What form, let's assume a physical body, does time have? Your opinion. - page 56
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
And by evening again the analysis...
... ...and at midnight annihilation. And in the morning again synthesis - the rebirth of God ;))
There's been fusion there since this morning, I think...
A little more complicated: canal, canal, anal, analyse, out, ism, lism, enema, cataclysm, enema, bigband and bigband! Analyse! ;))Synthesis, collapse, synthesis, collapse, meeting, parting, meeting, parting, birth, death, birth, death, trend, flat, trend, flat, up, down, up, down, forward, back,forward, back , etc.Without fluctuation, there is no life, there is nothing!
So nothing changes in the rest of the world then either.
"...Nothingbut the STATUS at every single point...", for if you are going to claim that ANOTHER THING, Beside THIS, is changing, be prepared to explain where it, this THING, came from.
Options like "Creator's creation" or "Big Bang" are not welcome...
the state of every single point is just coordinates in some coordinate system and nothing more... this is how points are explained in the mathematical world. you don't need to give points volumes where you can put any states...this is first. second. if you start considering mathematics with physics by giving points the ability to change coordinates which are still states of single points, it will be very difficult if not impossible to explain where this motion comes from unless you resort to big bang theory or say an act of creation well explain
Nothing of the sort...
THE STATE of each single point is the REAL VALUE of the PARAMETER we are interested in, NOT INDEPENDENT OF OUR OWN VIEW OF IT.
In this case, the term "point" implies just the VOLUME of space, the size of which WE and YOU AGREE TO ENFORCE.
A "point" in space CANNOT CHANGE COORDINATES, for the coordinates, together with their SYSTEMS, exist ONLY in OUR IMAGE. (That is, the point of space we are considering is NOT IN THE POSITION TO MOVE. ONLY a VARIABLE VARIABLE VARIABLE is moving. Thus, there is no need to explain, "...where motion comes from..." points by various-that-is theories of explosions and acts).
And it's not clear why you don't like a world where "...there is no movement of single points." ?
There's been fusion there since this morning, I think...
Not at all...
The STATUS of each single point is the REAL VALUE of the PARAMETER of interest, NOT RELIABLE WITH OUR VIEW of it.
In this case, the term "point" implies just the VOLUME of space, the size of which WE and YOU AGREE TO ENFORCE.
A "point" in space CANNOT CHANGE COORDINATES, for the coordinates, together with their SYSTEMS, exist ONLY in OUR IMAGE. (That is, the point of space we are considering is NOT IN THE POSITION TO MOVE. ONLY a VARIABLE VARIABLE VARIABLE is moving. Thus, there is no need to explain, "...where motion comes from..." points by various-that-is theories of explosions and acts).
And it's not clear why you don't like a world where "...there is no movement of single points." ?
So, would you argue that the motion of a material body in space merely changes the current state of each individual point in space?
Where else am I to go?
After all, if you try to RECOGNIZE the existence of a so-called MATERIAL body, you inevitably have to explain WHERE IT COMES FROM.
And when you look at it closely enough, it turns out that there isn't even a body...
Nothing of the sort...
The state of each individual point is the REAL value of the parameter of interest, NOT INDEPENDENT FROM OUR OWN VIEW OF IT.
In this case, the term "point" implies just the VOLUME of space, the size of which WE and YOU AGREE TO ENFORCE.
A "point" in space CANNOT CHANGE COORDINATES, because coordinates, together with their SYSTEMS, exist ONLY in OUR IMAGE. (That is, the point of space we are considering is NOT IN THE POSITION TO MOVE. ONLY a VARIABLE VARIABLE VARIABLE is moving. Thus, there is no need to explain, "... where motion comes from..." points by various theories of explosions and acts).
And it's not clear why you don't like a world where "...there is no movement of single points." ?
Where else am I supposed to go?
After all, if you try to RECOGNIZE the existence of a so-called MATERIAL body, you inevitably have to explain WHERE IT COMES FROM.
And if you look at it closely enough, you'll realize that there isn't even a body...