Derek
Member
Pears poop
I have to go with Sjohns, good English though. Have you seen "What the BLEEP do we know?" ?
I have to go with Sjohns, good English though. Have you seen "What the BLEEP do we know?" ?
Another New Cap&Ball Bullet
- Thread starter Manyirons
- Start date
- Status
sjohns
Member
I've seen it. Interesting physics concepts. Multiverses seem quite possible.
But once we reach pure metaphysics we really get into trouble forming proofs.
Although I like the video, there is too much hookeydookey stuff in it.
It is a very good tool for getting people to attempt to fathom their own conceptual realities.
As for me, I have enough trouble just trying to figiure out what my lucid dreams are all about.
But once we reach pure metaphysics we really get into trouble forming proofs.
Although I like the video, there is too much hookeydookey stuff in it.
It is a very good tool for getting people to attempt to fathom their own conceptual realities.
As for me, I have enough trouble just trying to figiure out what my lucid dreams are all about.
arcticap
Member
Thanks sjohns
What I could make of the quote basically was that names and words (like symbols) have shadowy (or symbolic) meanings, yet are powerful (imposing) nonetheless.
I associated the word "symbolic" with "shadowy". A symbol represents something besides what it actually is. The word (or symbols) for tree might mean strength, longevity or beauty, rather than simply the living organism which it actually is.
You provided a great interpretation and lesson sjohns, thanks!
In hindsight, I think that I was trying to respond to all those previously posted German phrases, and say something about the symbolic importance of names as well, by quoting something in "plain" English! You know, like trying to kill 2 birds with one stone?
What I could make of the quote basically was that names and words (like symbols) have shadowy (or symbolic) meanings, yet are powerful (imposing) nonetheless.
I associated the word "symbolic" with "shadowy". A symbol represents something besides what it actually is. The word (or symbols) for tree might mean strength, longevity or beauty, rather than simply the living organism which it actually is.
You provided a great interpretation and lesson sjohns, thanks!
In hindsight, I think that I was trying to respond to all those previously posted German phrases, and say something about the symbolic importance of names as well, by quoting something in "plain" English! You know, like trying to kill 2 birds with one stone?
sjohns
Member
Arcticap!
Check out Ludwig Von Wittegenstein and Quine. Those guys pretty much took the lead with the philosophy dealing with linguistics.
Witggenstein will elaborate that words are indeed signs or symbols of the things they designate. If anything is shadowy about it, it might be the source of the gutteral utterances that produce the word. He will also point out how limited our rich language really is. To wit: We call a table a physical object... physicists will tell us that the table is mostly empty space with some particles intermixed with the empty space, but it is a nonphysical thing.
An object cannot be its opposite, or rather be one thing and its opposite in the same way, to the same measure, in the same amount etc. at the same time. He dissolves the apparent contradiction by the suggestion that the word physical ought not be used by the physicist, but that there is no corresponding word that is a "sign" or "symbol" that represents what he wants to say, ergo confusion arises. "Philosophical Investigations"
Quine will lead you down the path of correspondence. Our words must correspond or refer to a thing denotated. If words have ambiguous, "shadowy" meanings, it is an inadequacy of language, not a "metaphysical" property of the words. He also leads you through an idea about metaphysical meaning and fairly successfully knocks it out.
He created the "Indeterminacy of Translation" thesis, that is a good take on language. His book "From a logical point of view" is a hard read, but if you're meticulous, it will make sense to you.
So from these viewpoints, more generally accepted, then, to consider that 'tree' might also "mean" beauty, strength, and etc., is a probable psychological attachment. (and a confusion of categories)
A tree could have the properties of "being beautiful" or "being strong" but is not in and of itself "strength" or "beauty" which are separate things. Neither would the name 'tree' represent those either thoughts, logically.
So possibly, Pears never studied Locke and the other Empiricists and understood that objects that indeed have names, also have primary and secondary qualities as well as have properties, and each of these has its own name (symbol) in order to make our language cogent and communicable.
hehehe Pears is warped... He waxed poetic.
Check out Ludwig Von Wittegenstein and Quine. Those guys pretty much took the lead with the philosophy dealing with linguistics.
Witggenstein will elaborate that words are indeed signs or symbols of the things they designate. If anything is shadowy about it, it might be the source of the gutteral utterances that produce the word. He will also point out how limited our rich language really is. To wit: We call a table a physical object... physicists will tell us that the table is mostly empty space with some particles intermixed with the empty space, but it is a nonphysical thing.
An object cannot be its opposite, or rather be one thing and its opposite in the same way, to the same measure, in the same amount etc. at the same time. He dissolves the apparent contradiction by the suggestion that the word physical ought not be used by the physicist, but that there is no corresponding word that is a "sign" or "symbol" that represents what he wants to say, ergo confusion arises. "Philosophical Investigations"
Quine will lead you down the path of correspondence. Our words must correspond or refer to a thing denotated. If words have ambiguous, "shadowy" meanings, it is an inadequacy of language, not a "metaphysical" property of the words. He also leads you through an idea about metaphysical meaning and fairly successfully knocks it out.
He created the "Indeterminacy of Translation" thesis, that is a good take on language. His book "From a logical point of view" is a hard read, but if you're meticulous, it will make sense to you.
So from these viewpoints, more generally accepted, then, to consider that 'tree' might also "mean" beauty, strength, and etc., is a probable psychological attachment. (and a confusion of categories)
A tree could have the properties of "being beautiful" or "being strong" but is not in and of itself "strength" or "beauty" which are separate things. Neither would the name 'tree' represent those either thoughts, logically.
So possibly, Pears never studied Locke and the other Empiricists and understood that objects that indeed have names, also have primary and secondary qualities as well as have properties, and each of these has its own name (symbol) in order to make our language cogent and communicable.
hehehe Pears is warped... He waxed poetic.
Duncaninfrance
Member
I am getting a rather strong smell of what comes out of the other end of the animal
I think it is time to discover (a) what sjohns is drinking and (b) how much is left in case there is an inquest!
I for one like the look of Big Iron Powerlocked but without the ring.
They could probably rustle up some good sales providing your customers are steered in the right direction!!! And don't forget, they are 'brand' new!!!!
Duncan
I think it is time to discover (a) what sjohns is drinking and (b) how much is left in case there is an inquest!
I for one like the look of Big Iron Powerlocked but without the ring.
They could probably rustle up some good sales providing your customers are steered in the right direction!!! And don't forget, they are 'brand' new!!!!
Duncan
sjohns
Member
Name the bullet the Neo-Platonist Gnostic Bomb.
hehehe Good one mec!
If we could get them to make tracers or incendiaries...
Superluminary Dukem Nukems
hehehe Good one mec!
If we could get them to make tracers or incendiaries...
Superluminary Dukem Nukems
Need Advice, .45 Bullet Weights!!!!!
Hi All!
Tha 'SMITH is experimentin on what weights might be best for tha .45 caliber, for tha Remmies, Colts, Rogers&Spencer, Ruger Old Army and WHATNOT on tha market.
Thought at first it might be a pattern emulating tha .36, a solid tha same weight as a ball (Roughly 140/150 grains) and a Hollow Point somewhat heavier for penetration and better down range ballistics, (Say about 180 grains).
THOUGHT about a heavier bullet but tha powder capacity problem arose, would only be useful in Walkers, Dragoons and Old Armies. 1860 Colt, Remmies wouldn't have enough space for a decent charge of OOOMPH Powder!
But what are YOUR ideas? WHAT bullets weight and style (Solid/Hollow Point) would ya go with, and WHY?
Its a tough task, but i gots confidence in yas!
By tha way!!!! Its been desided! Just like tha 'forward and credits' section of a book, where ya thank alla yer friends&buddies for helpin while you were writin, EVERYBODY here that helped is gettin (With permission!!) their name on tha label as contributing, so one day, ina gun shop yas can point and say 'i helped with that' and when whoever ya told calls 'bovine poo' ya can make a bet!!!
And of course! One or MORE of yas is gettin a material goods prize the first of tha commin month!!!!
Hi All!
Tha 'SMITH is experimentin on what weights might be best for tha .45 caliber, for tha Remmies, Colts, Rogers&Spencer, Ruger Old Army and WHATNOT on tha market.
Thought at first it might be a pattern emulating tha .36, a solid tha same weight as a ball (Roughly 140/150 grains) and a Hollow Point somewhat heavier for penetration and better down range ballistics, (Say about 180 grains).
THOUGHT about a heavier bullet but tha powder capacity problem arose, would only be useful in Walkers, Dragoons and Old Armies. 1860 Colt, Remmies wouldn't have enough space for a decent charge of OOOMPH Powder!
But what are YOUR ideas? WHAT bullets weight and style (Solid/Hollow Point) would ya go with, and WHY?
Its a tough task, but i gots confidence in yas!
By tha way!!!! Its been desided! Just like tha 'forward and credits' section of a book, where ya thank alla yer friends&buddies for helpin while you were writin, EVERYBODY here that helped is gettin (With permission!!) their name on tha label as contributing, so one day, ina gun shop yas can point and say 'i helped with that' and when whoever ya told calls 'bovine poo' ya can make a bet!!!
And of course! One or MORE of yas is gettin a material goods prize the first of tha commin month!!!!
sjohns
Member
I shoot 185 gr conicals with otu problems.
sjohns
Member
umm yeah...
out the underside...
out the underside...
sjohns
Member
my fingers are just too fast for my brain
Steve499
Member
In the for what it's worth department, A heavier bullet always shoots higher from a handgun. I think it would be important to have an offering in both .36 and .44 which is the same weight as the round ball, allowing those who have a happily zeroed pistol to shoot the new bullets without going back to the drawing board, sight wise. I don't even suspect how much is involved in creating the dies to swage them, so this may not be do-able, but when I try to zero a new pistola, it would be nice to have several weights to choose from, maybe even one lighter than the round ball (for those high shooting factory sights a lot seem to have). It doesn't matter much how heavy the bullet is if all you do with the gun is punch holes in paper. It does look nice, though, to have those holes as close to the aiming point as possible and a lot of folks can't or won't re-do the sights.
Steve
Steve
Yup!
Good point! And its why there's an offering in both calibers equaling tha round ball, in .36/80 grain, in .45/140-150grain.
Really tha only unresolved question now is tha heavier hollow pointed hunting bullet. So what are yer ideas for a hunting bullet for deer, boar and smaller game?
Good point! And its why there's an offering in both calibers equaling tha round ball, in .36/80 grain, in .45/140-150grain.
Really tha only unresolved question now is tha heavier hollow pointed hunting bullet. So what are yer ideas for a hunting bullet for deer, boar and smaller game?
I've done quite a bit of game shooting with Keith designed hollowpoints in modern revolvers. The bullets have a long, thin nose and a fairly big hollow cavity. with pure lead, the begin to expand reliabley at 1,000 fps or slighly slower. With the usual slighltly harder alloy, the expand at 1,100 plus or minus 50 and start to fly apart at 1300+. I've seen swaged `158 hornadys with smaller hollow points expand at 950 but likely not below.
For that reason, I would be just as happy with a bullet with a wadcuter type nose configuration- like the truncated cone design some of us just shot.
The issue of having heavier bullets shooting higher is real but an energy advantage may accrue with them. It did show up with the 130 grain 36s I shot. The ball-weight bullets hit right in line with the sighting for round balls but it may be hard to tell if there is an accuracy advantage there. round ball's can turn in some very small groups. The bullets have the advantage of a larger contact with the chamber and a hollow base but how many of us will be able to tell if they are more accurate or not? I don't think I can.
For that reason, I would be just as happy with a bullet with a wadcuter type nose configuration- like the truncated cone design some of us just shot.
The issue of having heavier bullets shooting higher is real but an energy advantage may accrue with them. It did show up with the 130 grain 36s I shot. The ball-weight bullets hit right in line with the sighting for round balls but it may be hard to tell if there is an accuracy advantage there. round ball's can turn in some very small groups. The bullets have the advantage of a larger contact with the chamber and a hollow base but how many of us will be able to tell if they are more accurate or not? I don't think I can.
Duncaninfrance
Member
I think that, hunting aside, because any Frenchman will only hunt with a shotgun or and express ( BP is only for targets here!) consistantly high performance to the target comes top of my list.
Don't forget also that the product must match the packaging and the publicity
(as well as the bumper/fender stickers and guncase decals!)
Manyirons, any thoughts on my CD offer?
Duncan
Don't forget also that the product must match the packaging and the publicity
(as well as the bumper/fender stickers and guncase decals!)
Manyirons, any thoughts on my CD offer?
Duncan
Steve499
Member
Mec, I think a heavier bullet is always better, energy wise, than a lighter one even if the "on paper" kinetic energy of a lighter bullet is calculated to be the same due to it's faster speed. I'm referring to pistols, here. I would want the heaviest bullet, for hunting, that would fit without punching a hole in your hand with the rammer trying to get the powder compressed enough for it to seat below the chamber mouth.
I just have had occasion in the past to wish I could get a slightly lower point of impact so I didn't have to tie into the sights, couldn't figure how to only shoot part of a ball! I never thought of reducing weight by having a hollow base. I wouldn't want lighter bullets for anything other than paper. Accuracy is a topic of it's own, but I would expect that hollow base to squeeze the best out of most revolvers.
Steve
I just have had occasion in the past to wish I could get a slightly lower point of impact so I didn't have to tie into the sights, couldn't figure how to only shoot part of a ball! I never thought of reducing weight by having a hollow base. I wouldn't want lighter bullets for anything other than paper. Accuracy is a topic of it's own, but I would expect that hollow base to squeeze the best out of most revolvers.
Steve
I suspect the same of that hollow base. Might be so close that I couldn't tell the difference from a round ball though. I was impressed that the enegy I got with that 130 grain bullet calculated out the same- actually a couple of ft lbs more- as the nominal 38 special rnl factory load. the only other 36, I've been able to do that with was a Uberti Remington Navy with its larger chamber capacity.
MEC!
Per tha 130 grain, this was calculated for effect by a man who considers these as REAL weapons and wants top terminal effect from them.
Tha re-design on tha hollow point is self limiting in effect, it opens tha tip ta provide more CRUSH as it tears through, not enough ta seriously inhibit penetration.
Some people might be happier in tha BIG/Wide/FLat/Heavy 'kill em quick' design previously announced on this board,
Per tha 130 grain, this was calculated for effect by a man who considers these as REAL weapons and wants top terminal effect from them.
Tha re-design on tha hollow point is self limiting in effect, it opens tha tip ta provide more CRUSH as it tears through, not enough ta seriously inhibit penetration.
Some people might be happier in tha BIG/Wide/FLat/Heavy 'kill em quick' design previously announced on this board,
- Status
