|
Errors are not in the art but in the artificers (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| LAdazeNYnights |
| what about system j |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by LAdazeNYnights
what about system j |
He does know quite a lot about language and linguistics, he's an English language major if I'm not mistaken :)
While we're at it, being an Englishmen who taught me the word "Berk", I wonder if he knows why it came from the expression "Berkeley (or Berkshire) Hunt" and isn't spelled/pronounced "Bark" :conf: |
|
|
| LAdazeNYnights |
these guys keep talking about system a
and system b
but they forgot about system j
this changes everything |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheTrinity
one system A is only the same system A during this instance, when time equals zero.
system A is not system A after time is applied.
radiation, half-life, decay, and energy of the system are variable with time.
you have proved nothing of reality, since time exists, and it affects:
the radiation, half-life, decay, and energy of the system.
what you are proving is: during a specific instant where time is equal to 0, system A equals itself.
this is called an observation of what 1 (system A) is, at a specific instance where time is zero.
you can not measure time is zero, therefore you cannot measure the full properties of 1 (system A) at time equals zero.
you must measure the properties of 1 (system A) which require time to equal to a value other than 0.
as soon as time is run, 1 (system A) ceases to be 1 (system A). |
:stongue: :haha: :stongue: :haha: :stongue: :haha: |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheTrinity
system A is system A IS NOT 1 equals 1.
1 is itself; it is what you have proven so far. nice try. better luck next time. |
system a is itself
1 is itself.
for the love of Zeus
But since you presented your little claim, the burden of proof really is on you to prove yourself right , not me to prove you wrong. |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
system a is itself
for the love of Zeus
But since you presented your little claim, the burden of proof really is on you to prove yourself right , not me to prove you wrong. |
1 = 1 implies equality of two things that are perfectly equal each other.
1 is itself is not the same thing as 1 = 1.
what you have to prove, is where 1 = 1 in the real world.
since we are using math to depict the world, 1 = 1 is the most simplest of math proofs, that needs to be proved in reality.
if we cannot prove 1 = 1 in reality, math should not be relied or applied heavily in the real world. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheTrinity
1 = 1 implies equality of two things that are perfectly equal each other. |
:stongue:
What an excellent troll you are. |
|
|
| Lira |
| I'm glad someone else shares my admiration for his jeanious :stongue: |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
:stongue:
What an excellent troll you are. |
1 = 1 implies equality of two things that are perfectly equal each other.
this is not a "troll"
this is called a proof of truth, or the explanation of a basic axiom. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
He does know quite a lot about language and linguistics, he's an English language major if I'm not mistaken :)
While we're at it, being an Englishmen who taught me the word "Berk", I wonder if he knows why it came from the expression "Berkeley (or Berkshire) Hunt" and isn't spelled/pronounced "Bark" :conf: |
Berk as in a twat/idiot? That came from rhyming slang. What rhymes with hunt? :gsmile:
If berk has another meaning, than I don't know :(
The spelling/pronouncing thing between Berk = Bark has always confused me, though. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheTrinity
1 = 1 implies equality of two things that are perfectly equal each other.
this is not a "troll"
this is called a proof of truth, or the explanation of a basic axiom. |
lol
I have to admit the last few weeks I've had to laugh at people getting upset by this guy. So obvious. |
|
|
|
|
