You have a technical mind, don't you? - page 8
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
Violating the laws of logic by making the flat in words will not work in practice.
The more beautiful the fairy tale, the more one wants to believe in it. A fairy tale about space-time is much more beautiful than boring and rigid logic.
Which laws of logic do you think have been violated?
Which laws of logic do you believe have been violated?
One. We have a substitution of concepts in place.
UPD
Ah, there are others at the link. Then the "Law of Identity"
My mind is strongly against it.
Space is an infinite set of dimensions from any point of reference.
Space is infinite from any point of reference.
Space is a single infinite whole without boundaries.
What angle shall we bend if there are no angles as such?
I admit the curvature of space, if we admit that the space object with some conditional shell of space comes into contact with another object of the same kind and creates the curvature like changing the form of the surface of two contacted balls.
But that would not be the concept of space but a completely different term.
I completely agree with you. I just assume that the change happens in magnification above the object and some distance from it (from the centre of the object), or vice versa, magnification of the object in relation to you, bringing you closer to its centre. But that's fantastic. But if you build an object on the x, y, z axis, such as a cube and give it a rotation, for example, 100 revolutions per minute, then from the design and order we will observe disorder, so the time of rotation of the object(speed), increases disorder, and most likely the same happens in reverse, which means that this explosion and was not and to go they should quit piddling people brains, but better go and plant potatoes at dachas - all more useful.
First. We have a substitution of concepts in place.
UPD
Ah, there's more at the link. Then the "Law of Identity"
I disagree. It doesn't assert the identity of the flat with the volumetric. What is asserted is the identity of the two relationships: just as the 4-dimensional relates to the 3-dimensional, so does the 3-dimensional relate to the 2-dimensional. This is not always true, but in this context it is correct.
or maybe you just don't have enough brains?
A reasonable criticism might look like :
"Such and such an assertion in such and such a part is untenable for such and such a reason".
If you cannot formulate a coherent thought, then your thought is not formed due to the lack of intellectual content in it.
Reasonable criticism can look :
this principle is violated in the first post of the thread ))
To pick on a wildly simplified example especially for those with oatmeal under their skull is the height of idiocy.
I disagree. It doesn't assert the identity of the flat with the volumetric. What is asserted is the identity of the two relationships: just as the 4-dimensional relates to the 3-dimensional, so does the 3-dimensional relate to the 2-dimensional. This is not always true, but in this context it is correct.
"4-dimensional" and "2-dimensional. " has nothing to do with physics, because physics is a real 3-dimensional space, not a mathematical one. You can write all you want in mathematics, but in reality no other geometric(!) dimensions are orthodoxly impossible(!) to draw to x,y or z. I underline, not temporal, not fantastic, but precisely geometrical.
Besides, there just asserts the identity of flat to volumetric (sheet = surface = plane = volume), for without imposing "flat" on volumetric such experience mathematically cannot be obtained. And the reality is even more so, since it is not just some counting law that is violated, but precisely the nature of logic.
this principle is violated in the first post of the thread ))
To poke fun at a wildly simplified example especially for those with oatmeal under their skull is the height of idiocy.
If a model does not describe reality, it is physically useless. No matter how many formulas it contains.
A reasonable criticism might look like :
"Such-and-such statement in such-and-such part is untenable for such-and-such reason."
If you cannot formulate a coherent thought, then your thought is not formed due to the lack of intellectual content in it. [2]
I totally agree with you. I only assume that the change is an increase over the object and a certain distance from it (from the centre of the object), or vice versa, an increase in the object in relation to you, bringing you closer to its centre. But that's fantastic. But if to build an object on an axis x, y, z, like a cube and give it a revolution, for example, 100 revolutions a minute, from the project and order we will observe a mess, it means that time of rotation of object (speed), increases a mess, and most likely the same happens the opposite, and it means that this explosion and was not and to course they already long ago should stop to powder people brains, and better would go and plant potatoes on dachas - everything is more useful.
How was the worldview formed?
Man centre (reference point) = the Earth is flat, has thought a little, no the earth is round and rotates around the sun, next thought and has put forward the theory of a big bang, but the reference point has not changed. As if the explosion took place exactly where we are standing))). The big bang may have been local, I don't argue. But don't bullshit mankind about 13.5 billion.