|
Post by Sandmaster on Jan 3, 2009 13:51:53 GMT -5
no, the converse isn't necessarily correct. People who hide from it are LOWER. That mean's BELOW INFINITESIMAL.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Jan 3, 2009 13:59:38 GMT -5
Then they are bystanders and delibaretly let the wrongs of the world encompass it. They don't deserve to be called 'people,' because they are selfish and stupid. The cause is "they are selfish and stupid" while the effect and result is that "they don't deserve to be called people." Therefore, as you would have learned in Geometry, the conditional statement would read as follows: If they are selfish and stupid, then they don't deserve to be called people. Well, everyone is selfish and stupid, so they don't deserve to be called people. I used the conditional, not the converse. I took Geometry (in which I learned logic) in the past, so I know these things. I already know that a true condition automatically implies a true contrapositive, and that a true converse automatically implies a true inverse. You need to be careful of where you place your "because" when you type up a condition, since that is what follows a condition in the conditional statement.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Jan 3, 2009 14:00:59 GMT -5
no, I meant that because people are selfish and stupid, they hide behind censors is not necessarily true
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Jan 3, 2009 14:13:03 GMT -5
Hmm...I guess I did jump to conclusions there...
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Jan 3, 2009 15:03:58 GMT -5
well, you were right there
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty333 on Jan 10, 2009 12:17:57 GMT -5
MEANING OF LIFE, THE UNIVERSE, AND EVERYTHING:
the 42nd 42!
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Jan 10, 2009 12:43:30 GMT -5
Is there anything YOU would like to say about censorship?
Despite the title, this thread is more serious in nature than many of the other ones, knowing that this is for debating certain issues. We last left off with censorship. We can not discuss religion too deeply on account of this thread getting locked.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Jan 10, 2009 16:00:17 GMT -5
Well, screw locks, I'm not going to pretend the problem with religion isn't there.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Jan 18, 2009 23:28:20 GMT -5
Remember how I said that time travel is theoretically possible for masses in motion? Here is something I read in a physics textbook about time dilation.
Here are two postulates (theories neither proven nor disproven) of special relativity:
Here is the explanation of time dilation:
I'm going to see if I can find the images on the internet, although I have my doubts. I am also going to cite this book when I find how to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Jan 19, 2009 10:39:02 GMT -5
the twin paradox is based on the earth twin's view of the space twin (looking at him from earth) and not in realtime
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Jan 19, 2009 11:36:46 GMT -5
There is no absolute "realtime": everything is relative acording to the theory of (the textbook adds the term "special") relativity. The speed of light (in a vacuum) is the same no matter how fast the light source or an observer are travelling relative to each other, and the distance between "ticks" in a light clock differ by perspective, so only one other thing can differ by perspective, if not the speed of light, and that is time itself.
By the way, the book is Physics, it is the fifth edition of the book, it was authored by John D. Cutnell and Kenneth W. Johnson, the publisher is John Wiley & Sons, Inc., and the copyright year is 2001.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Jan 19, 2009 16:48:29 GMT -5
relative meaning changeable, but universal. it can't be the past to my left and the future to my right.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Jan 19, 2009 17:19:28 GMT -5
Yes, time is not spatial. Time, by definition, is temporal; however, the..."rate at which time passes?"...can vary depending on how fast one observer travels.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Jan 20, 2009 17:17:27 GMT -5
so my point is still valid.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Jan 20, 2009 17:18:58 GMT -5
Correct. Your penultimate point is still valid.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Jan 20, 2009 17:27:19 GMT -5
So therefore you cannot go back in time.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Jan 20, 2009 17:31:35 GMT -5
Exactly. I never argued that one could go backwards in time, only forwards in time faster than others.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Jan 20, 2009 17:32:48 GMT -5
Faster is not a good way to state it. It just means your building blocks have a slower reaction pace. It has nothing to do with bending physics in the end
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Jan 20, 2009 17:35:14 GMT -5
Yes, maybe faster isn't such a good way to say it, especially when referring to time itself...
...and I'm starting to sound like some darn, blasted yes man!
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Jan 20, 2009 18:36:50 GMT -5
what? darn blasted? WHAT?
Time travel is impossible. Problem solved. Who thinks there actually is a purpose to organisms inhabiting the world? Not I.
|
|