You have a technical mind, don't you? - page 21

New comment
 
Олег avtomat:

1) does motion have material properties?

2) speed of motion has material properties?

3) the acceleration of motion has material properties?

What are your answers to these questions?

1) No

2) No

3) No

Motion is not a matter. Motion is a change of position of one material object relative to other material objects. How can non-matter have material properties? It is a logical fallacy.
Motion is the main property of matter. Matter, I emphasize. Motion itself is not a separate object.

No need to make a mishmash, clear your mind.
 
Ivan Butko:
1) No

2) No

3) No.

Motion is not a matter. Motion is a change in location (position) of one material object relative to other material objects. How can non-matter have material properties? It is a logical fallacy.
Motion is the main property of matter. Matter, I emphasize.

There's no need to make a mishmash, clear your mind.

I clarified the questions there, look again.

And don't be rude (there is no reason to turn to rudeness)

 
Олег avtomat:

I clarified the questions there.

and don't be rude.

I see. Good question you added, by the way. It's easy to make a mistake.

Motion is a physical phenomenon, but it is not matter. As a physical phenomenon (physics-nature, exist from the Greek) motion exists. But it is not a separate part of matter and it is not a separate kind of matter. Motion is not matter, is not a particle and is not a field. Motion is the movement of matter in space. It, as a moving process, can give some properties of matter (slowing down or speeding up processes or whatever). Motion cannot move, only matter moves, here we have to be careful not to mix up the notions in one heap, as it is done with space and matter. And since motion is not matter, it has no material properties.

No, I'm not being snide. Although, some individuals would like to

 
Ivan Butko:
I see. A good question, by the way, you added. One can easily go wrong on it.

Motion is a physical phenomenon, but it is not matter. As a physical phenomenon (physics-nature, exist from the Greek) motion exists. But it is not a separate part of matter and it is not a separate kind of matter. Motion is not matter, is not a particle and is not a field. Motion is the movement of matter in space. It, as a moving process, can give some properties of matter (slowing down or speeding up processes or whatever). Motion cannot move, only matter moves, here we have to be careful not to mix up the notions in one heap, as it is done with space and matter. And since motion is not matter, it has no material properties.

No, I'm not being snide. Although, some individuals would like to...

1) Is it possible for a material body to exist outside of space and outside of time?

2) Can the motion of a material body occur outside of space and outside of time?

What are your answers to these questions?
 
Uladzimir Izerski:

What did you want?

And philosophically speaking, what is man in the physical sense of the word?

It is nothing more than a blob of energy, nothing more.

And if it is a blob of energy, then these blobs of energy can be influenced and even controlled by energy. Charge large masses of people positively or negatively.

Which is what is being done in today's world. It's even hard to escape its effects.

Exactly, - "if you philosophize"! A human being, as you say, is "charged". Its charge often consists of a host of components, the internal superposition of which is the emotional coloring. Yes, I absolutely agree with you, pulling of emotions can create a controlling influence on masses of people. Professionals use it with great success. But how tiresome it is to wade through the throngs of frantically tossing people! Even on this thread, under the intriguing title, emotions are kicking in. Authors pumped up with a non-durable amount of knowledge are beating to prove something to somebody! Completely unable to control themselves with the seemingly fundamental question: "WHY?

Dissatisfaction sprays and throws you into madness. The level of insanity varies from case to case, but the level is clearly above zero. This, in my opinion, is the main obstacle to professional communication on the merits. No sooner do you post a perfectly innocent request than some shouting people pop up. They scream about something that is very important, but they do not realize it. That's how we live... Why are you clinging to matter and space? Will it help you make money on the forex market? Oh, yeah, sure, "not by bread alone..." You can't explain your motivation in any other way...

 
Maxim Romanov:
Not only are there experiments, but the correction of the flow of time is accounted for in gps satellites.
All arguments about the validity of scientific data come from the fact that the intelligence of the scientist is so much higher than that of the common man that the common man is unable to grasp the meaning of the theories being developed. For the philistine, a car on credit is the ceiling.

Let's say they rule, but how to do it properly, can you tell a two-timer?

1. We are on a ship (rectangle) that is moving at half the speed of light in the direction of the arrow (to the right).

2. At the point B there is an observer.

3. From point A we send two light beams in opposite directions.

4. How will the time change on the ship relative to the observer?


For the observer the speed of the two beams (L1 and L2) is the same, for us in the ship the same. L2 we are catching up, so time must slow down by a factor of two = 1/c-0.5c. At the same time, from L1 we are running away, so time must accelerate by a factor of 1.5 = c+0.5c. That's nonsense, isn't it?

Files:
DSC03272.JPG  108 kb
 
Ivan Butko:
It's just water. And it's muddy, it's a puddle of water.

It has been made clear above that time has no material properties, so there is no point in repeating it five times. The obvious things not to see is what a mess in the head must be

The lucidity of your explanations is similar to the lucidity of Hegel's proof that the number of planets in the solar system is seven. That is, it is the typical lucidity of meaningless sophistic reasoning that has no relation to the real state of affairs. This is just another gap in your understanding of logic - seemingly obvious does not mean true and modern science gives many examples of this.

 
pavlick_:

Let's say they do, but how do you do it properly, can you tell a two-timer?

1. We are on a ship (rectangle) that is moving at half the speed of light in the direction of the arrow (to the right).

2. At the point B there is an observer.

3. From point A we send two light beams in opposite directions.

4. How will the time change on the ship relative to the observer?


For the observer the speed of the two beams (L1 and L2) is the same, for us in the ship the same. L2 we are catching up, so time must slow down by a factor of two = 1/c-0.5c. At the same time, from L1 we are running away, so time must accelerate by a factor of 1.5 = c+0.5c. That's nonsense, isn't it?

Akin to the question, at what speed flies a bee that flies differently inside a car rushing at 100 km/h?

 
Yousufkhodja Sultonov:

Akin to the question, at what speed does a bee that flies differently inside a car rushing at 100 km/hour fly?

The only difference is that the speed of a bee is not a constant for any observer.

 
pavlick_:

The only difference is that the speed of the bee is not a constant for any observer.

Why is that? For the bee itself, it is zero.

1...141516171819202122232425262728...33
New comment