You have a technical mind, don't you? - page 18
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
It's hard to read more illiterate nonsense anywhere else. You can tell you're a YHWH.
It's the scholarly noodling that's the last thing you want to see in a post.
You don't know much about logic either. I recommend you read the Asmus textbook. In physics, lectures by Feynman. You could also read Tarsky on model theory.
Why are you always throwing books around? Learn to think for yourselves. I recommend it.
What are you talking about....
What vacuum pressure? Did you understand what you said yourself? Oh, yeah... that's what the scientists said.
All particles interact with a field (do you know what a field is?) and all effects occur on the underlying gravitational field. The field itself is continuous and analogous in nature, the particle does not fly by itself, it is "pushed" by this very field after momentum. (nothing just happens).
Your Malevich is based on quantum field theory, which itself is fundamentally wrong, because there is no absolute emptiness, and quantized space is the same ether, which also has quantized nature. But, unlike common sense, you and the etherists dismiss the field as an analogue medium. An objective medium that exists, the effects and phenomena of which we use in everyday life (electromagnetism, magnetism, radio, wi-fi, bluetooth, satellite). Quantum implies discrete nature, the latter meaning dimensional. That is, the world is made up of particles and nothing more. This idiocy not only contradicts the observable surrounding world, but also logic itself, for no one can answer what is between two quanta, if nothing but they should be. It's like piling the universe with bags of potatoes and none of you can budge.
Another pearl of your casimir is that his base includes antiparticles. Anti... particles... God, the denial of the brain.
If there's any effect, it's in real space, not imaginary space.
That's the last thing you want to see from a scholarly noodle
Get in the cave!
If you're out of it, don't call me in. Bury yourself back in.
"Space, in modern physics, has material properties."
Assuming that Space does have material properties, this means that Space is , in itself, a physical object.
In this case, the "wormhole" in Space, is a physical phenomenon of a physical object.
If Space is Dimension (plane of existence of some properties of Matter), then it is immaterial in itself. Consequently, the Wormhole cannot exist.
I think it is necessary to define exactly - whether Space itself can be considered as an independent physical object.
If it can, then it can be curved and changed. If not, then only the matter inside it can be changed, but not Space itself.
Why do you keep throwing around books? Learn to think for yourselves. I recommend it.
On the contrary, I recommend you to read good books. It's a good prophylactic against reinventing bicycles.
The effect has been confirmed experimentally. And if you create a high enough field strength, you can separate the nascent particle and antiparticle.
Yes I wrote that this effect is already taken into account in the creation of nanodevices, i.e. in technology.
You should have at least a basic understanding of the subject about which you are trying to judge.
From a philosophical point of view - indeed, it is a sensible idea.
The problem with modern thought (and old thought too) is that time is given some mystical essence, if not a physical one. The most reckless equate time with a spatial quantity and they get space-time, or space-time continuum. This is such a vinaigrette, where time is placed at a spherical angle in relation to the exhaustive six orthodox directions (three geometrical dimensions). That is, fuck how, but to the geometrical dimension was added the temporal dimension. In ordinary life of a healthy person, these are two different entities, unrelated in any way. Time is a comparative characteristic of processes. Everything.
We look at the hand of the clock and compare the amount of process occurring outside the clock hand to the change in its position. That is, our day-to-day activities, or engineering measurements.
In this post, you state that Time is not a physical Object. No dispute, you separate Time and Space as Things that do not need to be merged into one entity. Also, not in dispute.
But in another post, you argue that Space is a physical Object. It turns out that Time is not material and Space is material. But why?
Assuming that Space does have material properties, this means that Space is , in itself, a physical object.
In this case, the "wormhole" in Space, is a physical phenomenon of a physical object.
If Space is Dimension (plane of existence of some properties of Matter), then it is immaterial in itself. Consequently, the Wormhole cannot exist.
I think it is necessary to define exactly - whether Space itself can be considered as an independent physical object.
If it can, then it can be curved and changed. If not, then only matter inside it can be changed, but not Space itself.
It is very difficult for consciousness to get out of the cave of scientific society).