What form, let's assume a physical body, does time have? Your opinion. - page 51
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
Where do you see me putting it out there as some kind of truth???
Prasu prasciu, I was not referring specifically to you, my dear.
In this case, I am disgusted by the established practice: they make up assumptions; they put them in textbooks, on the pages of magazines, on TV screens, and then they do not say a single word about what caused them to explode in their "big bang".
I did not mean you in particular, my dear.
In this case, I am disgusted by the established practice of making up assumptions; putting them in textbooks, on the pages of magazines, on TV screens, and then never saying a word about what it was that caused them to explode in their very "big bang".
And scientists do not say anywhere that it is a fact, the very name "big bang theory" contains the word "theory". Besides, in fact nobody knows what is for example electricity or gravitation or magnetic field, but it does not prevent us to study and use it all, with time the knowledge will become more complete and detailed. Come up with your own assumptions if you don't like the ones that are out there now and have the most evidence... If you can give more evidence to your assumptions, your assumptions will be written about in books...
Scientists do not say anywhere that it is a fact, the very name "big bang theory" contains words "theory". Besides, in fact nobody knows what is for example electricity or gravitation or magnetic field, but it does not prevent us to study and use it all, with time the knowledge will become more complete and detailed. Come up with your own assumptions if you don't like the ones that are out there now and have the most evidence... If you can give more evidence to your assumptions, your assumptions will be written about in books...
Scientists - they may not say.
And those "cadres", who are presented in the titles of scientific-informative programs no other than a "professor" of such a university from such a state of America, do not bother with this word (theory) for a long time, drawing fantastic pictures of what happened for those who, in their opinion, are born only for physical labor for the benefit of blue-blooded elite.
And if there is such a strain, and without speculation - well, nothing at all, then you should at least have a conscience ... And not to invent obvious nonsense (I will not give examples - any of you can give dozens of them).
Bipartite is just a name for semi-circle and semi-oval, and yes, the term is applied in that very dickensmometry, uni-degree, from the same dickensmometry, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA
if simple - a figure with one edge and one vertex, in Euclidean as well as a diparticle is considered as "non-existent" for if it is created it is an unclosed system, a diparticle could exist in Euclidean so _and \_/, if they do not straddle, and a described singleton, an invention actually mine, in interpretation - a figure forming space, a singleton as a figure with an infinite line/curve and edge/forming so this is the point of formation of a corner, here I can draw a two-dimensional here -\/, add a stick - and it will be three-dimensional, only each additional stick will be for its dimension forming and all the others - reference, so in 13-dimensional it will be like this, 1-12 - reference dimensions, - 13th real for a 13-dimensional unigroup with a curve/straight that "forms" it or exists in it, if you like.... Well that's probably all I'd like to share ;) SZY - using this data and interpretations without reference to me as the author is taboo ;)
Incidentally, when Faraday was doing his experiments, many of his contemporaries saw it as "obvious nonsense". And lo and behold... This "nonsense" is now used everywhere, and it is no longer perceived as "nonsense" ;))) And examples like this abound.
Scientists may not say.
And those "cadres", who are presented in the titles of scientific-informative programs no other than a "professor" of such a university from such a state of America, do not bother with this word (theory) for a long time, drawing fantastic pictures of what happened for those who, in their opinion, are born only for physical labor for the benefit of blue-blooded elite.
And if there is such a strain, and without speculation - well, nothing at all, it is necessary at least to have a conscience ... And not to invent obvious nonsense (I will not give examples - any of you can give dozens of them).
If we remember velocity, make some assumptions about the metric of space, additionality of velocity space, assign some normalization, etc. (I will not go into details), we can make very interesting constructions. (I will not go into details), it is possible to make very interesting constructions.
For example, if time is independent of direction (isochronism), for different points of space X(1,1,1), Y(2,2,2), Z(5,5,5) we obtain a picture of time :
.
something like this ;)
It's not like that... It depends on the direction.
You can complicate the model.
It is possible to complicate the model.
Assume that time goes faster at the centre and slows down as the equitemporal spheres move away from the centre.