A question about discreteness (just don't hit the table too hard for being off-topic) - page 3
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
Dersu:
But the reactionaries were no fools either.
And they were educated.
Whatever...
1. Who's that?
2. Why "too"? Who was it?
3. What is the connection between reactionaries and education?
4. Who was "with him"?
Nilog:
Well, guess. While the very existence of BH is unprovable.
It has long been proven, classified, catalogued, etc.
You can open any astronomical reference book and you'll find it there, even with coordinates.
How are you going to prove the properties of an unprovable phenomenon?
Я? You're not. Do I need to? For general education, I know enough.
Long proven, classified, catalogued, etc.
You can open up any sensible astronomical reference book -- you'll find it there, even with coordinates.
Я? You can't. Do I need it? For general education, I know, and that's enough.
And that's enough? All right, then. The world is square, and that's enough.
Well so it is possible to come to a total denial of everything and everything.
Planets in other star systems do not exist as they are not directly detectable at the present experimental level. They cannot be seen but can only be calculated.
But there are even stranger constructions and principles, which science deals with in all seriousness - the Pauli principle and all questions of non-locality, Schrödinger's cat and generally entangled states, etc.
Science, where it cannot directly observe, tries to approach the subject gradually, through theoretical models. It tries to calculate the possible observable consequences and using these to determine whether the observed corresponds to the model. Well, that's how all science evolves.
And in general, who has told you that black holes have no properties? And mass, rotational momentum, charge?
Well, you can get to the point of total denial of anything and everything.
Planets in other star systems do not exist as they are not directly detectable at the present experimental level. They cannot be seen but can only be calculated.
But there are even stranger constructions and principles, which science deals with in all seriousness - the Pauli principle and all questions of non-locality, Schrödinger's cat and generally entangled states, etc.
Science, where it cannot directly observe, tries to approach the subject gradually, through theoretical models. It tries to calculate the possible observable consequences and using these to determine whether the observed corresponds to the model. Well, that's how all science develops.
And in general, who told you that black holes have no properties? And mass, rotational momentum, charge?
And the phenomena? Your attitude.
Well, you can go as far as denying anything and everything.
That's what I'm talking about. One can, of course, get to the point.
Even Putin can be denied, and Obama.
And no one would be harmed by it.
No one will get hurt?
And get a shot of a potent agent in the butt.
Look up the phenomenon on wikipedia.
There's no movement, said the wise man...
Everything's already been stolen before us.
What's a wikipedia fInamen? Why don't I know? What are forty phenomenalists together refuting that one could not refute? By the masses?
:))
Well, have you invited guests?
Where was I?
It's asking for help defining the term "banal".
Everything's been laid out, but there's no way to deal with banality.
And here you are talking about this pimitative: discreteness!
Well, have you invited guests?
Where was I?
It's asking for help defining the term "banal".
Everything's been laid out, but there's no way to deal with banality.
And here you are talking about a pimitative term: discreteness!
So settle the matter once and for all. Who's stopping you?
How do discrete particles know about existence of each other? What is the mechanism?