You have a technical mind, don't you? - page 17
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
Funny thing comes out, expansion of space, particles with negative mass. This way one can plug any hole in the theory. Are there any public experiments with desynchronisation of clocks in orbit with those on Earth?
(1) there is the Casimir effect, when nanoplates are pressed against each other due to vacuum pressure (which can be represented as pairs of opposing virtual particles being born and mutually annihilated), which is practically taken into account when building nano devices. Is pressure a property of matter?
What are you talking about....
What vacuum pressure? Do you understand what you're saying? 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 and whose effects and phenomena 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.
Here's a little more detail.
I argue that space has no material properties. Only matter has material properties. If something in nature has material properties, then it is matter. If a change of matter in a certain volume of space does not change the volume itself (using the example of water and air in a vessel), then the volume as a spatial quantity has nothing to do with matter, since only objects of material nature can interact with each other.
Hence, space and matter are two different physical objects. The first has the property of freedom of movement and gives volume, but has no material properties, the second has material properties and due to the presence of space, which gives volume (the six orthodox directions), has the ability to exist and move.
Furthermore, two objects that differ in their properties cannot have the same meaning. Definition is given to objects and phenomena that differ from each other. Hence, if space and matter are two different objects, they can neither be called the same, nor have the same meaning.
Alexey, let me know where I violated the laws of logic?
Space, in modern physics, has material properties. Read about vacuum energy (zero-point fluctuations, physical vacuum). You, on the other hand, without sufficient grounds, require them to use your concept of space, i.e. you violate the law of sufficient grounds.
Either admit that you are not versed in physics, or accompany your statements about it with references to articles in peer-reviewed journals.
Space, in modern physics, has material properties. Read about vacuum energy (zero-point fluctuations, physical vacuum). You, on the other hand, without sufficient grounds, require them to use your concept of space, i.e. you violate the law of sufficient grounds.
You cannot violate the law of sufficient grounds if you do not violate the premises.
I have not violated (!) prerequisites. And you have violated it.
It's not my understanding, it's a phenomenon that exists independently of me. I.e., not relating to the subject means objective.
Once again: can I change the volume of a vessel in which water compresses a balloon by the force of modern thought in my head?
You can't even think in elementary, and you already got to the law of sufficient grounds.
"Space, in modern physics, has material properties."
Ahaha! Don't go on
Space, in modern physics, has material properties. Read about vacuum energy (zero-point fluctuations, physical vacuum). You, without sufficient grounds, require them to use your concept of space, i.e. you violate the law of sufficient grounds.
And if I say that vacuum is a region of rarefaction which is created between regions of high pressure concentrated for example in points of stars or galaxies?
Then how?
And if I say that vacuum is a region of rarefaction which is created between regions of high pressure concentrated for example in points of stars or galaxies?
Then how?
There! That's right. Light passes through the rarefied region, radio signals pass through the rarefied region. They can't just go through, something's pushing them through. Out of nothing there can't be something, no one has cancelled the cause and effect relationship. A field (radio, gravitational and everything else) is continuous in nature, hence spreading out in all directions. Consequently, when you are in a discharged field, you are still in a basic gravitational field through which photons of light, waves and all the rest are "riding". It follows that there is no such thing as absolute emptiness, there is matter everywhere. Somewhere there is more matter (galaxies), somewhere there is only field (interstellar space).
You cannot violate the law of sufficient reason, if you don't violate the premise.
My premise is not violated. And you have violated it.
It's not my understanding, it's a phenomenon that exists independently of me. I.e., not relating to the subject means objective.
Once again: can I, by the power of modern thought in my head, change the volume of a vessel in which water compresses a balloon?
You can't even think on elementary, and you already got to the law of sufficient grounds.
"Space, in modern physics, has material properties."
Ahaha! Don't go on
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.
What are you talking about....
What vacuum pressure? Do you understand what you're saying? 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.
It is difficult to read more illiterate nonsense anywhere else. You can tell you're a YHWH.
And if I say that vacuum is a region of rarefaction which is created between regions of high pressure concentrated for example in points of stars or galaxies?
Then how?
Then so it is closer to what is called a technical vacuum.
This is a very interesting way of looking at the question.
Let's move into the philosophical realm. About Time.
Time, is the ideal medium for the existence of processes. A process is a successive change of states. If we have matter (something, structure, thing), its existence is a process. A process is the phenomenon of an entity through a successive change of its states (forms, phenomena). And so, Time, is a derivative of an infinite number of processes. Processes are a derivative of infinite change of states (phenomena of a thing).
For instance: tens of thousands of photos are a process if you show them successively in front of the camera lens. It turns out to be a film. However, there is no process inside a single photo. Only a state. There is no time.
Time exists because matter is a wound mechanism which contains an infinite number of processes. If energy of these processes is exhausted, time will disappear. I would say that Time exists for each particular object as one of the dimensions of its being, but Time does not exist by itself. Without matter there is no time.
From a philosophical point of view - indeed, it is a sensible idea.
The problem with modern thought (and long ago 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 hour hand to the change in its position. I.e., our day-to-day activities, or engineering measurements.