What form, let's assume a physical body, does time have? Your opinion. - page 55
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
No, it doesn't. The HDD head moves, charges in the memory cells appear and are erased, areas of the disc are remagnetised...
That's what I'm saying:"nothing changes inside it except the STATUS in each individual point"...
No, it doesn't. The HDD head moves, charges in the memory cells appear and are erased, areas of the disc are remagnetised...
Then it is not a minute, but a tick - do you know how many ticks there are in a minute? They (ticks) are dynamic.How objective are these dynamics, that's the question! If you do a study and compare ticks in different DCs, the picture is likely to be sad, or maybe I'm wrong ...
Such things are NOT shocking when one realizes that the ONLY THING THAT HAS THE RIGHT TO EXIST WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO BE EXISTED, IS THE VAST... (The total absence of anything). (!!!)
Having declared the existence of ANY OTHER OBJECT (except for emptiness) - you IMMEDIATELY STAND UPON THE NEGOTIATING TO DESCRIBE THAT IN ABSOLUTE VOICE... out of nothing (!!!) this object suddenly appeared.
In order not to make up GODs... or Big Bangs of any kind, all you have to do is realise that all the world around us... and the world visible to us is "drawn" only by the Present STATUS of properties of EVERY single point of absolutely empty space. (for example, you can take the most bizarre processes occurring in the bowels of a switched on computer, when nothing changes inside it, except the STATUS at each single point).
By the way, it's a very sobering thought. Basically, whatever we're talking about -- any object, phenomenon, physical field, radiation, wave -- none of it can be determined without using information, and even none of it exists for us in any way other than as information. Conversely, any of these things can be described without using any concepts other than information (or rather, by defining all other concepts on its basis). So, if you remember Occam's razor, ALL is... is information.
P.S. Actually, there is nothing new in this, the philosophy of science already in the 20th century came to this conclusion on the basis of discoveries, first of all, of quantum mechanics.
PPS. And the fact that information (or emptiness, as you like) was able to self-organize into such truly wonderful things, as you and I here on this forum - that's astounding. One can't help but wonder about the eternal and the absolute, even as a complete agnostic))
Gravitational waves do not exist. If only because gravity is not of wave nature, as many are used to thinking by analogy with electromagnetism.
And to raise money for pseudoscientific research with archaic names is correct.
BICEP proved that they do exist. Exactly as distortions in space-time distortions of space-time itself.
What makes you think otherwise ("gravity is not of a wave nature"), what does it follow from?
That's what I'm saying:'nothing inside it changes except the STATUS at each individual point'...
So in the rest of the world, nothing changes then.
How objective are these dynamics, that's the question! If you do a study and compare ticks in different DCs, the picture is likely to be sad, or maybe I'm wrong...
Not at all. The question has been raised 100500 times. God forbid you catch "fish" on ticks.
BICEP has just proved that they exist. Exactly as propagations in space-time of distortions of space-time proper.
What makes you think the opposite ("gravity is not of a wave nature"), what does it follow from?
It's WAY cooler there actually. Gravitation is not generated by masses, that's what it is, Mikhalych.
Small bodies (asteroids, comets) have no gravity, although according to Newton they should. There is enough information about this on the Internet. If you are really interested I will give you the links.
Imagine a sledding hill. There is a gradient of heights. More, less, less, ... The higher the sledge, the more potential energy and less kinetic energy it has and vice versa.
About the same in near-Earth space: there is a gradientof not_to_be_told_by_anything. It's just there: without its speed of propagation, without wave properties (otherwise it would interfere, get shielded, etc. )
But that's all bullshit. Humans need to understand the main thing: gravity has a source, and the matter simply attacked it. It's just an attack on it, if you like.
And some celestial bodies have two, these sources of gravity. They still have matter falling towards the centre between the sources, and the orbiting matter gathering in a disk. The physics (though rather the geometry) of the formation process of Saturn's rings is shown by me here. Is "Newtonians" anywhere shown???
Lyosha, do you want to hear another joke?
The Sun has two nearby sources of gravitation that tear atomic nuclei into nucleons with each other.
This is the solar reactor, and there is no decay from heating by gravity.
The gravitation of the Moon is artificial and effective not further than 30 thousand km and only on objects of a certain size.
That is why dust falls on it and the atmosphere does not hold.
All the discovered star systems have a clear order of planetary size and position... except? That's right! The solar system!
There's so much interesting stuff in there! Why aren't you a wave...
... The Sun has two nearby sources of gravitation which tear atomic nuclei into nucleons with each other.
This is the solar reactor and there is no decay from heating by gravity...
There's been fusion there since this morning, I think...