What form, let's assume a physical body, does time have? Your opinion. - page 14

 

The concept of time is not discontinuous with the concept of change in the characteristics of the object in question. In the general case, if the object will not have any characteristics, then the concept - time - will not apply to it. If we assume that there is a point and there is nothing else around. The beginning of the world, so to speak. Then we won't have any change. Correspondingly, the collapse of time. In terms of forex we can have the following model

Every currency should be in its own sphere and data should be "prepared" for the sphere, it should fit in the frames and not go out of them.

>
 
nikost:
If you physically dissect an object you will have two different objects, so when you talk about dissection you have to mentally imagine a plane of dissection.


In that case, I understand that you don't know what you're talking about.

By dissecting a body, we get not just two halves, but two planes.

A plane (by definition) is a surface whose points can be connected by straight lines lying on this plane.

So, if you are going to continue to insist that a plane is something speculative, then you simply have to admit that the body (or what you see after dissection) is also something speculative. Or, if you like, a figment of one's imagination.

 
Tantrik:
So I say there is no time. Also what does not exist - there is no space or as they say our dimension, space bends, collapses - this can be speculation, which it will remain. Another thing is exactly what is there, for example a magnetic field. In unproven science itself there are seven planes of existence (think of fields) first behind reality is the astral, then the mental field, etc. Many have been to the astral, there are permanent residents (as explained energetic primitives) and recently many teachings and the secret before posted in the Internet free access. The reason for this is that science has come close to the astral field and is experimenting there in secrecy.


It's interesting to me at the moment. There is something that does not exist and something that does not.
 
ULAD:


It is of interest to me at the moment. There is what is not there and what is not there.
What is there is and will be discovered, what is not there cannot be discovered.
 
Tantrik:
What is there is and will be discovered, what is not there cannot be discovered.

There is nothing that does not exist.
 
DhP:


In that case, I gather that you don't know what you're talking about.

By dissecting a body, we get not just two halves, but two planes.

A plane (by definition) is a surface whose points can be connected by straight lines lying on that plane.

So, if you are going to continue to insist that a plane is something speculative, then you simply have to admit that the body (or what you see after dissection) is also something speculative. Or, if you like, a figment of someone else's imagination.



And if at some point in time we take a cross-section of all the events on Mother Earth, for example, we get, we get, we get ...
 
ULAD:


...we'll get, we'll get...

... the story behind the cut.
 

Let's apply this case to forex. A slice of history lies... at any point in time. Who sees it. Units.

Who, for example, wrote down - he has history, who didn't have time... come on.

 
nikost:
If you physically dissect an object, you get two different ones, so when you talk about a section, you think about an imaginary section plane.
It's no use explaining anything to him, he can't tell the difference between reality and abstraction.
 
ULAD:
There is what there isn't and there isn't what there is.

Tantrik:
What is there is and will still be open, what is not there is not open.

DhP:
There is nothing that isn't there.
The interesting thing is that all three statements are true.
Reason: