapot) and it needs to be gravitatonally dominant in it's orbital regions (no chance for something so low in mass), although that latter point tends to provoke the Pluto debate. Either way , by the strict definition, there isn't a teapot shaped "planet".Also if you don't call the teapot a planet, but do stick to Russell's words about an elliptical orbit you can probably calculate that something so small waving about between the orbits of Earth and Mars will end up being ejected due to a gravitational tug or resonance somewhere, probably from Jupiter (given Jupiter's mass it perturbs just about anything even when things are inside the orbit of Mars), once again profound philosophy gets an unfortunate surprise from orbital dynamics.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.91\|162.158.154.91]] 23:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)		Amusingly Russell's original words, atleast as far as I've seen them quoted, literally described the teapot as being a planet. They stated something like "what if I said that orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars was a small planet the shape and size of a teapot...". The "thought experiment" dies a pretty quick death when you consider the current IAU definition of a planet, that it must be large enough to pull itself into a sphere from self-gravity(no marks for the teapot) and it needs to be gravitatonally dominant in it's orbital regions (no chance for something so low in mass), although that latter point tends to provoke the Pluto debate. Either way , by the strict definition, there isn't a teapot shaped "planet".Also if you don't call the teapot a planet, but do stick to Russell's words about an elliptical orbit you can probably calculate that something so small waving about between the orbits of Earth and Mars will end up being ejected due to a gravitational tug or resonance somewhere, probably from Jupiter (given Jupiter's mass it perturbs just about anything even when things are inside the orbit of Mars), once again profound philosophy gets an unfortunate surprise from orbital dynamics.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.91\|162.158.154.91]] 23:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
		+	:Nope. Russell said: "...a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars." He didn't say the teapot is a planet. And in 1952 the {{w\|IAU definition of planet\|IAU definition from 2006}} didn't exist and Pluto was still a planet. --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 18:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:39, 2 August 2017
Line 47:		Line 47:
	The title text refers to Russell's paradox, and it is funny that Russell came to it thinking about teaspoons : "The class of teaspoons, for example, is not another teaspoon, but the class of things that are not teaspoons, is one of the things that are not teaspoons." See https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1046863/how-can-a-set-contain-itself for the exact source.		The title text refers to Russell's paradox, and it is funny that Russell came to it thinking about teaspoons : "The class of teaspoons, for example, is not another teaspoon, but the class of things that are not teaspoons, is one of the things that are not teaspoons." See https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1046863/how-can-a-set-contain-itself for the exact source.
	[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.47\|198.41.242.47]] 08:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.47\|198.41.242.47]] 08:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	Amusingly Russell's original words, atleast as far as I've seen them quoted, literally described the teapot as being a planet. They stated something like "what if I said that orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars was a small planet the shape and size of a teapot...". The "thought experiment" dies a pretty quick death when you consider the current IAU definition of a planet, that it must be large enough to pull itself into a sphere from self-gravity(no marks for the teapot) and it needs to be gravitatonally dominant in it's orbital regions (no chance for something so low in mass), although that latter point tends to provoke the Pluto debate. Either way , by the strict definition, there isn't a teapot shaped "planet".Also if you don't call the teapot a planet, but do stick to Russell's words about an elliptical orbit you can probably calculate that something so small waving about between the orbits of Earth and Mars will end up being ejected due to a gravitational tug or resonance somewhere, probably from Jupiter (given Jupiter's mass it perturbs just about anything even when things are inside the orbit of Mars), once again profound philosophy gets an unfortunate surprise from orbital dynamics.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.91\|162.158.154.91]] 23:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and not delete this comment.-->
 In this case, nesting the teapot in a catapult/cannon which is launched by another catapult/cannon might perhaps be sufficient to get past NASA regulations. (Catapults/cannons only launching the payload and not themselves...) <sub>--[[User:Nialpxe|<span style="color: #000; text-decoration: none;">Nialpxe</span>]], 2017. [[User_talk:Nialpxe|<span style="color: #000; text-decoration: none;">(Arguments welcome)</span>]]</sub>
 :Though there's still the matter of an equal and opposite force pushing the satellite away from its gravitational bonds of the catapult.  Even if the 2nd catapult is no longer associated with the Earth or Earth's gravity, the catapult will continue to be a launcher.  That's just changing what it is launching *from*.  [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.125|172.68.58.125]] 18:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)ColinHeico
@@ Line 50: / Line 44: @@
 Could some people (smarter than myself) make an attempt at labeling the items on the cube sat that Randall left at squiggles? Maybe starting from the top, clockwise? I'll start a table, but I'm sure someone will need to fix it. [[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 03:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 :Personally, I suspect such a diagram wouldn't have the top labelled as "Teapot", but as "Payload". :) To me it looks even longer, so perhaps "Top Secret Specialty Payload" or something? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:05, 1 August 2017
Line 49:		Line 49:

	Could some people (smarter than myself) make an attempt at labeling the items on the cube sat that Randall left at squiggles? Maybe starting from the top, clockwise? I'll start a table, but I'm sure someone will need to fix it. [[User:DanB\|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB\|talk]]) 03:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)		Could some people (smarter than myself) make an attempt at labeling the items on the cube sat that Randall left at squiggles? Maybe starting from the top, clockwise? I'll start a table, but I'm sure someone will need to fix it. [[User:DanB\|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB\|talk]]) 03:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
		+	:Personally, I suspect such a diagram wouldn't have the top labelled as "Teapot", but as "Payload". :) To me it looks even longer, so perhaps "Top Secret Specialty Payload" or something? [[User:NiceGuy1\|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1\|talk]]) 05:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:29, 28 July 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and not delete this comment.-->		<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and not delete this comment.-->
		+
		+
		+	The title text refers to Russell's paradox, and it is funny that Russell came to it thinking about teaspoons : "The class of teaspoons, for example, is not another teaspoon, but the class of things that are not teaspoons, is one of the things that are not teaspoons." See https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1046863/how-can-a-set-contain-itself for the exact source.
		+	[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.47\|198.41.242.47]] 08:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
		+

	In this case, nesting the teapot in a catapult/cannon which is launched by another catapult/cannon might perhaps be sufficient to get past NASA regulations. (Catapults/cannons only launching the payload and not themselves...) <sub>--[[User:Nialpxe\|<span style="color: #000; text-decoration: none;">Nialpxe</span>]], 2017. [[User_talk:Nialpxe\|<span style="color: #000; text-decoration: none;">(Arguments welcome)</span>]]</sub>		In this case, nesting the teapot in a catapult/cannon which is launched by another catapult/cannon might perhaps be sufficient to get past NASA regulations. (Catapults/cannons only launching the payload and not themselves...) <sub>--[[User:Nialpxe\|<span style="color: #000; text-decoration: none;">Nialpxe</span>]], 2017. [[User_talk:Nialpxe\|<span style="color: #000; text-decoration: none;">(Arguments welcome)</span>]]</sub>