Originally posted by @christopher-albonLardy? Regional thing?
That's it. A circle is just a lardy triangle and vice versa.
Originally posted by @christopher-albonlol
Yeah, soz. A triangle who's interior angles sum to 540.
Really! lol
Originally posted by @christopher-albonYou are moving too fast for the audience.
And physical concepts are mental.
Originally posted by @apathistYour point is unclear. How would you explain and describe e.g. time dilation without invoking Lorentz transformations?
Relativity works well, as we'd expect from a tested math concept. Time is merely a measurement of change. There are no time-atoms. Time has no physical existence.
Spacetime is a mathematical conception. I'm not denigrating it, the spacetime concept is super useful. Remember that the layman's explanation or visualization of spacetime (the lies we tell children) requires an informal fallacy to work.
Originally posted by @twhiteheadA 3D object today is not identical to the same object tomorrow
Exactly. Hence a forth dimension is required to specify where an object is.
[b]Time isn't a 3D physical object such as a planet, or a grain of sand, or a DVD disk recording of a physicist explaining the difference between space, the objects inhabiting that space, and time...
Of course time isn't a 3D object. Nobody suggested it was. What a stupid ...[text shortened]... of values 'dimensions'. Spin has both magnitude and direction so may be more than one dimension.[/b]
Uh, huh. So, the ball a pitcher throws is not identical to the ball that crosses the plate... ?
(you): No, you stupid man! It's the same ball, but it's not identical to the ball the pitcher threw!
(me): So it's the same ball, but not identical to... itself?
(you): Yes... NO! You still don't get it, you stupid imbecile!!
(me): Stupid imbecile? That seems redundant.
(you): Don't change the subject, you silly imbecilic layman stupid-head!
etc etc etc
Originally posted by @apathistSorry, I'll try and break it down into plane English.
You are moving too fast for the audience.
1 edit
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Your point is unclear. How would you explain and describe e.g. time dilation without invoking Lorentz transformations?
Originally posted by @lemon-limeTrying to make up what I would say in the hope of winning an argument that way I see.
Uh, huh. So, the ball a pitcher throws is not identical to the ball that crosses the plate... ?
(you): No, you stupid man! It's the same ball, but it's not identical to the ball the pitcher threw!
(me): So it's the same ball, but not identical to... itself?
(you): Yes... NO! You still don't get it, you stupid imbecile!!
(me): Stupid imbecile? ...[text shortened]...
(you): Don't change the subject, you silly imbecilic layman stupid-head!
etc etc etc
The fact is, that in your imaginary conversation, you have to differentiate between the ball the pitcher threw and the ball that crosses the plate. Clearly the two instances are NOT identical or you wouldn't be able to refer to them at all. Hence a dimension is required.
Or are you claiming the ball is both in the pitchers hand AND crossing the plate and never one not the other?
Interesting that you think yourself a silly imbecile.
1 edit
Originally posted by @twhiteheadYour presumption of stupidity is hilarious.
Trying to make up what I would say in the hope of winning an argument that way I see.
The fact is, that in your imaginary conversation, you have to differentiate between the ball the pitcher threw and the ball that crosses the plate. Clearly the two instances are NOT identical or you wouldn't be able to refer to them at all. Hence a dimension is requi ...[text shortened]... the plate and never one not the other?
Interesting that you think yourself a silly imbecile.
The ball is the same, the position of the ball is not the same.
You are clearly assuming I don't (or can't) understand the difference. It is this presumption of stupidity I'm calling hilarious.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeYou mean the presumption you made up and put words in my mouth. That makes it your presumption about yourself.
Your presumption of stupidity is hilarious.
Originally posted by @twhiteheadNo, look up and read what I added. If you still don't get it...
You mean the presumption you made up and put words in my mouth. That makes it your presumption about yourself.
think about it
Originally posted by @lemon-limeIf the shoe fits...
Your presumption of stupidity is hilarious.
The ball is the same, the position of the ball is not the same.
You are clearly assuming I don't (or can't) understand the difference. It is this presumption of stupidity I'm calling hilarious.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasPast tense, present tense, future tense.
What do you mean? Met tense?
If the past does not exist... ?
( It did exist, but it presently does not exist )
When I look around I'm not looking into the past. The bug that died yesterday still appears to be dead today... no matter how many times I turn my head to look, I never see the living bug that was there the day before yesterday. It's the same bug, in the same potted plant, yesterday he was dead, today he is dead, but the day before yesterday he (or she) was clearly alive. But in the ever present Now he/she/it is dead, and will remain that way because the arrow of time only points in one drection.
cause effect, cause effect, cause effect, etc etc ------>
and so forth and so on ------------------------------>